Talk:Aaron Teitelbaum

Warning

To the several people who keep changing and reverting the article- stop, please. Otherwise I'll get an admin to lock the page until you behave. ShalomShlomo 09:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea ShalomShlomo, we are having a similar problem with the "struggle of succession" over at the Bobov articles, (not to mention constant battles over at Chabad Lubavitch and about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson!) I am notifying two admins now. IZAK 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm one of the people keeping on changing the content, because there are people who constently keep on writing lies, if you can stop this, I'll be more then proud. (e.g. the totaly false statement as if the rabbi wrote something about the seperation of state and religion). if there is a way I can contact you about that, I'd be really glad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.235.117 (talk • contribs).

Somebody needs to take a look at the introduction. It was recently changed and is heavily biased w/ several typos. I don't know enough of the details about the rift in Satmar, but it's clear to me that someone has been trying to change history. Please correct.

State/religion comment

I've removed the state/religion comment, and modified the paragraph to what I think is fair. If you have a problem with it, please mention it here first before changing it again, or get in touch with me on my talk page. ShalomShlomo 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rape Case

My edit on the comments of the rape case were removed. I didn't edit the source element correctly. Here is another source. I think if the comments Teitelbaum, made about the underage victim being a 'whore' are accurate, it is reasonable that it's placed on his bio page. Here is a link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/10/nechemya-weberman-guilty-of-sexually-abusing-girl-he-was-counseling.html Especially now that the trial has concluded, and the perpetrator convicted.

Well, who's saying she isn't a whore? Now, I'm not saying she is one, but your claiming the converse is just as unbalanced as the original statement.

Second Warning

To 67.139.62.77- you're making the page too POV. Please stop. If you want to add or change something, cite a source for it. Otherwise, I'll have to keep reverting it and get an admin to lock it. ShalomShlomo 02:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I was not aware of this whole warning.

All did was changed that description of the litigation. You’re describing the intention of the petitioners which is to seize control on some alien community. Wouldn’t it be more balanced to report the way it is? I can email you the court documents. But no one will disagree that the claim in front of the court is that the man who everyone agrees was at some point the president of the congregation and was somehow removed (the “how” is the core of the battle) should be ordered back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.62.77 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll add a sentence of background. If you could give me the name of the President, I'll put that in, too. ShalomShlomo 09:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. There are a number of members who were removed from their post on the board; however the most referenced name is Berel Freidman who was striped from the presidency in 2001. I’m not sure about the other litigation you are referring to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.139.62.77 (talk • contribs).

Claims

Who claims that Rabbi Aaron is trying to sever Satmar's ties with the haredi world? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.40.3 (talk • contribs)

It was tossed in by some Zalman-supporter during an edit war. I included it insofar as it seemed representative of some of the criticisms of Aaron from Zalman's people. I guess the issue is both is it true (which doesn't seem to the case) as well as "is this what some people accuse him of?". As someone not in touch with either community, I'm not really in a position to evaluate this. The intent of including it wasn't to slander Aaron, but to try and give some representation to his critics. Some input on how to present this in a balanced way would be appreciated. Maybe it should be deleted and replaced with a short section summing up some of the criticism he's encountered from pro-Zalman people? ShalomShlomo 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Succession & Will Stuff

Hi 204.52.215.107- can you provide a source for the Aaron's followers declaring him rebbe stuff? I did a quick google search and couldn't find anything. ShalomShlomo 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This was rumor posted by someone else that I happened to pick up while on Wikipedia. You were right to change it. 204.52.215.107 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Source: MAZEL TOV! Before the Lavaya from Rabeiny Hck' Zy"u the Rushei HaKahila from Wm"s,BP,KY. Took his oldest Son C"K Muran (Gavad KY) Shlita to take over to be ADMO"R M'SATMAR! & Hrh"g R' Hertzka Tzvibel Shlita Rosh HaKolel D'Satmar was reading the 'TZAVUAH'. DTC. Yachi Adoneiny Moreiny V'Rabeiny Tzadick Doreiny!!! April 25 7:44 am http://www.upoc.com/group.jsp?group=ANASHDSATMAR Bobover1 00:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bakcground Information Edit

I’ve added the position of Aaron’s followers, and frankly the view accepted by virtually anyone other than his enemies, on his commitment to anti-Zionism. If this had been edited before and, for whatever reason, deleted, I apologize. Also, the assertion that Aaron has been “condemned … as "semi-heretical" is absurd and is expressing the view of an individual not notable enough. Unless this could be verified, I think it ought to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.62.77 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the extra info. I've deleted the semi-heretical remark. Just for the record, if you'd be willing to get a username and start signing your posts with four tildes (~), it makes keeping track of who's saying what on these pages a lot easier. ShalomShlomo 06:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow your advice.--67.139.62.77 15:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Name

This article should be moved to Aharon Teitelbaum. Any opponents? --Daniel575 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly necessary, but as long as you change the referring links, I think it's fine.ShalomShlomo 05:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

HasidicNews AGAIN?

Daniel575, this is ridiculous. How is the information inaccurate? And don't give me that line about the site being hateful Islamic crap, I'm talking about the actual info in the links. Either document some inaccuracies in the links, or stop reverting them. For that matter, you never did resolve the questionable issue of plagiarizing HN for the Belz page without citing it. Maybe I should go and stick those back in there, too.ShalomShlomo 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

coronavirus

[1] Zero^talk 11:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)