Talk:Haredim and Zionism/Archive 1

message: Note: this comment was copied from Talk:Zionism.
One by one, I am going to provide very nice sources.
;Satmar
Now of course, claims are going to show up saying 'Satmar and the like are not notable, since they are only tiny sects'. Let's start with that lie.
I quote from http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm :
:"Jewish anti-Zionists today consist of a several very small and very vocal group - .... tiny groups of reactionary ultraorthodox Jews ....  the Satmar "
Now, I would like to invite the reader to watch the following videos. (As background information: Satmar has split up into two parts - one part is led by Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum, one by Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. The war between the two is very strong and not a single Satmar Hassid would go to the celebrations of both rabbis.)
Now, watch this:
* Rabbi Aharon, two weeks ago
* Rabbi Zalman Leib, a few months ago
Now, look at the words quoted above and judge the reliability of a website which defines Satmar as a 'tiny group'. Also notice that both of these videos show only the New York department, and that Satmar has similarly huge groups in London, Antwerp, Jerusalem and several other cities. Their total ite. As that site says: "The web site www.jewsagainstzionism.com claims that True Torah Jews are anti-Zionist. It belongs to the Ultra Orthodox Chassidic Satmar sect. The group numbers about 124,000 and believe that the Jewish homeland can not be created until the messiah comes."
* Next we have this one http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/LandIsrael/modern_landisrael/QuestioningZionism/Neturei_Karta.htm .
As it says, "Reprinted with the permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green." That sounds reliable, eh?
I quote:
:"The anti-Zionist world-view of the ultra-orthodox groups Neturei Karta and Satmar Hasidism perceives Zionism and the estab­lishment of the State of Israel as an anti-messianic act, conceived and born from sin. These groups vigorously deny the very legiti­macy of the collective political return to the Holy Land and to Jewish sovereignty. For them, this is the handiwork of humans, violating the Jewish people's oath of political quietism."
We have also this one http://www.newzionist.com/2006/05/in-other-news/ which says: "The Satmar sect is also staunchly opposed to any forms of Zionism, and won’t even approach the Western Wall because they believe it has been soiled by Zionism, which they feel is an abomination."
* Next we have http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1820242,00.html this one, saying (about the previous leader of Satmar): "Similar numbers had greeted him when he visited Israel in 1999 - notwithstanding the fact that Satmar is the most anti-Zionist of all Hassidic groups."
* Then we have http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1439 this one. "The Satmar chassidim in New York are at the extreme end of the anti-Zionist spectrum." And also about Munkacz: "One of the strongest and most vociferous opponents of Zionism in pre-war Europe was R. Elazar Shapira, Rav of Munkacz, and author of Minchat Elazar."
;Belz
Next we get to Belz. 
* http://www.revisionisthistory.org/warren.html says "It seems that the Haredi (i.e. Hasidic) Belz rabbi, Yisachar Dov Rokach, speaking one recent Saturday night at the conclusion of the Simhat Torah, and in the wake of the mass shootings of Palestinian rioters in September by the IDF, warned against Jewish violence. He said the injunction to live by the sword was a "blessing which had been granted to the descendents of Esau, and not the sons of Israel." He warned of the danger which the Zionists were in as a result of Likud policies. Yisrael Eichler, a follower of the Belz rebbe, pointed out that the rabbi's talk was in keeping with the sacred admonition of "not provoking the gentiles.""
* Then we have http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V96I2P58-1.htm which notes that " the Belzers resisted emancipation and were particularly opposed to Zionism on the ground that a reestablished Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel must await the coming of the Messiah..." (And note that the same website says "it is estimated that, despite their rising profile and high birth rate, Israel's haredi population just barely exceeds 100,000 souls". A nice example of why NOT to trust such websites (FYI, the normally held figure in all censuses is about 600-700,000 people.)
;Satmar, Belz, Tosh, Skver, Pshevorsk
* http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/99/mar31-99/front2.htm "The protesters, garbed in traditional black, included members of virtually all the chassidic groups based in Outremont, including Satmar, Belz, Tasch and Skver." And "The lengthy release, issued by a group called the Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S.A. and Canada, condemned the continued incarceration of the three without charges, and referred to "all forms of Zionism [as] inherently antithetical to the teaching of our faith."" For what the CRC means, see http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/documents/callfromcrc.pdf this and http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/statements/nytimes093082.cfm this.
Anyone need more sources regarding Satmar being anti-Zionist? I will keep adding some more throughout the evening, perhaps. *in the meantime, adding and adding* --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haredi opposition to Zionism

message: All of the language about less extreme and more extreme is POV. The policy is that you demonstrate the subjective reality by showing the objective reality. For example, if you wanted to demonstrate that Bill is stupid, you would write "Bill has walked into the same glass door 6 times in 1 week, shattering it 2 times." You would not write: "Bill is stupid." Calling NK "more extreme" and Toldos Aharon "less extreme" etc. is unnecessary. The reader can understand the extremity of their position by comparing it to the other positions reflected in the article. --Meshulam 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we write things the way the press and other sources portray them. Every source describes NK as the most extreme movement regarding Zionism. On the other hand, I do agree with you somehow - it is inherently POV. We need to find a solution for this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the solution is to accurately portray their ideology. Obviously, the leaders of NK wouldn't walk up to you and say "I'm an extremist." Lets be fair to them, and not tag them with that name. I think the media's portrayal is irrelevant (and I imagine you agree, inasmuch as the media is seldom correct in its portrayal of Hareidi Jews). If you think its important to say that they have been called extreme, then mention that the media calls them extreme. I don't think its necessary, but I won't object.--Meshulam 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less Extreme/More Extreme 

message: I have unfortunately added a 'disputed' tag to the page. The book 'Eim HaBanim Semeichah' is not a Haredi book. I would like to know exactly which Haredi / Hasidic movements agree with what it says and which Haredi gedolim have given it haskomos (approbations). There is no source whatsoever for this book being a 'Haredi book'. The only ones who believe what it says are the Religious Zionists. Until it is removed from the article, the 'disputed' tag will stay. --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed unfortunate that you have chosen to add a "disputed" tag to a book merely because you disagree with its viewpoint. In fact, no less authority than the Lubavitcher Rebbe encouraged that that book be published and distributed widely. It was written by a Hareidi Rabbi of unquestionable yichus (family connections). As above, the only reason that you question whether the book is Hareidi is that you disagree with its conclusions: Since, in your mind, Hareidi equals Anti-Zionist, anything failing that bar is disqualified immediately.  I am sorry to be the one to have to inform you that the world is not that simple. Not even for Hareidim, who clothe themselves in black and white, but have a rather colorful abundance of different opinions and outlooks. I am requesting that we and anybody else who is reading this page come to a consensus about the issue. --Meshulam 11:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said there, I don't think it belongs in Hardal it being a very modern term. I think this book belongs here and you should add what you wrote about it. It is after all about zionism so even if it's very not accepted book like you say it should have a mention IMO. I also think lead should change to reflect the fact that both Shas and Agudat Israel are involved heavily in israeli politics, media, discourse, public events like indepedence day ceremonies, and info from the Israeli section of Haredim... Cheers. Amoruso 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a Haredi book. The author himself condemns Haredim in it (translated in the translation as 'the Orthodox'). It is not found in any Haredi shul. There is no Haredi rabbi in the entire world who holds by its words. Those who do are, and classify themselves as either Hardal or plain R-Z. The author himself explicitly did not identify with Haredim. --Daniel575 | (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a plain fact. It is either ignored or condemned. Even the OU confirms this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it was in a very charedi shul I used to daven in. But again, this is how Daniel works. If he doesn't like something, in his opinion, it then becomes invalid to have another opinion. Yossiea 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a source from Berel Wein that essentially says that the Haredi world is largely unaffected by the book. (He keeps on saying "the OU," but I don't know where he gets that). I think that's a far cry from saying that "The Haredi world responded by ingoring the book." I had written that the book has had little impact on modern Haredim, but he doesn't like that. Not POV enough for him. I'm suggesting that we use my language rather than his because mine is not POV. --Meshulam 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your wording but I'm not up to bear the brunt of Daniel's bullying. Yossiea 14:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can take it as long as I have a consensus. With you, that's 2-1. Nobody else has opined. If they do, I'm pretty confident they'll take our side. Daniel's version is pretty blatant POV. --Meshulam 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  His latest edits are just too much. I think he's just upset because he got banned yet again from his favorite online discussion board. I am going to change it back to the way it was before, he should not be able to bully people around. Yossiea 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not know what you are talking about. And I am not your baby. If I am upset about something, I will decide to speak about that, and I don't need a Zionist heretic for that. I am not 'bullying' anyone around. On the contrary, you are continuously stalking me on Wikipedia, attacking me wherever you can. Half of your recent edits are edits in which you attack me. I have not seen any real serious useful contributions of YOU to Wikipedia. And further: leave A. I have now TEN TIMES changed 'Teichtel' into 'Teichtal', and you *censure*s keep reverting without actually LOOKING AT THE EDIT, so that you could perhaps change it back while leaving that correction intact. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We've been through this already. Nobody is calling the book that is universally accepted amongst Hareidim. It is, however, a book by a Hareidi Jew about Zionism. That point was made above and was agreed top again and again. Daniel made some edits that I asceded to. But the book remains a book written by a Hareidi Jew. I have never heard it suggested (other than by Daniel and now you) that R' Teichtal left Haredi Judaismby writing that book. --Meshulam 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eim HaBanim Semeichah

message: with several Hasidic groups calling Zionists the personification of Satan, blaming Zionism for the Holocaust, accusing them of being the source of all evil in the world and defiling the entire world with their impurity. doesn't seem neutral if it referrs to one citation. several seems a bit weasely and it's not appropriate in the lead but somewhere in the article as "went as far as" IMO. Amoruso 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This refers to Satmar, Munkacz, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Vizhnitz, Slonim, Bobov, Breslov, Shomer Emunim, Lelov, Pshevorsk, Seret-Vizhnitz, and some of Belz. Would you rather prefer that the lead says: "with the Hasidic groups Satmar, Munkacz, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Vizhnitz, Slonim, Bobov, Breslov, Shomer Emunim, Lelov, Pshevorsk, Seret-Vizhnitz, and some of Belz calling Zionists the personification of Satan, blaming Zionism for the Holocaust, accusing them of being the source of all evil in the world and defiling the entire world with their impurity." ? I prefer to just state 'some'. 'Some' does not even imply a majority, what's the problem? It's written there to make clear just how intense this opposition is. Trust me, I hate Zionism more than any Fatah member does. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come you hate Zionism but like to defend Israel I really don't understand that Daniel. Anyway, I lack the knowledge to argue with you about who or what haredi group objects what and the size of each, but the citation is only for one person and I think this language doesn't belong in the lead. Perhaps , with some being very extreme about it is better. You do realise that one needs to be specific and find me a quotation that says this wording exactly - it's not encyclopedic language if it's simply a direct quote from a single link concerning one rabbi. Amoruso 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize this 'one rabbi' constitutes the highest leadership on earth for about 100.000 to 125.000 people in New York and about 100.000 people in Jerusalem? We're not talking about a neighborhood rabbi here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Zionism is the most disgusting thing in the world. Read Vayoel Moshe to know what I think about it. But. But. We are in this particularly bad situation all together. I have no alternative but to 1) defend Israel whenever I can, and 2) make it clear that I do not support the occupation, Zionism itself etc. The plain truth is that non-Jewish 'anti-Zionists' are plain anti-Semites, as Martin Luther King said. When they speak about 'Israel' and 'Zionists', what they mean is 'Jews'. And besides, doesn't this show I'm NPOV? If I were really so POV about these things, I would not participate in keeping the Israel article clean the way I do. Now, I am going to slightly change the lead. Tell me what you think of the new version. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well from my experience over your attitude in articles you seem to be the most zionist anti-zionist in the world :) It really does show NPOV but I think it's also something else. I think you like Israel but you oppose the historic nature that brought it to existance and you support these particular rabbis and what they say so you don't want to object that especially when you think that in practice it really doesn't matter, but that's my pyschological review of you ;) anyway friend, why not just say that this is what this famous rabbi says instead ?  and maybe you'd agree to take it out of lead too. btw, if you are concerned about the situation all together, you do realise the use of anti-semites of these ... that's why I'm having trouble understanding your position. Cheers. Amoruso 19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't appreciate Daniel's frequent condemnation of posters, but it is important to be  מקבל את האמת ממי שאמרה (admit the truth regardless of the speaker). The Satmar Rov's position on Zionism enjoyed and enjoys widespread support in the Haredi world. His characterization is that the state is a "maase Satan" (a work of Satan), and a number of other things. I don't recall him saying that Zionism is responsible for the holocaust.  He says that the holocaust happened because of "avonoseini harabim" (our great sins), which is fairly standard language in Hassidic literature. Perhaps the context lends itself to an interpretation that he's talking about Zionism. That's an acceptable interpretation, though it might be WP:OR. I think that, harsh as it sounds, it is a reasonable enough inference to get past the WP:OR barrier. I won't object to that language, therefore. I don't recall the language "source of all evil" at all. I'd like a citation for that specific langauge (I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I just don't remember it). And I do recall the reference to the State as an impurity, etc.  Since the Satmar position is so well know, and so pervasive, I don't see why a characterization of the Satmar position shouldn't appear fairly early in the article. However, I think its also important to note that Haredi Jews are not totally characterized by Satmar's position. As the article now mentions, Ger and Chabad-Lubavitch both have come out in support of the state (though not in support of Zionism-the-ideology). Also, many Litvaks who have been dubbed "Chardal," are literally Zionist leaning Haredim.  That needs to be mentioned as well. But I think Daniel's characterization in the opening paragraphs of this article is spot-on (with the caveats that I mentioned). --Meshulam 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Daniel, it's off-topic but how does all the anti-zionism coincides with the biggest religious figures in history ? Rambam, Ramban, Yosef Karo, etc, have all written very "zionist" letters which I've read myself. It's this basis that creates religious zionism and I just don't understand where the hostility to zionism as a concept came from. Zionism is NOT the zionist secular movement - it's a religious concept. If the whole argument is whether Jews should take the fate into their own hands or wait for the messiah... All the great Rabbis took the fate into their own hands and made a personal aliyah towards the land of Israel during the many centuries. Taking this from another article, and thus making this issue on-topic : "....differentiating between political and other forms of Zionism. Most (but not all) Haredim are opposed to political Zionism, but are supportive of the inherent Zionism present in Judaism Basically the term "Haredi anti-zionism is wrong. All Haredi if they're religious are supposed to be zionist. the modern zionist movement is something completely different which people can object to on various ground, for examply revisionist zionism of Jabotinsky. but all are Zionists ! (with the exception of fringe like NK...) ." Amoruso 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: should be removed from lead IMO

message: Even that extreme Jewsagainstwhatever site does not bring anything about the PERSONIFICATION of Zionism etc. Read the translations, which may or may not be authoritative. If someone gives me proper mareh m'komos, I can go to my local Satmar shteibel and look up the VaYoel Moshe myself to verify some of these more extreme claims. It is yaduah (known) that the Satmar Rov (ZTVK"L) was very anti-Zionist, but I am very afraid that some of his writings are being mistranslated/taken out of context. -- Avi 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead and sources

message: The way this is written, it should be Hasidim and Zionism. As a nice Haredi Yeshivish Litvishe yungerman who spent seven years in Bais medrash (post high school) and six more years in Kollel, before having to make a living, I feel excluded . -- Avi 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a section on Litvaks. However, it is very lacking.  Perhaps you can fill in the gaps. --Meshulam 03:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See below -- Avi 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this is about '''Haredi''' Judaism, why are all the examples '''Chasidic'''?! 

message: :Some questions:
:#Is it true that according to the OU article, Teichtal was banned completely from his own shul and banned from giving shiurim in other local shuls because of 'heretical views'?
:#Is it true that according to the OU article, the Yeshivishe and Chassidishe worlds ignore and reject his sefer?
:#Which Haredi movements hold by Eim HaBanim Semeichah today?
:#Name us some Haredi movements that call Medinat Yisrael 'reishit tzmichat geulateinu'.
:#Which Haredi gedolim have said positive things or given haskomos to Eim HaBanim Semeichah?
:#Is it true that the OU article and the Hebrew Wikipedia article both call it a fundamental work of religious Zionist philosophy?
:Please answer.
:For the record, my position here is that this book should be removed from the article. It is not a Haredi book. The author was formerly Haredi. He then left Haredi Judaism when he adopted Religious Zionism. He was banned from all shuls in Munkacz. The Yeshivishe and Chassidishe world (which as far as I know together constitute the Haredi world) ignore and/or reject the book. Not a single Haredi movement in the world holds by it (ie, by 'reishit tzemichat geulateinu'). Not a single Haredi godol has ever given it his haskomoh. Therefore, it should be placed where it belongs: in the article on Religious Zionism. Not here. This article is about the HAREDI view on Zionism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel's position

message: I think that the disputed tag and the POV tag can be removed at this point. There is no genuine disagreement that hasn't been clarified through consensus. --Meshulam 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Disputed Tags 

message: Absolutely not. The Zionism article is already long and full of POV disputes. Aside from the management issue of having that many POV fights on one page this is simply too long to contain there. JoshuaZ 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I can live with that. --Meshulam 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regardng suggest to merge to Zionism  

message: To prevent Daniel from editing I have semi-protected the article. JoshuaZ 05:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: I've removed links to the most obviously non-reliable sources. Personal propaganda sites apparently run by a Private Mail Box in Brooklyn do not meet Wikipedia standards. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what is so objectionable about the links. When discussing anti-Zionism, it seems natural to get links from anti-Zionist organizations. Also, many of the links were to translations. As it is, the translations are pretty spot-on. If you can find better translations, please do.--Meshulam 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site is run by an organization called "Torah True Judaism." There is no reason to believe that any of the material, especially the translated material, is incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in WP:V that indicates the sites are unreliable.  Most importantly, this has been discussed before elsewhere. This is just another POV attempt at attacking this article.--Meshulam 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The website does not seem like a reliable source. However, most of the claimed material is translations of other sources. The easiest thing to do would be for someone to track down the original sources or reliable translations of them. However, as it stands the sources are non-reliable. JoshuaZ 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the source as it currently is, cannot be considered a reliable source and does not fit the criteria of WP:V. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch as most of the sources are merely translations, all that has to happen is for someone to determine that the translations are accurate. For a number of the translations, I have done that myself.  --Meshulam 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then it is certainly possible to refer to the books themselves. They are reliable sources. www.jewsagainstzionism.com etc merely translates them. --Meshulam 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to add the following. I have been a stickler for following WP:V and WP:POV in the past. And this new decision that jewsnotzionists is not a RS goes a little far, in my opinion. The information cited to in the article is almost on the level of "common knowledge" in Orthodox Jewish circles (the fact that Satmar, Bobov, etc. are anti-Zionist). The Toldos Aharon Rebbe (and his brother the Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok) write very frequently about what they dub the evils of Zionism. Their father did so as well. I can quote some of the statements in his various books, if anyone wants. There is no doubt about Satmar etc. I do understand that a RS is necessary. But, given the fact that the information is undeniably true, I think that the bar should not be so high as to rule out jewsnotzionists. Regardless, I will do my best to find sources for these things. I have placed some fact stickers on other statements in this article that are unsourced (but are also undoubtedly true). I have done so because I believe in fairness. The "fact-checkers" on this page have relegated their criticism to criticism of anti-Zionist claims, and have left essentially untouched the various claims made about groups that are either neutral to, or perceived to be supportive of, either the State of Israel or Zionism.--Meshulam 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's pretty simple. Are "Jewsagainstzionism.com" or "Jewsnotzionists.org" recognized publication/media enterprises? Do they have an editor, a staff and subscribers? Or are they partisan sites designed to present a particular viewpoint, created by an anonymous party, without any oversight? It is not the job of Wikipedians to determine the accuracy of the content from a source -- this is why Verifiability policy explicitly states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is, however, our responsibility to include only sources which we know to be reliable. A Website such as these fails, because in large part, it is merely a mouthpiece for a particular ideologue (in the case of "Jewsnotzionists", for example, it's Yisroel Dovid Weiss, listed as the site's administrative contact) -- just as articles about Neturai Karta from the extreme Jewish Defense Organization also fail.  The only citations one could allow from such Web sites would be in reference to themselves. Find published sources that say what you're trying to cite.--LeflymanTalk 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Somebody has sprinkled different articles on Hasidim with claims that Ger, Belz, and (in another article) Chabad are zionist. This is confusing and untrue. With the exception of the hardal, no hasidic group is "pro-zionist." Agudath Israel of Israel, which is under the leadership of the Gerrer Rebbe, encourages its supporters to vote because it views voting as a tool with which to fight wicked people in the government. Voting, in the hasidic mindset, has nothing to do with any zionistic leanings. --Yodamace1 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ouch!

message: How is this quote notable enough to merit entry in the article? Are we going to comb through all sifrei sh'aalo v'tshuva to find any mention of Zionism? I think undue weight needs to be invoked. -- Avi 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that I have never heard of R' Pinkus does not mean that he is not notable. But Shuli hasn't demonstrated that he is remotely notable (even on Avi's talk page, which is not the right place to have this conversation). If nobody demonstrates his notability, I will remove the statement in accordance with Avi's opinion.--Meshulam 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinkus 

message: Why is there a section about Neturei Karta in this article that is actually longer than the section about Chardal? Neturei Karta might have a few hundred followers worldwide? Chardal is a large movement in Israel today. Truth be told, I think that Neturei Karta should be given, at most, one sentence in this article. In terms of the Hareidi relationship with the land of Israel, they are near to insignificant. --Meshulam 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please source the 'large movement' claim? Further, NK is very relevant in these matters. Please do not attempt to project your own pro-Zionist POV on this article. NK has thousands of adherents. According to some definitions, I myself am included (the group which I am a member of is commonly referred to as "Neturei Karta" even though we are Chassidim and don't have any connection with them). And my movement happens to have several thousand adherents. --Rabbeinu 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.) I don't write with a POV. I certainly have no pro-Chardal bias. I am merely stating the facts. B.) NK is loud. That does not make them relevant. C.) No reputable source has placed them in the thousands. D.) Stating that you are frequently called an NK member is irrelevant, especially since you immediately claim that you don't have any connection with them. --Meshulam 09:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neturei Karta 

message: Daniel575/Rabbeinu accuses me of vandalism for removing sourced material. Of course, I said when I deleted the material that it was irrelevant in the section where it is brought, and that it is repeated elsewhere in the article. I never questioned the source. It is not vandalism to remove a nonsequiter from an article, no matter how well sourced it is.  As usual, Daniel575/Rabbeinu immediately (he didn't even wait a minute) reverted the article without any discussion after I changed it back and requested some clarification. Now I make my request even plainer: --Meshulam 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Daniel575? Next: please tell me exactly where it speaks about Bobov, Tosh and other groups. Please tell me where else it notes that Zionists are (B"H) a minority among the Orthodox rabbinical leadership. --Rabbeinu 10:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we work on improving the article instead of fighting each other? I want that despicable tag gone from the top of the article ASAP. I suggest you bring some Reliable Sources on the 'Hardal' group  since it is so well-known, large and influential according to you. Note that sources don't have to be online. A sefer can also be a source. For example, perhaps you could bring us something from the seforim of Shlomo Aviner, Dov Lior and other Hardalim. --Rabbeinu 10:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sourced Material" 

message: Why is this website not a source on anti-Zionist Jews? That website contains some unique material which cannot be found anywhere else, for example the statements of the Maharitz (the Govad) zy'a to the United Nations in 1947. Or CRC declarations. Does anyone dispute the factuality of these links: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/dushinskyjuly1947.cfm , http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/dushinskyJerusalem.cfm , http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/dushinskyNov1947.cfm . Further: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/documents/callfromcrc.pdf , http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/statements/nytimes093082.cfm .
Is anybody disputing the validity of these links? I am not asking for your opinion regarding this website. I am merely asking you whether this is factual. Are anti-Zionists capable of providing information about anti-Zionism? If not, then I am afraid that all links Zionist websites about Zionism must also be deleted, since then Zionists cannot be trusted to provide information about Zionists either. --Rabbeinu 10:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, do not dispute the validity of those links. I have argued as much elsewhere. --Meshulam 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I noticed previous discussions on this subject. Wasn't accusing you of anything. Thanks. --Rabbeinu 12:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewsagainstzionism.com

message: I hope that you agree with my edits to the article today. I have especially improved the intro, making it a flowing story from one extreme via the moderates to the other extreme. Next, we are going to use this source: http://depts.drew.edu/rel/Munkaczer%20Rabbe.pdf to write about Munkacz. --Rabbeinu 11:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent edits.--Meshulam 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Will continue tomorrow or tonight. --Rabbeinu 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion

message: The problem with the new "History" section is that A.) it does not explain why religious Jews were (are) so against Zionism and B.) it makes it look like it was the anti-Religious aspect of Zionism that they objected to. Granted, that must have been icing on the cake, or more, it was not their primary objection. That has to be made clear. --Meshulam 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One can't quote Vayoel Moshe as the primary source for Haredi antiZionism; it was more than 50 years too late. I don't claim to know what the primary objection was, but the anti-religious nature of Zionism was not just the "icing on the cake". Anyway, the article had no historical perspective at all until now. I am open to improvement—I called it a draft. --Redaktor 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of other statements that were made about Zionism from the Gedolim of the early period in Zionist history. Also, commentators from before Zionism was even on the radar have been clear about the meaning of the three oaths. I'll bring a few of those quotes that clarify the issue. But I don't oppose your new section (I think it should be altered a bit). You're right that some historical perspective was necessary, and I thank you for authoring it. --Meshulam 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New History