Talk:Edah HaChareidis

message: The introduction seems to be at odds with the history section; they both probably contain elements of the truth. Anyone able to clear this up? --Eliyak 07:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: What does OCJ mean? The acronym OCJ is used five times throughout the article, but it's never defined.  I'd fix this myself, but I don't recognize the acronym. Steveklein (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Orthodox Council of Jerusalem". See first few words of article.  Ohnonotyou (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Undefined Acronym: OCJ

message: As I understand it, the term Chief Rabbi is used to indicate who is the leader from among all the rabbis in a specific geographical area. That is not the case here, where it is the leader from among all the rabbis in a specific organization. Given that this organization is a beis din, or court, I suggest we change the wording here to be Chief Justice. Any comments? --Keeves 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think Chief Rabbi will do just fine. --Daniel575 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Rabbis (גאב"ד) of the Edah Charedis of Jerusalem 

message: Was he both Av Beis Din and also Nasi, both at the same time? If not, can someone supply dates? --Keeves 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum 

message: I don't think that story is relevant. (In an unrelated note, it isn't an example of the EH at its best...) --Meshulam 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In so far as the Edah was involved in organizing and stirring up the protests, it is relevant and should be included. I'm not however convinced that it should have a full section. JoshuaZ 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needed expansion somehow. The Vales case, which caused a huge public outcry and about which tens and tens of newspaper articles and thousands of talkbacks were written, is definitely noteworthy. If it does not belong here, it should get its own article. I propose leaving it here and adding other materials also. And it is not a negative thing, it is completely positive. I, for one, think the Edah was much too lax. The protests should have been much stronger. Call me a kanoi, I guess I am. Please add more information instead of removing the information present. The article needs to be expanded somehow. It's shameful that we only have so little information on it here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we agree on one thing, the murder and the surrounding protests/riots should have their own article at minimum. JoshuaZ 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. What name do we give that article? --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this case relevant to an encyclopedia? What you have here is one single case of an incident where the police have a certain suspect under arrest, and an organization which came to his defense. The incident, especially if we're going to be NPOV about it, says as much about the Israeli police as it does about the Edah, so if you mention it in one, it must also be in the other. Therefore, it should actually not be in either one. Rather, it must either not appear at all, or it must be its own article, with links to it from both here and there. As for what to title it, I'd suggest using the Tawana Brawley article as a precedent, and call this one Yisroel Vales. --Keeves 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Keeves. There are a number of reasons not to include the article.  (And if you think its complimentary, perhaps you should be sparing about complimenting others). --Meshulam 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree strongly. For many Israelis and non-Israelis the only way they ever noticed the Edah was due to its involvement in the protests. It deserves at least a mention here. JoshuaZ 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the assertion that this incident got some attention for the Edah does not necessarily mean that the incident is important enough to be covered by an encyclopedia. Second, this is far more than "at least a mention". If you insist, then write one or two sentences (not paragraphs) about the Edah's involvement in community activism, add a similar point to the Israeli police article, and link both to Yisroel Vales. --Keeves 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure why you put the Edah on the same plane as the Israeli police for this purpose. This wasn't nearly as significant for the public perception of the police as it was for the Edah. But I agree that a shorter version here might make sense. JoshuaZ 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is the best place for it, since an article for the case is not necessary. But it deserves mentioning here, because as I said, many people know the Edah primarily because of this case. Also, calling this 'community activism' sounds a little weird to say the least, for those involved. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the incident should be removed entirely, given that it is not notable.  Failing that, it should be limited to a sentence at the most. --Meshulam 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That makes 2 votes to remove, one to keep, and one to shorten. Both of the votes to remove have agreed that shortening the piece would be acceptable.  Since deleting the incident won out, I think that action should be taken.  But obviously there is room for a compromise. --Meshulam 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose. And apparently you forgot to count my vote, since I never said that shortening it is acceptable. It can either be made into a specific separate article, or it can be here the way it is. I do not think it is worthy of an entire article, so a section here will do fine. It is a major thing in the current ongoings of the Edah and it is an affair that made the Edah known to the public at large. It most certainly has to be mentioned here. Now if you want to turn it into an article on its own, go ahead, but you are not going to tell me that a subject which has led to millions of shekels of damages to public property, demonstrations involving thousands, and tens of newspaper articles, is 'not notable' for Wikipedia. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I should preface my words by saying that it has been almost 25 years since I was last in Eretz Yisrael. When I was there, I was in Aguda-aligned yeshivos for about 4 years, and even worked for the Edah for about one year, taking tru"m from the produce each morning at a nearby supermarket. Much of the news I get nowadays is from the Jewish Press and the American edition of Hamodia, and if anything was reported about this incident, I don't remember it. My point is that while from your perspective this incident made many people aware of the Edah, there were other places and communities where this incident did not get nearly that much coverage. -- JoshuaZ asked why I'm putting the Edah and the police on the same plane, and my answer is that I have no idea who is right and who is wrong here. "Trial by press" has never been good for anyone, and I refuse to take sides simply on the basis of a few a articles in the news. Especially when one of the sides (the Edah in this case, as reported here on Wikipedia) reverses an earlier position, I don't know whether to consider the original position as more or less honest that the newer position. -- Daniel575 asked why I used the phrase "community activism", and my answer is that this is exactly what it sounds like to me: Vales was not charged and brought to trial in Beis Din, so why is the Edah involved? I don't mean to suggest that they are wrong for getting involved, only that it seems to be a case an organization who is supporting one of its members that was charged with a crime. That's what I meant by "activism". -- Regarding Daniel575's point that you are not going to tell me that a subject which has led to millions of shekels of damages to public property, demonstrations involving thousands, and tens of newspaper articles, is 'not notable' for Wikipedia, okay, fine, I will concede that it is sufficiently notable to be included, provided that you will concede that there are plenty of other demonstrations of similar size, and perhaps they ought to be included too. --Keeves 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, can someone clarify the language of the second paragraph? Who was threatened with deportation, Rav Weiss or Vales? --Keeves 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did count Daniel's vote. He was the one to keep. The only one. Then there was one to shorten, and two to delete. --Meshulam 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby Murderer 

message: I remember reading about some kashrus scandals involving the Badatz where they routinely threaten to remove their hechsher unless they get some freebies. Also, not that it matters, but those in the know, know that Badatz is not necessarily "the best" hashgacha, it's just that, just like with the CRC (which is not a very good hashgacha), you can't publically state that, unless you don't mind being on the receiving end of a "chaptzem." Yossiea 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that 99% of Orthodox Jews around the world consider the Badatz to be the most reliable hechsher in the world. That's enough. If you know of any scandals, with a source (in Hebrew, English, Yiddish), please add them, since we need to expand this page. Positive and negative things, as long as they conform to NPOV, as long as they are true. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have the source off-hand, it was a chapter in a book. As for your claims that 99% of OJ's consider the Badatz to be the most reliable, all I can say is that it's not true, perhaps 99% of the OJ's in your circle consider it the best, but overall, it's not a very reliable hashgacha. Yossiea 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, gentlemen! Unless you've done a survey of ALL circles -- and no one has! -- no one really knows what the real percentages are. We all only know about our own circles. So let's stop quibbling over the numbers, okay? Every hashgacha has people who think it's the best, and every hashgacha has people who can tell stories about its problems. No one really knows everything. --Keeves 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, the Central Rabbinical Congress is distinct from the Chicago Rabbinical Council, whose hechsher is well-respected in the Midwest. --Eliyak T·C 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct, sorry about that, the Chicago CRC is very respected. Yossiea 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Its a very reliable hechsher, but I wouldn't say that all of the above call it the most reliable hechsher.  That's pushing it.  But this discussion is fairly unimportant...--Meshulam 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kashrus

message: I don't know anything about this subject so I'd prefer to not edit the article, but I'll note;
# The History section has "in 1919" twice in the first sentence.
# It says "The Edah was founded in 1919" then "Rabbi Sonnenfeld was named the first Chief Rabbi of the Edah Charedis...during the time when the Ottoman Empire's control over Palestine was weakening", but the Ottoman empire ended in 1918 so this is impossible.  According to Chief Rabbi he was Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem from 1909.  Certainly 1909 matches "the time when the Ottoman Empire's control over Palestine was weakening" but he couldn't have been Chief Rabbi of the Edah before the Edah was founded.
--Zerotalk 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: I changed it back to Satmar instead of Satmarer. Satmarer does not flow and I've not really seen or heard it used. Yossiea 17:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I changed it back. There is nothing strange about it. When referring to the Rebbe, people usually say "the Satmar Rebbe". But when we are talking about other things, it becomes, "the Satmarer shito on Zionism", for example. Regarding your edit summary comment about the fact that it ends on an r: so does Ger, and Gerrer is also a very well known adjective for them. The fact that you never heard of this term doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. --Chussid 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google gives more than 3,000 results for "Satmarer":  --Chussid 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You wrote that 
When referring to the Rebbe, people usually say "the Satmar Rebbe".
, so why did you change it to Satmarer Rebbe? Satmar Rebbe is what most people say and it sounds smoother than Satmarer Rebbe. I'm not talking about the Satmerer shittah, I'm talking about this specific edit, IOW, Satmar Rebbe. Satmar Rebbe has over 16,000 Google hits, Satmarer Rebbe has under 500. True, Satmarer alone has lots of results, but not Satmarer Rebbe. If you want to include Satmarer in the article when referring to Satmar shittos that's one thing, but like you yourself wrote, when referring to the Rebbe, it should be Satmar Rebbe. Yossiea 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right. I'm sorry. My apologies for my behavior here. I was mixing things up. --Chussid 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problemo. Yossiea 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. From the one side, you are right. From the other side, Yossiea is right. I'm not sure. Both  voices have what to rely on. Indeed, it really should be "Satmarer Rebbe", just like it is Belzer Rebbe, Bobover Rebbe, Gerrer Rebbe etc. On the other hand, few people write it like that for Satmar. Again, I'm not sure. --Chussid 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satmar Rebbe 

message: Why is this article called HaEdah HaCharedis when everybody calls it Edah HaCharedis or Edah Charedis?--Redaktor 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's THE Edah of THE Charedim. Check out the kashrus logo on the page. Yossiea (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The hebrew says HaEdah HaCharedis, in the kashrus logo. I'm not sure about the "the" though. Yossiea (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title:HaEdah HaCharedis 

message: Take a look at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872677.html . I quote: "The organization consists of several ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist groups including Satmar, Toldos Aharon and Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok hasidim and Perushim." Note that this is exactly as it is written in this article (with the Ashkenazi names). --Rabbeinu 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Our reliable sources are using *us* as a source

message: Some of your edits are factually incorrect and others are unsourced. Please provide sources or discuss on the talk page before changing large amounts of the page. Yossiea (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And how would you know? What is that based on? Are you so familiar with this world, which I myself am part of? I will get you your sources, don't worry. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) WP:AGF, you need sources. 2) Yes, I have seen a letter from R' Sonnenfeld where he states that he is not the Chief Rabbi and that other people are being manipulative. 3) It doesn't make a difference if you are part of that world. That would make it easier for OR to creep in. Yossiea (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piz d'Es_cha

message: History section has a serve mistake. Chief Rabinate of Israel wasn't elected by the British Goverment, but by the Jewish community itself. Edah HaChareidis was seperated itself from the main community because of some reasons, and as today, Edah HaChareidis is not the main group of Religous jewish people. Netanel h (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: mistakes

message: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/fanning-the-flames-1.317909
Zerotalk 03:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was something similar in HaModia recently, including the statement that the Toldot Aharon Rebbe (do not know which one) had prohibited violence. Most English Internet versions of Israeli papers tend to have rather low standards, though, and should be used with caution. I recently asked some questions on the WP:RSI about "major newspapers", and some welcome changes were made to that article.Mzk1 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, Haaretz is by far the best, and it's absolutely my favorite. They have published plenty of high-quality factual articles about the Haredi world, including the above. The one that must be taken with a ton (rather than a grain) of salt is Ynetnews. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha'aretz? Are you serious? I would question any english-language Israeli internet source (expect maybe JPost), because they are not newspapers; they do not differentiate opinion and fact. Speaking of Ynet, did you see the one on the army religious freedom issue where the sub-header said, "Rabbi sugggests firing squad" which directly contradicted the content of the section it headed. This is below al-Jezeera and competing with Ma'an news.Mzk1 (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  article on political extremism 

message: I found to my suprise here that Toldos Aharon is considered part of the Edah? Is this really so?
BTW, a notable point about the Edah is their unusual perchant for inviting Rabbis more moderate than they to be their leaders. But this would be synthesis without sources, not that the article has a lot of same.Mzk1 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Toldos Aharon is one of the main groups of the Edah, as is Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok. And indeed, your observation is right - many leaders have been great rabbis from other countries (England, South Africa, Belgium, the US); a logical explanation would be that they have more abilities to communicate with the outside world (foreign politicians, for example) when needed. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was thinking even of those from Eretz Yisrael; the Briskers have always been somewhere in the middle.Mzk1 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed. It's probably the way the elders want to go. The Edah has, as the article explains, a 'civil' and a rabbinical leadership. It's the 'civil' leadership, a council of wise and respected elderly men (not great rabbis!), who decide who the next rabbinical appointments (including the Gavad) will be. They're like a parliament, with the rabbinical judges being the ministers - who set and execute policy, checked and chosen by the parliament. It's not an exact comparison, but close. I think the civil leadership tries to keep the 'extremism' under control this way. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reb Aryeleh is part of the Edah? 

message: You raise an interesting point: should Wikipedia, being neutral, use 'died' instead of 'passed away'? The question is whether 'passing away' is an expression solely used in religious circles. It is clear that in Judaism, we prefer 'passing away' rather than 'dying'. However, as mentioned in this discussion, a simple search of The Guardian, which certainly qualifies as a reliable source, uses the phrase "his passing" on a quite regular basis as well. CNN does the same.Therefore, I see no reason to change 'his passing' to 'his death', where Judaism clearly prefers the former and there is nothing linguistically wrong with that expression. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop reverting edits that bring articles into accordance with the Manual of Style. You say that "in Judaism, we  prefer 'passing away' rather than 'dying'". Yes, and in many cases other religions, and people of no religion, prefer the same wording. I have edited articles on Catholic bishops, Protestant elders, Islamic imams, Buddhist priests and others to change "passing on", "passing away" and "passing" to "death" or "dying". The phrase "passed away" is used very often in obituaries, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board for posting death notices or obituaries. The guideline (WP:EUPHEMISM) alludes to that: "Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided". And Wikipedia strives to take a neutral view, not favoring views of this religion or that one. Bear in mind that not all readers of Wikipedia are Jewish, so articles should be understandable by all. If you disagree with the guideline, please discuss this on its talk page, where a similar discussion recently took place, but as long as the guideline says to "avoid euphemisms such as passed away", please stop reverting contributions of editors who are following it. Chris the speller yack 11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Agree with Chris. I checked a few of the linked you googled and they all used "passed" after they uses "died" or "death" a few sentences prior. They are clearly using "passed" only for less awkward reading by repeating the same word. Similarly I would not protest the use of "pass" where it is used to avoid a redundancy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Passing away vs dying