Talk:Neturei Karta/Archive 2

message: "Radicals under the guidance of Rabbi Moshe Hirsch..." Radicals is a pov epithet. It is also unsourced that this is what happened. ALso the part about them changing after AMram BLau's death needs to be sourced, as it implies he would dissaprove. There is no source given for sucha contention. 
:I don't think "radical" is an epithet at all, it describes the groups status as at an extreme end of the total whole. Can you suggest a better term? Since Neturei Karta is about as far away from "main-line" Judaism ( whatever that is ), "radical" seems a fair descriptive term. Jake b 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is not NPOV right now 

message: Any reason for the latest link removal?ShalomShlomo 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left User:Ian Pitchford a message on his talk page to request an explanation, and reverted the page to your last version. --Daniel575 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More link stuff

message: I think there should be a clearer distinction in the article of the difference between NK Jerusalem / Beis Shemesh and NK New York. Many of the recent disputes could be resolved if we would make it clear that there is a difference. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American vs. E. Israel NK

message: Despite having reverted the article 4 times, you have yet to verify that allegation you make that the bulk of Orthodox Jews were anti-Zionist between 1945 and 1948 (or any other time, for that matter). You must provide a source for this! --Meshulam 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority of Orthodox Jews 

message: I personally am not interested in what I consider the weak argument that the 3 oaths are Aggada, and therefore not Halacha. However, apparently another writer here is either convinced by that argument, or at least considers it notable.  I don't see why I can block him from writing that sentence just because I don't like it. Nonetheless, the statement needs a citation that I cannot provide. Furthermore, Daniel's revert did not just revert the halacha/aggada remark, but also a series of edits. That's not right.  I'm reverting it back, and am willing to discuss this on the talk page.--Meshulam 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halacha v. Aggada 

message: I removed the quote from the Satmar Rav because it was doctored before it went up. I would please ask the vandal who keeps reinserting it to either translate the entire quote, or not to put the edited version in the article. The part edited out explains who the Satmar Rav is speaking of, which is a rather big piece of information to edit out. This is similar to refering to "Thou shalt ... kill" in the article on the Ten Commandments, giving a little bit of a different sense. Shia1 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please translate the parts indicated by the elipses.  My understanding, based on my reading of the original, is that the translation adequately portrays the Satmar Rav's view of NK, not of Agudah (which is addressed separately).  The statement specifically refers to those who have the destructive opinion that Israel should be overrun by the Arabs.  That is NKs position, and not Agudah's. If you wish to include the whole translation, then by all means translate it.  However, unilaterally erasing a statement that legitimately comes from the Satmar Rav, and is entirely germaine is inappropriate. We should seek a consensus, and go from there. --Meshulam 02:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the Yiddish again. It is clear that the first part is talking about NK. It is not clear who the second part is referring to. I will reinsert the first part, and not the second. The second will be discussed here, and we will hopefully reach a consensus. --Meshulam 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you could maybe look at the first part again starting at the top of the page, I thin k you will see this particular page isn't speaking of Neturei Karta at all for good or bad. It's in Southern Yiddish, so you have to keep in mind that some of the yuds would be vavs in "standard" Yiddish (which to my knowledge nobody speaks, but it does make reading easier). He is, as far as I can tell, speaking of the Zionists throughout the whole section. In his estimation, it is they who are the "enemy from within" who "rules over us" who cause trouble, in his opinion, by defaming the Jews. Shia1 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the statement specifically complains about those who argue that the Arabs should come and destroy the state, and later refers to NK by name.  --Meshulam 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They, the Zionists, are demonic destroyers of the soul and the bodies. [Talk of people praying for "it"!!!]. This is not what to consider. People still put hope in it. Because of this, Jews wager something more will come of it, still a miracle to be achieved. This is false! They speak nonsense and pitiful nonsense, words about "The Arabs should come!"  There's nothing to say to them. They are fouling. They are corrupting. I have said the verse "He shall rule over you," is about them. Rashi expains: "From you, and over you" as meaning "those who hate you". Apply this to the sect of Zionists. Then you can take the Mizrachi (he's talking about Religious Zionists, not Sephardim) because they (can't make out word) the Torah. And afterwords the Agudah. That's still not enough to seduce. There are those that go with them dressed like Neturei Karta. They spot Kana'im who are strong and corrupt them. For G-d's sake, you should not (associate with them, in short.)
I don't think anyone's going to find the Satmar Rav criticizing NK, because when he was alive, anyone who was associated with the Eidah Charedis (hundreds of thousands)was called NK. Today people call them, "the Kena'im" and the people who protest and do meetings, a few dozen to a hundred, NK. In my experience though, most Kena'im support the others, they just dont want trouble. The change in use of NK is going to make writing this article harder, though. Yoel23 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. I agree. Shkoyach for the great translation. I completely agree that this is the most likely translation. And I agree with your closing comments. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satmar Rav Quote 

message: Right now the article is sort of disorganized  because of all the edit wars. It also has some problems, like repeatedly referring to members of Neturei karta. NK is not an organization and there are no members. There's also a lot of unsourced material. 
Also the pattern is that any statement made about the group is followed right away by an objection to it. If I go to the religious zionist article, it probably will not say, "Religious Zionists believe the SOI is the flowering of redemption. This has led to them being criticied as heretics. (VaYoel Moshe). Religious ionists point to Rav Kook as a source. Others point out the Talmudic principle that the HOly One does not accomplish through sinners." I think it is out of place for every time a piece of ideology is mentioned, the objection follows. OTOh the objections have their place and should be included in their own section.
Can I suggest the article go something like this:
1. Ideology (which will explain their anti-zionist ideology without the comment and refutation pattern, which will be saved for later)
2. History as Part of the Aggudah (the old yishuv period, when Amram BLau was part of the Aggudah and Bdatz)
3. Split between Aggudah and Eda Charedis and origins of name NK (after the split and the reasons for the split, also the story of how they got to be called Neturei Karta)
:3.1 Differentiation between Edah Charedis and NK (This will be difficult and need a lot of talk to get just right because NKniks see themselves as part of the Edah community, and the Edqah doesn't deny this, but obviously there is some difference since not every Bdatz devotee is a NK)
4) History Since (with leaders and such)
5) Protests (with all their  protests.)
6) Meetings 
:6.5 Ideology behinf meetings
:6.6 Meetings
:6.7 After each meeting the result
:6.8 The reaction from various groups.
7) Israeli government Reaction to NK (this will need discussion, obviously, before being included. But it deserves mention since there are several videos on the web of them being beaten in schull by Israeli police, and tazored in the face and such. Also, the SOI has said they are the biggest threat to the State's continued existence. And in Ramat Beit SHemesh the Police have a liason officer who meets with their rabbis to keep incidents to a minimum, which is fairly interesting I think.)
8) Heradi Reaction
:8.1 The Aggudah reaction
::8.1.1 Positive Reaction (Like from Rav Shach and the Steipler Goan or any others)
::8.1.2 Negative Reactions (Like from Yateed and all the others, maybe talk about the street violence between them)
::8.1.3 Neutral (Like Aaron Kotler)
:8.2 Reaction from other ANti-Zionists
::8.2.1 Positive 
::8.2.2 Negative
8) Religious ZIonist reaction (obviously this will need to be eddited to a reasonable length)
IMHO this would allow the NK to be presented neutraly, and also allow all the editors to put in the material they desire that denounces them without the very odd pattern in the article. ANybody care to discuss?
:I would be happy to help with some of this, though others would have to help with dredging up a lot of the sources. I have a few haredi sociology texts in English that mention NK, but I don't know how detailed the information is, or how authoritative.ShalomShlomo 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Be bold and do it --130.245.235.109 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing Article

message: The name is נטורי קרטא and not as writen
:I know, someone vandalized it. I already reverted it. You can do that yourself too, the same way you made this talk page edit. Just go ahead! --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Neturei Karta do not have a membership base. Not one for a fee, not one for free. They are not a 'sect'. Neturei Karta is a creed upheld by individuals in different communities, though yes most of them are from Jerusalem.
In order to be classed as a sect they would idealy need one of the following three denominations.
*A founder
*A Rabbanite
*A Membership (Kehilla)
This and other points need to be clarified. There is to much wishwash about the details. This is not an informative approach. --Chavatshimshon 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm nearly laughing myself to death. A rabbanite? I think you are talking about a Rebbe. Which is a Chassidic thing. If you take a look at the article, the exact same thing you just mentioned *is* mentioned in the article. I wrote it myself. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The second photo (accompanied by the caption: A girl walking in front of the Neturei Karta synagogue) is too dark, so that it is next to impossible to make out anything. My suggestion would be to remove this photo. Comments?
--Philopedia 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, comment. Photo will not be removed. It is indeed quite unclear from up close. What would you expect, in the dark and with moving objects on it? The quality is good enough, certainly with the size with which you see it on the page. It gives an accurate description of the neighborhood where NK people live, a photo of an actual NK synagogue. It provides something other photos don't provide. --89.139.19.119 17:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is a horrible mess. It's a black mass with a window and something that looks vaguely like a person in smudged blue. It provides absolutely no information or insight into anything, except for the photographer's poor understanding of exposure. Roman Levin 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor photo 

message: Well, I've been doing some research (CHAS V'SHALOM, I know, but I'm not posting it in the article, just the talk page :p).  And it's certainly clear that arutz sheva, and others, have latched onto this statement, so it wasn't just made up and put on wikipedia but some crazy zionist, let's have that totally clear.  And, if true, this is certainly important enough to deserve being in the article.  Now, I can't seem to find much else on either this edict or on the "United Orthodox Communities of New York."  Actually nothing that doesn't refer to this doccument.  So I want to ask now, in clear terms, at the risk of opening this can of worms again, does anyone have any seperate evidence for OR against this doccument?  Please do NOT reply with lashon haro against NK or Tzionim.  Just answer the dang question.
Since I seem to be about the only one here with the guts to both use my username AND admit to being a chassid, I want to address the "obvious forgery" issue.  YES Chabad and Satmar are at odds, and YES these organizations do have issues with each other, and so it DOES send up a red flag that they would all sign the same thing.  BUT such tensions do not preclude any and all cooperation.  It is possible to find many seforim, for example, with haskomos from rebbes of sects at odds (see tnu kavod l'Torah, for example).  Second, these doccuments are not signed (in theory) by aamei ha'aretz, but rather by the Rebbeim and batei din, who are generally less involved in these petty sectarian arguments and far more likely to work together than their chaddisim.  Lastly, and most importantly, this is a very important issue, and that brings people together in a way they might not otherwise.  If the Satmar rebbe really were afraid of people in black hats being associated with praying for a terrorist (and it's easy to understand why he would be in this situation), don't you suppose he might be willing to sign something with Young Israel?
So, where does that leave us?  As far as I can see, we have a somewhat suprising, but not necessarily imporobable statment by an organization which doesn't seem to exist outside of this (and similar) articles about the statment in question.  Now, as Meshulam points out very well, Wikipedia policy is to require a major, reliable newssource, which arutz sheva is (bias does not equal unreliable, der yid, the NY Times, even Wikipedia, have biases, but they're roughly reliable).  So, normal Wikipedia rules would seem to say this is totally kosher.  All that being said, I think we, as complirers of an encyclopedia, would be remiss in ignoring the fact that all our citations are secondhand (at best, normally more via arutz sheva).  I'm not saying remove it, but doesn't it bother anyone else not to be able to definitively verify this controversial statment?  I mean, the arugments above about its not beiing mentioned in Der Yid seem pretty strong, perhaps as strong as its appearing in arutz sheva.  So I want to ask now, in clear terms, at the risk of opening this can of worms again, does anyone have any seperate evidence for OR against this doccument?  Please do NOT reply with lashon haro against NK or Tzionim.  Just answer the dang question.  Now, I read all your posts before writing this, so please read mine BEFORE attacing me for being a zionist, and anti-zionist, pro-NK, anti-NK, Breslov, Gerer, Skver, or whatever else you may have inferred from this comment.  Todah!  Avraham 08:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Orthodox Communities of New York

message: In the first sentence of the Ideology section it says
"Adherents of Neturei Karta stress those portions in rabbinic literature which state that the Jewish people were first sent into exile from the land of Israel for their sins."
Is that grammatically correct?  It sounds like it is cut short...
It sounds like it needs to say what should be happening...
eg:
Adherents of Neturei Karta stress those portions in rabbinic literature which state that the Jewish people were first sent into exile from the land of Israel for their sins should/shouldn't <insert action here>
might just be me... I am just reading this article because I got sidetracked so I have no idea, and am not going to edit it without knowing... Tmov81 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence grammar 

message: Oh, yes, the name is definitely aramaic.  The תא ending is immensely characteristic.  Hebrew has a similar wor ending in heh (or taf in smichut); think "kiryat arba/shaul/etc." and not "karta d'arba."  Where have you seen that in hebrew?!  And if oyu want more prof that it's super aramaic, take a look at the akadamut, which has TA over and over and over.  Avraham 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a text in Aramaic containing "neturei karta" (נטורי קרתא): the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Hagiga, chapter 1, gemara 7, on pages 6a and 6b . I can't translate, but you could find the translation in volume 20 of The Talmud of the Land of Israel. --Hoziron 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for the citation!  My Western Aramaic is a bit rusty but the relevant part is that the distribution and propgation of torah study defent the land.  The phrase there means, as said on the article page, defenders of the city, in this context, the city (Jerusalem) represents the land of israel as a whole.  Thanks! Avraham 07:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aramit

message: There are new developments which clearly show that there is a finge element in the Neturei Karta which has been publicly shunned by all religious groups.  This important inofrmation ought to be incorporated into this article because they also call themselves Neturei Karta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. These people are not mainstream NK, they are outcasts and idiots. Mainstream NK do not wish to separate themselves from the (anti-Zionist Chareidi) mainstream, ie from Satmar / the Edah etc, in this way. These guys represent no-one but themselves. --217.132.24.152 11:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Developments 

message: Dear Silverburg. It doesn't matter what any newspaper article says, when you have the original source here. The original source, which was linked to in the history and which you simply ignored:  
:  http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/satmaragainstnk.jpg 
It speaks only of those guys who went to Iran. It does not speak of anything, anyone else. NK is a movement with at least 1000 adherents. The condemnation mentions only 7 of them.
Also, Zionist newspapers (particularly Arutz Sheva) are not neutral sources in this regard. The guys at Arutz Sheva are licking their tongues when they can report that Satmar condemned NK, can't you understand that? How in the world can you consider IsraelNN.com (Arutz Sheva) to be a neutral and reliable source for this, when you have the original condemnation right in front of you and its text does not synchronize with the summarization given by Zionist news channels? Not to mention ynetnews.com, jpost.com and haaretz.com . They are all great sites and I read all four of them many times every day, but believe me, when it comes to NK, they are not neutral sources. --217.132.24.152 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Silverburg's 'rv anon'

message: I think the other POV is acceptable as a Satamar one and should be presented in the Article.Shrike 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bsnowball, first off, the NK consist of only a few individuals, who, as the Satmars said in their condemnation "don't even speak for their own wives".  It's not just the Satmars who have condemned the NK whackos tho, it's just that the Satmars have finally had enough of people associating the NK weirdos with Satmar chasidim, simply on the basis of their similar style of dress.  As for the rest of Orthodoxy, they have long since repudiated NK, even from the very outset of the group.  The only reason I can fathom for your having removed the  clarification I put into the text is that you are trying to make it seem that there are some Jews out there, religious or otherwise, who actually support NK, which is not the case.  The burden of proof of such an assertion, however, rightfully rests with you.  If it's true that other Jews support them, then it should be much easier to find evidence of these other Jews...much easier than to find a survey of all Jews in the world that concludes that the reason you can't find other Jews out there supporting NK is in fact, as I've said, because there are exactly zero of them.  Meanwhile, here's some light reading for your enjoyment. Cheers, Tomertalk 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talmud study

message: This article refers to Arutz 7 as a “media outlet,” has infoisrael.net (a.k.a. Israel Hasbara Committee) pass as a “reference” (this  is infoisrael's top entry on the peace process), links to the Jewish Virtual Library’s entry on NK as a neutral link, when the Jewish Virtual Library’s entry on NK clearly states that it “uses material from the Wikipedia article "Neturei Karta",” and last but not least, people who point out errors on the talk page are labeled “sockpuppet,” et cetera.
To put it mildly: it seems to me that this entry is not only lacking in objectivity. If the objective is to have an encyclopædic article on NK, the present entry should simply be removed in its entirety. Or is Wikipedia sinkink lower and lower every day?
--Hadan 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Yossiea has simply been vandalizing this article. My explanation above is very clear and concise and any schoolchild should be able to understand now that all Hasidim are by definition Haredim. That alone is enough to understand that Yossiea's edit is nonsense. --217.132.24.152 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simply remove this article

message: There are too many links in this article. Do we really need to link to every guy who writes an online attack against Neturei Karta?--Meshulam 04:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many links