Talk:Religious relations in Israel

Candidate for Afd

This is at least synth, essay, news, or, and replication of the same information on at least six other articles. --Shuki (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a huge issue in the news, an immense conflict with possibly major outcomes. It deserves its own article. It's been a major topic in the news for weeks. Until now there was only conflicted information about it in numerous different articles. I took the addition about it from Haredim and put it, and more, in a new page. Not only did it make it to the front pages of all Israeli newspapers, it made it to the frontpapers of Dutch, English, German, Belgian - these are the ones I know - and probably other countries' newspapers as well.

If you wish, we can put it all back inside Haredim. But as I see it, that article is already way too long, too extensive, and too confusing. Therefore, it seems logical to take this issue to a separate article. It being "news" does not mean anything. The 2006 Lebanon-Israel war was a news item, yet there is an article about it.

Also I point to other articles such as 2011 England riots, Death of Mark Duggan, 2011 Israeli housing protests‎, 2011 Israeli social justice protests, Cottage cheese boycott, Nahal Zin fuel leak, Welcome to Palestine, and more... If an article about a Cottage cheese boycott can exist, I don't see why an article about the current Haredi-secular tensions cannot exist. If you suggest this article for AfD, I suggest nominating all of those articles as well. Did the "Nahal Zin fuel leak" lead to comments from the President, a widespread media debate, Knesset questions, coverage in the international media? How about the "Welcome to Palestine" thing? (The latter really should go, by the way, IMHO.)

As for this article being an 'essay' - if you think it's not good enough, then change it. That's what Wikipedia is for. I made a beginning, I'm sure this article can grow to ten times its current size. And I'm afraid it will, because I'm afraid this conflict is long from subsiding. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I tottaly agree with Shuki but meantime I have corrected the article a little to remove most blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.--Shrike (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please motivate why this entire issue does not warrant an article, while events such as "Cottage cheese boycott" or "Nahal Zin fuel leak" do warrant articles? I have yet to see an explanation for this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The cottage cheese boycott actually forced a significant shift in consumer confidence that still lasts until now. The Haredi/secular thing is not new at all and we still do not know of the lasting affect of this massive coordinated media campaign. I did have second thoughts earlier today but to keep this article, but we'd have to give it a notable item and that would be linking it to the New Israel Fund and a reaction to the proposed law to have its funding revealed in Israel, as well as left-wing minds planning to topple the government that was first ['publicly'] in April, and as a natural succession of the social protests, the failed attempt by the Histadrut to make the Temporary work a real issue, the failed attempt by Dafni Leef to reenergize the protests in much more evident left-wing political slant after the Jewish fall holidays, to this. So far, not much is in RS. Naturally, the main media will not expose themselves, and hoping a few investigatitve reporters will be able to print more information. --Shuki (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

'Keep: This is a major series of events, which is the cause of several major protests as of today.Yserbius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

I agree that it should be kept: it's interesting information. Were inappropriate or emotional language is used, it is surely not impossible to correct it. Nescio vos (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

'Keep I agree that this article should be kept as it reflects an ongoing significant series of events which has also gained signification global attention. The article does, however, need major cleanup. For example, the term "anti-Haredi" is subjective and many protesting would not agree that they are anti-Haredi, but demonstrating against aspects of Haredei society. Others would, of course, be anti-Haredi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halma10 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

title of the article (not only secular)

Any better title proposals for this article? The conflict is not just between Haredim and secular Israelis, it extends to the national religious - as we have see with the school in Bet Shemesh school which is a religious school and the target for attack by Haredim.--Halma10 (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The national-religious typically, in most lives, live together with the secular population, mixed with them. They are, mainly, identical to secular citizens on issues such as participation in the army, secular education, and (less) reliance on welfare. You're right that it is indeed not a conflict with seculars - but keep in mind that in the eyes of many Haredim, it is (they do not consider these women to be seriously religious due to their - perceived - 'immodest dress'). What other title would you propose - "Haredi-general population conflict"? Anything else simply doesn't sound right. Besides, the conflict has since spread far beyond Beit Shemesh' school (which was only once of the three separate incidents that led to this) is mainly one of secular vs Haredi. At this point, the national-religious are mainly just passive spectators. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from a name for the article, we also need a summary. Any ideas? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I know the debate is coming, so I'll just start the defense before the attacks begin. All secular Israeli editors are soon going to come down on this article and loudly claim that "kikarhashabat.co.il is not a Reliable Source". I strongly object to this. It is considered a major source of news among the Haredi public. Its journalists are not anonymous and it is not run by volunteers, it has a serious staff and a large readership. The fact that it does not belong to the 'mainstream' (ie, secular media) and the fact that none of you read it does not mean it is not a RS. You will claim that all of these events are merely various reports to a news organization. In which I would like to ask you: is the Na'ama Margolis assault any different? Do you have video evidence of someone spitting at her (the alleged incident that enflamed Beit Shemesh)? The only difference between the attack on Naama Margolis and the attacks on Haredim is that the Naama attack was widely reported in the secular media, and the attacks on Haredim are not - that I know - being mentioned in the secular media at all. Apparently they are not considered newsworthy. Further, I cannot believe anyone will have the chutzpah to demand that only secular media be used to report a secular vs Haredi conflict, completely excluding any and all Haredi sources from this article - and thereby completely excluding the Haredi side of the conflict - simply by claiming any and all Haredi news sources are not RS. I sincerely hope I am wrong in expecting this to happen but deep inside I know it most probably will happen. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Haredi incitement

I'd like to hear from Shrike how the articles by Raanan Shaked and Yossi Sarid could not be interpreted as incitement. And I am not content with putting away the anti-Haredi attacks on the streets all throughout the country under the nomer "Further developments". Even secular journalists such as Yair Ettinger and Gideon Levy, and the President of Israel himself, acknowledged that a troublesome campaign of of secular incitement against Haredim was happening. Let alone the Haredi sources for this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Its simple because there is no WP:RS to call it in such way.If you find such sources please present them in to the article--Shrike (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Will put them all in the article. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Incitements

Hello everybody, if there is incitement, there is incitement on both sides. Has to be presented that way, too. By the way, ultra-Orthodox Jews make headlines in lots of media outside of Israel all the time, not just now, whether they are throwing stones on Shabbat at Jews who like to drive on Shabbat, prevent women from doing what women do in what many call the civilized world, and of course the gender segregation on buses, which has provided headlines for years and even caught Hillary Rodham Clintons attention, allthough apparently she didn't mind the sex segregation in New Square, when she went campaigning there... Take it from me, ultra-Orthodox Jews dressed in kaftans, black hats and maybe even shtreimels with long peyes loitering in front of girls schools calling Orthodox Jewish women wearing skirts down to their ankles and their children sluts, shikses and the like are news, even if they aren't rioting, much more so if they are. No reason to create a Wikipedia article everytime they make the news, Ajnem (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The incident with the Erlau girl was described in the Jpost article about the attack on the boy, so it's not just "Yeshiva World News" that reports it. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT MOVE while in the middle of AfD

Please do not change the title or move the original article while it is in the middle of an AfD. Feel free to edit, but no moving and no changing of name until AfD is resolved and closed. Thank you! IZAK (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not forget the Beit Shemesh article

While people are discussing whether this article should be here, the Beit Shemesh article will definitely not go away, so will all editors pleae considers visiting it.

NYT

Here's a source that may be useful! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

POV fork or at least duplication; need to merge?

Discussion is at the other article's talk page in this thread NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)