Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Haredim as the "real Jews"

Nomoskedasticity, you removed the following sentence,

"and although this claim is contested by other streams, it is a perception which is often held in wider Jewish and non-Jewish society"

claiming "previously rejected, & no consensus for it". Rejected by whom? You did not reply to my response to you above. Consensus can only be attained by discussion between more than just two editors. Please note that the edit made by GabrielF which removed these sources was made in error, as the above clause was not extant in the article at the time. (See [1]).

Have you been watching Simon Schamas Jewish history series recently? In an interview he was asked: The opening sequences of the first episode shows just how different we all are, from ultra-orthodox to liberal, from dark skinned Jews to fair skinned Jews? And he answered: Yes, that was really for the rest of the world. Many people, if they don’t see Judaism through Zionism, Israel or the Holocaust, they instead have these clichés, that all Jews are and look Orthodox…. I wanted to start with something counterintuitive to what most people think. ---/ Chesdovi (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Rejected by me, of course; had you actually forgotten? You're right -- we need more input. You surely know that, which makes it unsavoury that you tried to slip it back in. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well you should have responded earlier so I knew you still disagreed with its inclusion even after my having shown you that your earlier concern with the text had been allayed by my highlighting that the text indeed included the clause "although this claim is contested by other streams." We cannot expect to build consensus if you remain silent and refrain from discussion. Further, I had asked you to explain what you meant by regarding this sentence as "NPOV/cherry-picking", but got no reply. That was a month ago, so I have duly re-added the text I feel is NPOV. And I would remind that your sole "rejection" of material added here does not mean you can simply remove sourced text. Chesdovi (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The lastest "evidence" I have read is by Carlo Strenger who states: "Deep down they seem to feel that the ultra-Orthodox are the real Jews". [2]. Chesdovi (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Chesdovi to discuss edits to "modesty" material here

Chesdovi really wants to delete some stuff. It can be discussed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Stuff in the "Views on Modesty" section which belongs (and already appears to an extent) in the "Practices and beliefs" section. Is there a problem with removing repetition and duplication? This material is not unique to Israeli Haredim, so why has it been added here, under the Israel section???

Explanations of my first edit:

I removed:

"Haredi society is generally intolerant of physical exposure of the female bodies - especially in public, and more so in areas in which Haredim live."

The intolerance of "physical exposure" is not unique to Haredim. This is basic Jewish law which is practised by Orthodox Jews in general. And it applies in private as much as it applies in public. And it applies everywhere, not just where Jews happen to live! I reworded this line as follows:

Jewish law is against exposure of the female body and Haredi men and women are known to avert their eyes from what they deem to be immodestly dressed people.

I removed:

"which is universally understood by all Israeli as a demand for people to dress 'modestly' in that city and avoid things like driving a car within it on the Sabbath" - this is simply OR added by J Bluestein!

I removed:

"Haredim who live among secular citizens usually either ignore the way the latter are dressed, or in the case of Haredi men, even go as far as looking the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female. To a Haredi man, sometimes even the show of exposed arms and legs might prove too much for their religious tastes and prejudices."

This is duplication of what I reworded above:

"Haredi men and women are known to avert their eyes from what they deem to be immodestly dressed people." The sentence which states: "might prove too much for their religious tastes and prejudice" is unnecessary and unencyclopedic.

Explanation of subsequent edit:

I removed:

"Sometimes verbal or even physical violence is used towards people considered not modestly dressed. This is less common in general public venues, and occurs more often within Haredi neighbourhoods, various religious sites, or when the woman involved is religious herself."

This is included above: "Some areas are known to have "modesty patrols" and people dressed in ways perceived as immodest may suffer harassment..." There is no need for duplication here!???

I would have thought these edits make sense and do not understand why Nomoskedasticity feels "explanation" is needed. Chesdovi (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've just fully protected the page for three days per this report. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as Nomoskedasticity decides to explain why he thinks the material I removed needs to be in the article instead of just replacing it without any reason. Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• The notion that this material is not unique to Haredim hardly means it does not pertain to Haredim. "Modesty" is a highly salient issue among Haredim and there is no problem in presenting it in some detail in this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But not in the boorish fashion of anti-Haredi J Bluestein. Chesdovi (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Both of you (Chesdovi & J.bluestein), please stop calling each other names and/or otherwise disrupting this talkpage with irrelevant arguments. Here are some reminders from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

• Good practices
  • Comment on content: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
  • Be concise.
• Behavior that is unacceptable
  • No personal attacks.
  • No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.

-- -- -- 03:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

J Blustein is long gone, busy showing Haredim how to fight in the parks of Ramat Gan. His monstrous legacy is still somewhat prsent in this dismal article. Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how your comment above can be helpful. Really, I thank you for all of your improvements to Wikipedia over the years. Please continue doing so as long as you don't let it override the more important aspects of Real Life (that's a warning to all of us) and please provide your rationale whenever you undo others' edits. Other than that, please don't waste our time with irrelevant comments. -- -- -- 04:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-establishment of deleted materials, 25th of October 2013

User Chesdovi has been vandalizing the page for quite some time now. It is unfortunate that although he has been reported by myself and several other users before, he is still allowed to edit this page and delete decent content because of his personal agendas.

I have returned materials which had been published numerous times before, and have been serially deleted by Chesdovi. All of these materials have been thoroughly discussed prior on this talk page. ALL OF THEM.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: As per Wikipedia rules, no using capital letters to "shout". -- -- -- 04:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits and additions. I have kept most of them (probably 90%). Some things you deleted and had written were 'unsourced' were facts I quoted from the attached links to news reports and articles in Hebrew. Reading these in full would reveal the facts are there. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Response:

• On 5/Aug/13 (20:21), User:Black Kite changed "a Haredi men" to "Haredi men".
• On 13/Aug/13 (16:02), User:Chesdovi added {{According to whom}}.
• On 27/Oct/13 (11:41):
  • I changed the "Sabbath" (which links to the general concept of Sabbath) to "Shabbat" (links to the Jewish Sabbath);
  • I removed phrases (such as: "even go as far" and "might prove") which do not seem very encyclopedic to me;
  • I removed the word "interestingly", classified as editorializing;
  • I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "There had been more extreme cases, too";
  • I disambiguated: Egged → Egged (company);
  • I changed "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back" to: "required men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front and women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back." (The fact that men are not allowed to enter from the back or to sit in the back is important because it shows that this is not an issue of Sexual discrimination, just separation between the genders.)
  • I changed "Orthodox and Secular Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" to "Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" (the source cited (חדשות 2 - בקרוב: רחבה משותפת לגברים ולנשים בכותל) actually says that 'Neshot Hakotel' is comprised of Reform women);
  • I changed "Male, Female and Mixed" to "male, female and mixed";
• On 28/Oct/13 (1:29), I removed the reference to A news report (March 2013) of how one female drummer and one female singer were forced to cancel their participation in a municipal music festival in Jerusalem because of Haredi demands which is unrelated to "the show of exposed arms and legs", as discussed above.
• On 28/Oct/13 (7:45):
  • I added links to Derekh Eretz Rabbah פרק א and Nedarim 20a.
  • I removed 9 references unrelated to, but lumped together under the banner of 'immodest' women, and thus causing a mess out of the article, as discussed above:
  • I changed "On March 2013" to "In March 2013";
  • I changed "'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines" (n-dash) to "'Mehadrin' buses — bus lines" (m-dash);
  • I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "The cause for the existence of 'Mehadrin' buses was, to begin with, the wishes of many Haredi communities to further set men and women physically apart, for the same reasons and rational that called for 'modest' female display in public";

Since I don't remember seeing adequate reasoning for the undoing of all of the above, they will have to be restored. If anyone think I'm mistaken, please explain why. -- -- -- 09:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur with you grammatical improvements and corrections. Yet together with them, you have failed to mention that you have also deleted quite a few sources I included prior (which have been discussed in great length on this talk page before). I have therefore done the following - kept your additions, and returned all of the deleted sources. I have also added sources relating to Haredi bus-segregation. It has been previously argued, for instance, that in Mehadrin buses, "men are expected to move to the front". The reality of the matter is that in Israeli buses you can usually only go up the bus from the front, so the man and women all enter through the front, and the women are forced to sit in the back. I have provided 3 sources for this, and could provide 20 more if required. Additionally, to my personal knowledge, there had been cases in which in Mehadrin buses, women were forced to get up the bus from the back to begin with, to make sure they'd stay there (which is illegal by transportation regulations). Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That source was anyhow manipulative and trying to support the bus segregation with weasel words, not portraying things as they really are. I cannot believe that Chesdovi (and perhaps yourself) shows support of this bus segregation thing, like we're in 1950s America. The same source states, and I quote: "(the segregated buses and other Haredi-related events in Israeli) even prompting Hillary Clinton to remark that when things like this happen in Israel, it reminds her of Iran", but then goes to say Clinton doesn't know what she's talking about. Other fine quotes: "Nor will I speak on a practical level to the wisdom of seeking gender segregation on public transportation in Israel" - suggesting the author of the article fully supports bus segregation, and therefore is very, very biased. Another quote: "(the media attention of bus segregation in Israel is) information … intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question" - which points to the fact that the author of the article considers hundreds of news reports from many websites and newspapers to be forms of anti-Haredi propaganda/conspiracy (a claim which Chesdovi has sounded many times before). Another quote: "When that discussion takes place in the State of Israel, where degradation of women in the vaunted precincts of academia and the military is epidemic, and where there have been many highly public moral scandals like the one that once caused such humiliation to Madame Secretary Clinton herself, it is Torah Jews who hold the high ground and their secular counterparts who are left grasping for answers" - showing that the author is trying to sell his religious beliefs as a solution for the country's "immoral issues and problems". In short... the author of that article which I have deleted is extremely biased, and the article itself is big on justifying the male-female segregation in buses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I used that reference solely as a source to the claim that men are not allowed to sit in the back, as opposed to the 1950s America, when there was no such requirement concerning whites. It seems that when someone deletes a source you add, claiming that the source is biased, you revert that right away. But you have no problem deleting a source someone else added because the source is biased. -- -- -- 02:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As to the abundance of sources relating to Haredi violence... Well, it is abundant in Israeli society with regard to 'public immodesty'. These issues have been discussed on the talk page before. You should really read all of it. In any case... User Chesdovi and others have argued that the description of Haredi violence against 'immodest' women as a widespread phenomenon is made up and is a form of anti-Haredi propaganda (not making this up - check the talk page). I have therefore continued to add more and more sources - articles and news reports from various websites, showing that this is indeed the case. To prove the point, it was required that I include sources discussing a wide variety of violent actions, which had taking place in quite a few places all over the country (otherwise, it would have been claimed that only extremist Haredim do these things, and that it only happens in this or that neighbourhood - types of claims which had already popped up before). At one point on this talk page, Chesdovi saw that his request to 'prove' Haredi violence existed had backfired, since I began to bring up dozens of relevant and valid sources. He then changed tactics, and came up with two new claims: 1. That it was a purposeful form of anti-Haredi media propaganda. 2. That I have now included too many sources for the text to be easily read and comprehensible. While I could not deal with his first claim seriously, I did find a point in his second one. Therefore, I have clumped together many of the sources under one single reference, for the readers' convenience. Anyone pressing on that reference can easily get a nicely edited list of sources, from a wide variety of websites, discussing many different events, all explaining the public issues relevant to them from different perspectives. Chesdovi has been keen on deleting these ever since, as they show Haredim in a bad light. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan.bluestein must be indefinately banned from editing this page. Chesdovi (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#Ban request for User:Jonathan.bluestein.

As for J.bluestein's newest edits of 30 October (22:26 & 22:35), I still don't see where he adequately explained how the following belong in the footnote under "'immodest' women", even though these are not about "'immodest' women" but about other (albeit similar) situations as I explained above#Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013);

• reports on a woman with marks of Tefillin (#8. A news report (May 2011) of a Haredi man who attacked a woman on a bus because she had marks of prayer apparatus that belonged to men only in Haredi culture — apparently a personal page or blog?),

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

Though it looks like it's in a 'blog' format, it's a website consisting of neutral civilian journalism by a great number of amateur, non-paid reporters, whose reports undergo the supervision of professional editors. This news report has been written by a female Conservative Jew!! (said so herself in the report). She self-reports being attacked. The issue is relevant as public news since Mehadrin buses created large public controversies at the time, all over the country. It's not under 'gender separation', but under 'public controversies', and relates to a sentence talking about Haredi intolerance towards 'immodest' women in public. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the blog issue. But please keep the references on "'immodest' women" to "'immodest' women". Other similar issues deserve a separate footnote for each issue by itself. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Why so? This reference addresses Haredi intolerance towards 'immodest' women. It seems to me that violence towards women that stems from their 'immodesty' is a form of such intolerance.

— Preceding comment added by Jonathan.bluestein, 13:14, 2/Nov/13

How dare you use this amateur blog post to support the use of violence against immodest women. The violence in this incident was due to the fact it was evident that the women had laid tefilin, not that she was dressed immodestly. Shame on you and your "sources". I have removed this once before and I will do so again unless you can explain why it is a RS here. Chesdovi (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• on 'separation' of the genders, (#9. A news report (December 2011) of a Haredi man [sic] who attacked a female soldier because she refused to sit in the back of a bus |

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

This is a report of a Haredi man who attacked a female soldier because she refused to sit in the back of a bus. It is quite relevant as a source in this regard. It was published on Globes - the leading evening newspaper in Israel. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, please keep the references on "'immodest' women" to "'immodest' women". Other similar issues deserve a separate footnote. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

#16. A news report (July 2013) of Haredi soldiers who had prevented a fellow female infantrywoman from entering a joint dining hall because she is a woman |

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

Again - Haredi intolerance towards women in public. Very relevant. This particular source has been previously discussed on this talk page. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, please keep the references on "'immodest' women" to "'immodest' women". Other similar issues deserve a separate footnote. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

#17. A news report (August 2013)of two Haredim, one man and one woman, who tried to force another woman to sit in the back of the bus. They were later arrested. In response to the arrest, 4 other Haredi men attacked another bus with hammers, smashing its windows),

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

How is this not relevant to Haredi intolerance towards 'immodest' women in public? The very reason the attack took place is that these Haredim were unpleased with the notion of a woman sitting in the front of a bus, because it is 'immodest'. This source was previously discussed on the talk page. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the term "'immodest' women" is used mainly for women who are not dressed modestly. Whether this is correct or not, women doing 'immodest' things deserve a separate footnote. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The concept of Tsniut (צניעות; Modesty) in Judaism, and in particular in Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, is all-encompassing, for both men and women. It's not only about the dress code, although that element is the one most commonly emphasized and actively protested about. It is a general moral code. There's a nice Wikipedia page about it in English, and an even better one in Hebrew. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How dare you misrepresent the incident. She was not forced. This has indeed been discussed above. And you did not reply to my post of 12:38, 14 August 2013 which clarified that in this incident NO VIOLENCE WAS USED AGAINST AN IMMODESTLY DRESSED WOMEN. You are perverting the course of justice. PLEASE STOP. Chesdovi (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• on a modestly dressed woman hanging 'immodest' posters (#10. A news report of 3 Haredi men from Beit Shemesh who surrounded and woman's car, stoned her and shouted "prostitute" at her | #12. A news report (January 2012) of Haredim who attacked and stoned a woman and her car near a synagogue for hanging 'immodest' signs), or on a woman firefighter #13. A news report (October 2012) of Haredim who attacked and injured a woman firefighter while she was trying to put out a fire in a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem),

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

Haredi intolerance towards public display of 'immodesty' by women. Again, relevant. Again, have been discussed on the talk page before. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, women doing 'immodest' things deserve a separate footnote. And I honestly don't see why anyone would deem putting out a fire 'immodest'. The news report does not specify why the woman was attacked. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See my previous comment with regard to the connection between this and 'immodesty'. In the firefighter's case... First, the report states that they only attacked the female firefighter. That was while she was trying to put out a fire in the own neighbourhood. Now... This occurred in the Me'a She'arim (100 Gates) neigbourhood. I have lived in Israel my entire life. There isn't a week passing without a report of some secular person being attacked in that Neighbourhood. The reason for the attacks, when seculars are involved, is always one relating to immodesty. These had in the past, for instance, been cases of policemen being attacked for trying to come in physical contact with Haredi women - something considered 'highly immodest'. There's no doubt whatsoever that the female firefigher was attacked because she was a woman. It is well known in Israel that anyone wearing 'immodest' clothing who gets into that neighbourhood is going to be attacked, and she was wearing 'immodest' (men's) clothing in there. This fact is so well known, that Sasha Baron Cohen, when making the film Brüno, intentionally got into that neighbourhood wearing immodest clothing so to provoke and be attacked, which indeed happened (and that scene is in the film). Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How dare you decide what the reason behind the violence with regard to the fire woman was. Nowhere in that one paragraph "article" is there any mention of immodesty. THIS IS ALL YOUR OWN OR. How you have the nerve to even suggest that women who are caught hanging inappropriate posters are attacked for being "dressed immodestly." Your editing here is atrocious. You have decided by yourself as to what is deemed to be considered immodest behavior. Yet the text of the article itself does not even mention this, but "dress" alone. This is ludicrous. Chesdovi (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(As I explained above#Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013), perhaps links to some of these reports might be appropriate somewhere else in the article (or in a different article); but lumping them all together under the banner of "'immodest' women" only makes a mess out of the article. In the meantime, they should all be removed (and parked here on the talkpage), until someone finds the time to insert each report (if appropriate) to its proper location).

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

Have explained their relevance, though it's already quite clear from reading the reports, and some have already been discussed on the talk page before (apparently, you haven't read most of it in depth). Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• inserted A news report (July 2013) of a 15 year old girl who had been spat on and cursed by a Haredi man for being 'immodest' and walking near a Haredi educational facility (#7 & 14) twice;

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

Sorry, my bad. Replaced number 14 with another relevant news report. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, maybe somewhere else in the article (or in a different article) but not in the footnote under "'immodest' women". -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• re-replaced "mainstream rabbis of the Haredi society" with "mainstream Rabbis of the Haredi society";

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

Not sure why this was done. Probably by accident. I have no issues here. You want the 'R' in 'Rabbis' to be a small 'r'? OK. Who cares... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? Wikipedia editors must adhere to Wikipedia rules. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• restored the word "interestingly", classified as editorializing as I explained above;

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

OK, agreed. Deleted. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• restored the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence (as I explained above): "There have been more extreme cases, too";

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

OK. Agreed. Deleted. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• re-replaced "Some Haredi publications have censored pictures" with "Some Haredi publications have been known to censor pictures";

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

Because this is the language used in the sources. Also, these publications have serially done so, thus - "have been known to do so". Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. How about "Some Haredi publications have repeatedly censored pictures"? Would you be satisfied with that wording? -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Done. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• re-replaced "'Mehadrin' buses — bus lines" (m-dash) with "'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines" (n-dash);

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

I don't quite understand what you mean - that's the same sentence, isn't it?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I might have confused en dashes with hyphens (even though I use them in my username). Please see Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• redeleted the words "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" together with the accompanying reference ("Kobre, Eytan (Dec/28/11). "In The Hot Seat". Mishpacha. Retrieved Oct/30/13. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)");

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13

YES! Because this is a lie. Allow me to quote my own explanation on this very talk page, which you seem to have not read, though I've written it some 24 hours ago: "It has been previously argued, for instance, that in Mehadrin buses, "men are expected to move to the front". The reality of the matter is that in Israeli buses you can usually only go up the bus from the front, so the man and women all enter through the front, and the women are forced to sit in the back. I have provided 3 sources for this, and could provide 20 more if required. Additionally, to my personal knowledge, there had been cases in which in Mehadrin buses, women were forced to get up the bus from the back to begin with, to make sure they'd stay there (which is illegal by transportation regulations)". Jonathan.bluestein (talk)

OK. The article now states: "requiring men to sit in the front and women to sit in the back." Are you satisfied with that? -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't care what Jonathan thinks is the reality. For his information I myself, a male, WAS "FORCED" BY WOMEN TO THE FRONT OF A BUS - and reluctantly I agreed leaving my mother and sister by themselves on a long intercity journey. I was not pleased. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN!!!! You don't know what goes on in your own country. SHAME ON YOU!!! Chesdovi (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Chesdovi, did you forget? No using capital letters to "shout". -- -- -- 09:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• restored the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence (as I explained above): "The cause for the existence of 'Mehadrin' buses was, to begin with, the wishes of many Haredi communities to further set men and women physically apart, for the same reasons and rationale that called for 'modest' female display in public." — Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 07:35, 31/Oct/13 The reason why this last sentence is unnecessary is because it already says before that: "These bus lines were created due to the wishes of Haredi communities to eliminate what they consider "unnecessary mingling" between members of opposite genders." So what do we gain by repeating that in different (& unencyclopedic) words?

— Preceding comment added by -- -- --, 08:15, 31/Oct/13

You are right. There were in the article two separate paragraphs which discussed the Mehadrin buses. When I merged them together, I did not notice this unnecessary duality. This is now fixed. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- -- -- 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not restore any of these without proper explanation. -- -- -- 07:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proper explanations were now given.  :-) I have also added two additional sources (one as explained before, the other regarding Haredi rabbis inciting against Yair Lapid). Thank you for your corrections. Please note that user Nomoskedasticity have also stated that he sees nothing wrong with these sources we have been discussing. I have kept minor and useful changes which have been done to the page since my last edit. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding one youtube source which Chesdovi has issues with... The sentence it was linked to discussed late Haredi rabbi's Ovadia Yosef's halacha. The video is one of Ovadia Yosef himself talking about the matter. It is the most relevant source there is, even though it's on youtube. It's like linking to a video of Obama speaking about healthcare on the Obamacare page. Nothing is more valid than the person quoted speaking for himself. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As for this source - I have accepted the correction edit and kept it. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-addition of primary sources

Nomoskedasticity, instead of igniting another petty edit war, why on earth do you not take your concerns to talk where it can be explained why these source have been "previously rejected"?! You see, it is totally forbidden for me to re-add text, but perfectly fine for you to re-add. The hypocrisy of it! Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is discussed above. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Above and elsewhere. Let me remind you: Regarding your citation:

"Origin of the rule of not looking at things which can cause sexual arousal is in the Book of numbers 15:39: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם"

This was not only removed by myself citing WP:PRIMARY, but removed again by Drmies on Aug 05: "rm reference to primary sources: the issue here is not what could possibly be deduce from those citations, but what is actually deduced from them and the application thereof." Further, you had seemed to understand we cannot use this as a source after the following comment at DRN:

Jonathan.bluestein from your explanations above, your abstracted arguments are as follows (correct me if I'm wrong):

Premise 1: The Book of Numbers has a verse in Hebrew.

Premise 2: You and other Hebrews you know of interprets this verse as a rule of "not looking at things that causes sexual arousal".

Conclusion: The Book of Numbers contains a rule of "not looking at things that causes sexual arousal".

The problem here now is on premise 2. This is a very obvious case of social proof. Wikipedia does not operate upon social proof: information written on Wikipedia must be verifiable AND reliably sourced. Here I quote the policy on verifiability: [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Fear not though, if what you say is really true, then it should be relatively easy for you to find reliable sources to support your statement. You have mentioned that you have taken material on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and although the Hebrew Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, you should be able to make use the references of the equivalent article on the Hebrew Wikipedia.

Ki Chjang (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

...yet you have just re-added it again? (and probably numerious other times too.) [3].

So what do you want to do? Ignore sound advice from other experienced editors on what belongs and what does not, show an interesting intransigence on your part by first agreeing to keep material out and then reneging by re-inserting it later, or simply ignore policy persistently? The choice is yours. Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You playing dumb again Chesdovi?... As a Haredi Jew, you should know what that sentence means. But here are my 'social proofs'... We're talking about the sentence: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם" from the Book of Numbers (ספר דברים). OK, here we go in terms of proof that what I wrote is 'common knowledge'. I guess that'd do. Just in case you have any difficulty with all of these Hebrew sources supporting my interpretation and claim, here's an article in English from Chabad's website, pretty much confirming the same. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As has just been demonstrated, Jonathan has no idea what he is doing here. He needs to be blocked from this page asap. Chesdovi (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am hereby copying a continuation of this discussion from another page (Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)):

It is unfortunate that after all this time Jonathan still cannot grasp why primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia. Let me just reveal to him that the biblical injunction which forbids gazing lustfully at women is not learnt from the one which he insists he learnt in bible class. It is in fact primarily induced from Deuteronomy 23:10. And let him also be aware that there is no source in the classic Jewish texts that forbids men looking at women. The problem only arises when a man needs to recite a prayer in which case he cannot do so in the presence of certain areas of uncovered flesh. He claims to know everything, but in truth knows very little. This ignorance will not continue to feature on Wikipedia! In his latest limp attempt to provide sources for why men avert their eyes, he has managed to collect no less than 8 "sources". THEY ARE ALL INVALID! I fear for the Israeli bar! Let me proceed to demonstrate the problems, and this will be the last time I will do so:

To substantiate his claim:

"Haredim who live among secular citizens usually either ignore the way the latter are dressed, or in the case of Haredi men, even go as far as looking the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female"

He cited: "Origin of the rule of not looking at things which can cause sexual arousal is in the Book of numbers, in a verse stating: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם" (see: ספר במדבר, טו, לט)</ref>" By using a raw primary source, he in in fact using original research to substantiate the claim that men "look the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female" hence his use of quotations, for by his standards the women are not "overly exposed"! Let him just find a proper source which will back his claim without the need for quotations. He finds no problem with this bible verse as a source, but in an effort to placate me he provides the following:

1. "The very extensive Hebrew Wikipedia page discussing the matter, mentioning this verse as the source for the rule prohibiting to look at private parts"

The "source" in in fact Hebrew Wikipedia which cannot be used as source. HE HAS BEEN TOLD ABOUT THIS BUT STILL PERSISTS TO USE IT!!!!!

Yes, this is not to be used on page itself. This was put on the talk page for your reading pleasure, as it's a very well written source in Hebrew. No wonder you got upset about this one the most, as it says, and I quote: "מקור האיסור הכללי להרהור עבירה נדרש בחז"ל על סמך הנאמר בספר במדבר בסוף פרשת ציצית: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם". Which translates as: "The source for the general prohibition of pondering an offense (the offense of looking at private parts, mentioned in the title of that page) is..." the phrase Jonathan has been speaking of  :-) Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

2. "Explanation by Maimonides, linking this rule to prohibition of looking at 'matters of prostitution'"

He uses a text of Jewish law discussing the laws of Idol Worship. (He mistranslates the words "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות as 'matters of prostitution") But nowhere in this primary source does it mention men avert their eyes from women to prevent arousal. It is not discussing that but Idol worship. No wonder...

Really? Allow me to quote from this source: "ועל עניין זה הזהירה תורה, ונאמר בה "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, ואחרי עיניכם, אשר אתם זונים, אחריהם" (במדבר טו,לט)--כלומר לא יימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה, וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת. כך אמרו חכמים, "אחרי לבבכם", זו מינות; "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות". Translation: "And of this matter the Torah has warned, and it was said in it: "And you shall not go after your heart, and after your eyes, as you are whoring after them (in their footsteps). Meaning - each one of you may be pulled after his short-sighted thought, and mistakenly take his thought to be the truth. Thus said the wise: "After your hearts" - that is (means) sexuality, and "after your eyes" is prostitution (also whoring)". We hereby see that in this source, the interpretation of that sentence from the Book of Numbers is said to mean that looking after the heart's desires is pursuing sexuality (מיניות), and following the eye's desires is prostitution/whoring. The reader is therefore advised not to do so. That is pretty much the interpretation I had presented. Mind you, that is an interpretation by Maimonides - are you claiming him to not be a Jewish authority? Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Jonathan, but מינות does not mean "sexuality" at all. It should not be confused with מיניות, a Modern Hebrew word invented by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. (If you like Hebrew Wikipedia, then please see מינות (יהדות).) So you can see how we might get into problems when using primary sources. -- -- -- 09:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

3. "An article from a book in the Habad library explaining that the meaning of the sentence is that following the whims of the eyes and heart is like an act of prostitution"

This is a excerpt of a discourse, a primary source, which nowhere mentions that the verse is used as a reason why men avert their eyes from women.

Sorry. I seem to have mistakenly assumed that one some Jewish religious authority writes that some act is "like that of a whore", he meant that by default, it's something that you should avoid. Isn't this common sense?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

4. "An article with a quote by Rashi, explaining that this sentence means that the eyes and heart lure the eyes to make an offense, and therefore one should not look"

This source does even mention the word "women".

From the source: "Rashi says: ...the heart and eyes are spies for the body and pimp them into doing offenses (Jonathan: as in pimp of whores). The eye sees, and the heart covets, and the body (physically) acts upon the offenses". I find that this supports my claim and interpretation. It's pretty clear to any Jew what sort of "offenses" there are on matters of a combination of what the eyes can see and the heart desires. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

5. "This article from an Israeli Yeshiva explains that the meaning of the sentence is that the eyes and heart create lust and wanting by looking and thinking about something."

This article actually discusses the issue of reading heretical material. It contains the paragraph from Maimonides Jonathan brought above in source 2, which does not link women and the verse?!

This article adds more from Maimonides, following the previous quote: "When it says 'that is prostitution', he (the author) means - to continue (follow) after the lustful and materialistic desires, and occupy the thought with them at all times". This simply adds to what has been stated earlier. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

6. "Rabbi Bnayahu Bruner from mainstream Conservative Jewish website Kipa answering a question about this quote, and explaining it means that one should rule over man's inner lust, and avoid the direction in which his heart and eyes lure him"

Nowhere in this source does it mention women. Neither should we use a Conservative source to substantiate Haredi behaviour!

With all due respect for Haredi behaviour, Judaism does not solely belong to the Haredim, and there is also room for the opinions and interpretations of Secular, Reform and Conservative Jews. Many of their interpretations are, in any case, identical or very similar to those of Haredim, with the chief difference being the importance each stream gives to the words and commandments. An answer by a rabbi or either a Haredi or Conservative website would not normally include mentioning of sexual matters in an explicit way, because this is considered immodest. You know that well. Instead, as in other sources, Haredim and Conservative Jews discuss such matters using evasive language, speaking of these matters by referring to them using more polite words and terminologies... Which are nonetheless obvious to most Jews, as they are to you and me. Here's a translation of most of that answer: "that sentence (the one we're discussing) includes in it a saying of a moral and (moral) principle nature, which means that one should govern the lusts which are embedded within man; that the eyes and heart are "pimps of the offenses", as Chazal have said. And therefore the gist of the warning is against following the lusts of the heart, in case the eyes help them (these lusts) to come true in a substantial way. A man who is impressed by what his eyes see might end up in a state in which his eyes would drag him to a place he does not want to be in spiritually, and therefore it is for the best that one uses his brain any action one does". This, again, I find supportive of my claim. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

7. "An article confirming that this interpretation of the verse is the most common interpretation"

Again, no mention of women here.

This source states that the majority of those (earlier) rabbis who 'counted' the commandments (decided which was important and which wasn't) included the one found in this sentence to be an important and independent commandment. Then it is explained further that this majority opinion is detailed in the interpretations of Rashi and Maimonides which I've already quoted earlier. In other words - it seems that this article is suggesting that whatever these two rabbis said (and the article quotes what I quoted before), is the more common take on this verse. This strengthens my claim, mind you, and makes it more relevant. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

8. " http://m.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7906/jewish/Chapter-27.htm"

A primary source which just mentions "sinful thoughts". Not women.

You know as well as I do that when Haredim talk of 'Sinful Thoughts', using that terminology, they almost always mean things related to women. This is ridiculous... I call for anyone who reads this who had ever seen an Ultra-orthodox Jew to ask him whether the term 'sinful thoughts' in Haredi and Conservative Judaism is related to immodest thoughts relating to women. The answer you'd get is: "Yes, most often it is a case in which a man is thinking immodest thoughts about a woman, and this is forbidden". This is a very integral part of Haredi society and education, and Chesdovi is taking advantage of the fact that many of the people reading this are non-Jews to pretend that this is not so. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The use of all these fake "sources" is an attempt by Jonathan to back up his own assertions. These are not reliable sources by any means. He keeps filling with this article with similar rubbish. Why must we put up with this any longer. It has been going on far too long. He will just not listen. He has no understanding of what policy demands here. He has left this article a total and utter mess. Chesdovi (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you just call sources from Maimonides and Rashi fake?  :-D Are you serious? They're some of the most well-known Jews to have ever lived, and considered to have been two of the greatest Rabbis who ever lived among pretty much all religious Jews. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan, you still don't get it? Primary source does not mean that the author of the source is fake. It just cannot be used according to Wikipedia's standards. -- -- -- 09:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note - it was Chesdovi who had been calling these 'fake sources', not myself (" ...The use of all these fake "sources"... "). I was referring to the language he was using. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Weasel Words" discussion

Chesdovi has been claiming for quite a while now that I've been using 'weasel words'. This section is meant to discuss those accusations.

It has been claimed, for instance, that the following sentence which I have written contained 'weasel words': "Haredi society is generally intolerant of physical exposure of the female body — especially in public, and more so in areas in which Haredim live". Please feel free to elaborate as to why you believe this phrasing to be incorrect or inaccurate, especially in light of the many, many sources pointing otherwise. I'd like to also add, that I don't even take this phrasing to be 'controversial'. I think that most Haredim, when asked, would gladly admit that Haredi society is intolerant of 'immodesty', and proud of that 'social standard'. It's not derogatory or offensive, as it's the way the Haredim think of themselves. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Intolerance" is a pejorative which has negative connotations. Much like the "ultra" in Orthodox. Would we say secular Israelis are intolerant of Arab neighbours? Chesdovi (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends. If they are in fact intolerant of Arab neighbours, then sure, we would say so. (I know other Israelis who are not intolerant of Arab neighbours; Chesdovi, maybe you should get out more.) I think the sentence in question (above) is incisive and does not contain "weasel words". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, in view of the fact that 75% of Israelis would not live in a building with Arabs, shall we describe the majority of Israeli Jews as intolerant racist bigots? I am sure 99% of Haredim are very tolerant of the uncovered female form. Then again, it depends who it is who is actually exposed. Chesdovi (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How enlightening. Twenty percent of Israelis are themselves Arabs. How many of them do you suppose object to living in a building with Arabs? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the 2008 poll only polled Israeli Jews. If "Intolerance" is to be used, it will need to backed by RS: "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view." Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And it came naturally to you to elide "Israelis" and "Israeli Jews". Color me surprised. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Chesdovi - the many sources I included which reported of Haredi violence against women always stemmed from the fact the the Haredim who attacked these women honestly felt provoked by their 'immodesty'. Even though I condemn the acts, I do not doubt the sincerity when they consider this a direct and rude provocation - they really believe it. Now, as we all know, there are 'unwritten rules' about getting into Haredi neighbourhoods in Israel (and even some abroad); much as there are such rules when getting into many Arab neighbourhoods in Israel. These rules are about how not to provoke the local population, as such provocation would often result in expressed anger, which can easily lead to violence, or at the least, quick deportation from that area. Bnei-Brak and Jerusalem are the two most major Haredi cities in Israel. In both, one sees signs calling visitors to adopt a 'modest' way of dress and behaviour (the municipality of Bnei Brak even put up stone signs at the entrances to the city for that purpose). They need not specify what is meant, because every Israeli knows what Haredim mean when they ask for such things (even the Arabs and Druze know... see last reference). You cannot walk in these places with your body overly exposed under any circumstances, not even as a man (I've brought Sasha Baron Cohen's example several times before on this talk page, and examples with women are abundant in the dozens of sources I added). You cannot preach or engage in other religions or preach for them. You cannot get in there with a car on the Sabbath... etc. Given these circumstances and well-known facts among the Israeli public, would it be unjust to say that Haredi society is intolerant of female immodesty? I mean, if the municipality of Bnei Brak itself erected signs suggesting they're intolerant of such behaviour - what else could you ask for? Perhaps in another city you could have argued that yeah, the mayor wasn't elected by the majority. But the current mayor of Bnei Brak has been elected by over 90% of voters. That's pretty much unparalleled in support compared to any other mayor in Israel. Mind you, I think that means that pretty much most people approve of what this municipality is doing... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The signs at the entrance to Bnei Brak says: אנא כבדו את אורח חיינו בכניסתכם לעיר, meaning "Please honor the way of our life." To use that as proof of "intolerance" is absurd. -- -- -- 10:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on notions of "ownership" of public spaces, and on whether expectations of this sort are generalised. The meaning of the request is (in part): don't come in to "our" space dressed in ways we don't like. Imagine how this would play if the roles were reversed, i.e., if residents of Ramat Aviv decided they didn't want to see people walking around dressed in long black coats and shtreimels (and put up a sign to announce this expectation). This would surely be interpreted (reasonably) as intolerance, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

(Added after JB's latest 2 post below, but written in response to the above thread):

What Nomo and JB have said is most probably correct. In Mea Shearim the signs are very clear that immodest dress is a no no. And the hardcore secular are indeed intolerant of the religious. (Should we add the occurrence of secular physical attacks on religious people at Hilonim?) I nevertheless feel the word "intolerant" is a particularly loaded one which needs to be assessed for usage. I can tell you now that while modest dress may be preferred by all Haredim, it is only a tiny fraction who react and are therefore "intolerant" towards it. I would suggest that the vast majority of Haredim who see exposed female shoulders and midriffs just ignore it, meaning they do tolerate it. Many rabbis are "forced" to tolerate it officiating at the wedding of secular Jews. In the Neighbourhoods section, I only used the word in quotations viz-a-viz driving on shabbat. Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate this very reasonable response. I have no objection to the addition of "intolerance" and physical attacks to the Hilonim article (as a matter of personal view, I deplore attacks of this sort no matter who makes them), though this will have to be discussed at that article. What matters, of course, is whether there is significant press coverage regarding attacks -- and there's no question that there is such coverage of Haredi attacks on "immodest" women. In assessing whether this is intolerance: it only takes a few for the people who might visit these areas to experience "intolerance" -- and this experience is clear not just in physical attacks but in the verbal abuse (much more prevalent). There's also the fact that women dressed in "immodest" ways stay away, in accurate expectation of not being tolerated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Some basics premises in various Democracies, including the one in Israel, are that the Ownership of public soil is for everyone to share and use freely, and that free use of this public space should have no limitations, unless one is harming others (Democratic Liberalism). The streets of Bnei Brak belong equally to all Israelis. Thus, every Israeli should be free do do whatever he wishes on these streets, as long he or she are not harming the rights of others. The municipality of Bnei Brak knows this, and therefore could not enact a municipal law forbidding people from 'acting in a secular way' or 'dressing immodestly' - that would have been unconstitutional. But, they could by subtle means, such as these signs, convey the message that one is better not 'pissing off the Haredim living in that city'. The signs say: "Please honor our way of life". Why? Technically, no one has such obligation by law or by principle. It serves two purposes. The first being a passive sort of threat. It makes sure that if you wanna get into the city, you know that in it there would be people that would have issues with some dress codes. Secondly, it is a form of an order. The signs are official municipal signs. When the municipality of any city "asks" for something on an official sign, people understand this to mean: "you better do this, or else... fine/jail/arrest/etc". Also - why isn't it the case that no non-Haredi city asks for people to behave/dress in certain ways? Why is it only the Haredim who deserve to 'have their way of life honored' by default?... Thus, it is not so farfetched to suggest that Haredi society is intolerant of 'immodest' behaviour. Neither is that a secrect. Haredim are most often proud of that sort of intolerance, and consider it to be a proof for their religious devotion. Such are things know to everyone living in Israel, but apparently not quite as known outside of it. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The following article and news report speaks of these signs. It states the following: "One cannot get into some stores and supermarkets in Bnei Brak while dressed in 'immodest clothing'"....."segregation between the sexes exists in shopping malls, restaurants, buses, etc"....."Bnei Brak municipal spokesman said that the purpose of the signs was to prevent women getting into the city with cleavages". Is that not intolerance? Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that "intolerant" is the right word to use.

1. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material".
2. According to Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". So you need to find a source that uses the word "intolerant".
3. While hilonim have no "bible" forbidding them to look at shtreimels, religious Jews view immodest women as harming them by putting a stumbling block in front of them. Would we write at Blindness that blind people are "intolerant" of stumbling blocks? There must be a better word for that, with less of a negative connotation. The "Weasel Word" tag was put there in order to indicate that it is preferable that a better word should be found as a substitution; and I think the tag should be restored. -- -- -- 02:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You compared blindness and a religious commandment. Religion is a choice. Blindness is not. When a religious person doesn't want to look at something, that's called 'turning a blind eye', and not 'blindness'. The reason they don't want to look is, just like you have admitted, that their interpretation of religion is *intolerant* towards these types of 'immodest sightings'. At the very least, they might be tolerant people, but their religious interpretation is intolerant. In any case, that has brought them to try and dictate to others a way of dress and behaviour. This is anti-liberal, and thus intolerant, by definition. In a Democracy, you don't get to dictate to other people how to behave, unless special circumstances are due (your children, soldiers, etc). By telling people 'you should behave in this way', one removes responsibility for one's own actions. Instead of avoiding to look at immodest people and things, and not think 'immodest thoughts', the Haredim prefer to force others to modify their behaviour. When you can avoid being agitated by someone's behaviour, but instead choose to force that person to modify his or her behaviour so you won't have to work too hard at it - is that not a form of intolerance towards that person's behaviour?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ban request for User:Jonathan.bluestein

As no conclusion was reached at Ban request for User:Jonathan.bluestein, does this mean Jonathan.bluestein has been given the green-light to edit this page at whim? Chesdovi (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

At whim? Certainly not. But the proposed ban was manifestly not adopted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

18 sources - citation overkill?

Does Nomoskedasticity really feel 18 sources are needed to demonstrate the one point that women deemed immodesty dressed are harassed? In an effort to prevent WP:CITECLUTTER, J Bluestein felt it necessary to instead merge all 18 sources into one ugly footnote. I find Nomo’s view fascinating and would like him to explain why each source is required; this in light of the fact that it has been shown time and again that most of the sources do not in fact support the assertion! Chesdovi (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

These sources have been under scrutiny since they were first added, and they have been re-added many times again and again without a reached agreement. In view of this fact, these sources should really not be re-added until consensus has been gained first? Chesdovi (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There were at least 5 different users on this page who expressed support of keeping the sources, all or some - Myself, Nomoskedasticity, Zero, some anonymous person with only an IP address (188.222.98.201) and user Dannyorbach. User -- -- -- only objected some of the sources, and I have reached a consensus with him regarding some others (though not all). Chesodvi - you are the only one who had always expressed disagreement with everything I have added. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm awaitng the reply of Nomoskedasticity who actually knows what the editing guidlines demand here. So back to the park. Chesdovi (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no good reason to eliminate sources. Chesdovi's assertion that most of them do not support the text in question is, well, merely an assertion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

An assertion you will kindly assess by locating where they have been discussed previously on this talk page and in the relevant edit summaries and giving us your view. Meanwhile, your bland response is not satisfactory enough to permit me allowing these sources to remain in the article. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, your re-adding of material which has been earmarked for discussion is disruptive. Chesdovi (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Separation barriers on US buses

-- -- --: clarification is needed regarding the setup on US buses. While the B110 was indeed back/front, the intercity routes seem to have a curtain straight down the middle of the aisle. Chesdovi (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't a clue about that one. I wasn't the one who added that. Just saying Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. -- -- -- 03:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not classical, but conservative

It is not "classical stream of Judaism", it is conservative stream of Judaism. Conservatism has many areas. There are no such things as "classical stream of Christianity" either. Classical sounds so interesting and unique. Haredi is conservative and fundamentalist. Haredi themselves will say they are classical but generally they are conservative. 66.110.185.244 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Forced marriage?

Bluestien added: "Some couples are not given a choice about their marriage-match." What exactly does this mean? Also, when a proper source is found, I wonder if it will enlighten us as to how widespread this coercion is. This will decide whether such information is due in this article. I think this type of matchmaking occurs in Hasidic circles only. If so, probably belongs elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Forced marriage never occurs, even in Hasidic circles. Rather, young men and women most willingly agree to the choice of marriage offered by their parents, sincerely believing that the parents are more knowledgeable in choosing an appropriate match than they are. See Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 3#Family and Lifestyle. The wording in the article should be improved. -- -- -- 03:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

P. S. I am not sure if this is the case among non-Hasidic Haredi circles. -- -- -- 03:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it must occur to some extent, otherwsie how could Bluestein have added it? Chesdovi (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Bluestein's primary sources (Talmud, Shulchan Aruch) happen to state that a forced marriage is invalid. -- -- -- 00:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Haredi judaism does not always follow what it says in talmud and shulchan aruch, working for a living vs. learning in yeshiva is a case in point. (see O"H 156 and Y"D 245-6). But no, they do not "force" their children directly, however in certain chasidic Communities there is a certain degree of amorphous social pressure to agree to the parent's choice, although this is declining. 85.250.90.205 (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well lets removes Bluestein’s incomprehensible additions then. Shall I? Chesdovi (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Moved" material

@Chesdovi: please point to the edit that "moved" the material in question. The problem is perhaps that you have made edits recently without edit summaries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You added the following text:

Following these trends in Haredi societies during late 20th and early 21st centuries, additional companies and organizations in Israel have began to eliminate females from their advertisements.[80][81] The bus company Egged refused to portray women on bus advertisements in Haredi-populated areas because of intensive Haredi vandalism of such ads.[82]

The first clause appears in Other issues section as:

“For this reason, some companies and organizations in Israel refrain from including women or other images deemed immodest in their advertisements to avoid Haredi consumer boycotts.”

The second clause appears in the Neighborhoods section as:

“By 2011, Egged had gradually removed all bus adverts which featured women in response to their continuous defacement.”

So please stop continuously reading duplicate material which has been in the article for many months till now. Chesdovi (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind explanation. I suggest more enlightening edit summaries (or really, *any* edit summary) in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Lack of WP:NPOV in this article

This article is unbefitting of WP that espouses a WP:NPOV and does not seek to attack any religion or religion, unlike this article has unfortunately become a slanted and biased against Haredi Judaism painting it in extreme colors and shades and needs an overhaul. I would like to start this discussion here with two simple questions for User Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) namely:

1. How http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Haredi (the lede's "top" reference for an extreme assertion) qualifies as WP:RS?
2. And how can anyone justify that Haredi Judaism is described in the lede by ONE seemingly critical/negative phrase: "characterized by rejection of modern secular culture" when it can easily be refuted that that assertion is false because there is not "one" brand of Haredim. How would such a sentence look if it was the opening description of a branch of Roman Catholicism like the Jesuits for example when there is not one "brand" of RC either.

I look forward to this discussion. Thank you. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty standard way of characterising the Haredim. I'm not sure why you think it's negative -- and even if you think of it that way it's pretty obvious that most Haredim don't think it's negative. As for sources -- if you don't like that dictionary, then perhaps this one, or a book by Barry Rubin [4], or this one [5]. It's not an attack, and again it's a pretty conventional characterisation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity and thanks for responding. Let's face it, this article does not in any way depict Haredim and Haredi Judaism for what they really are in and of themselves. It is often a poor caricaturization and parody of them rather then an attempt at really describing and explaining them. I am looking and reading the intro very carefully now and the following is very troubling: 1 How is "Haredi Judaism...is a stream of Orthodox Judaism characterized by rejection of modern secular culture" a positive phrase, or any way to introduce a subject? Is that what they are, period? Is that what defines any sociological or religious group? Like saying "Christians are defined by there rejection of Judaism, Islam and Hinduism etc" Is that what "defines" Christianity? No! If one was serious one starts with what they believe in and not in what they reject. I think you get my point here. 2 If all you have in this introduction is that Haredi Judaism is a "rejection of modern secular culture" then how does one account for the fact there is not "one" kind of Haredi Judaism, in the United States there are huge numbers, tens of thousands who embrace modernity and life in the secular world; they are university educated professionals; tens of thousands of Haredim are lawyers, accountants, and work in all industries, while in Israel they participate in the political system, have political parties and are involved in all strata of its economic life. How come if they reject modernity and secular culture would they participate in modernity and the institutions of secular culture?? Of course they are religious Jews and they are not atheists, but they live and work in the modern secular world like everyone else. 3 There has to be a better definition of what is meant by "by rejection of modern secular culture" and it does not belong in the opening sentence of a WP article. Sure, their attitudes and beliefs should be discussed, but later on, only once it is established what they are for, and not what they are allegedly against. 4 Basically the main problem with this article is that it focuses on the strictest or narrowest groups such as the Hasidim and Haredim in Israel, while it overlooks the huge numbers of more moderate Haredim in North America who are neither Hasidim nor do they reject modernity or life in the secular world often having good secular educations through high school, college and beyond who are also classed as Haredim because they are not Modern Orthodox and are as much part of the Haredi world as the Hasidim, as proven by their huge numbers as laypersons in Agudath Israel of America. Even in its earliest origins there was the Torah im Derech Eretz movement of Haredim of Western Europe. 5 Your sources are problematic for the same reasons. One big problem is that you are citing secular refs that have no understanding of the religious contexts and can safely be assumed to be biased, among other problems that I will elaborate on, but let's deal with the above first. Thanks again for your theoretical academic interest which I am also trying to understand as much as the article itself as to why you are acting in such a WP:OWNY way here?? Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• See some more related questions about what is going on here at User talk:Nomoskedasticity#Oxford Round Table versus Haredi Judaism articles. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm -- that section didn't work out very well for you, did it. As for sources: there is nothing at all wrong with using "secular" sources, and it's disturbing that you think they are "biased". As for WP:OWN -- what we need here is input from other editors. I see you've requested this, and it will be interesting to see what comes next. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The point was very simple and it stands, can you explain why the Oxford Round Table (ORT) article starts out logically with a NPOV statement about what it stands for, while this Haredi Judaism article has to tolerate what it is "against" ? -- that question you have not answered. As for your affiliation with or against ORT you yourself are the source of the confusion, and it's troubling. As I have pointed out (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table; User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives#Conflict of interest warning; User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives#Oxford Round Table; User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives#Oxford Round Table again) sometimes you come off as defending them, like when you vote to "Keep" the article about them, and at other times you get into edit wars over what they do. But it is also fascinating to see just how tenaciously you want to have a grip on this article. IZAK (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you interested in editing the article on the Oxford Round Table? If so: Talk:Oxford Round Table. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw the post on WT:JUDAISM. I have only one thing I would like to mention at this point. The definition of Haredi as given by the source above is a negative one, meaning that it describes what Haredi is not and what it is against. I think a positive definition would be more useful, but the question is if such a definition can be found, and if it would be sufficient to describe the term haredi. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can and should have a definition that does both. It appears to be a widespread view in secondary sources that the Haredim are characterised by rejection of modern/secular culture. But perhaps we can also include a "positive" defining characteristic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article should be written in the affirmative. It shouldn't start out by saying that "Charedi…is a stream of Orthodox Judaism characterized by rejection of modern secular culture." Rather it should start out by saying that Charedim embrace certain directions in life such as the cultivation of a modest lifestyle expressed not only in clothing, but in most other factors as well. This would fall under the heading of Tzniut, which strangely the article does not even link to. The article should speak in the affirmative about the clear emphasis on the leading of a Jewish lifestyle among Haredi even if this is shared with other Orthodox Jews. Further down in the article various factors are mentioned such as separation of the genders under various circumstances, but perhaps this could be brought into the lead. The lead is too negative. Even the "bickering" that is brought out concerning which group of Orthodox Jews are most authentic is sort of negative, in my opinion. And yet this is inexplicably in the lead. In my opinion this sort of thing barely warrants mention in the body of the article. This is found in the first paragraph of the lead: "Haredim regard themselves as the most religiously authentic group of Jews, and although this claim is contested by other streams, it is a perception which is often held in wider Jewish and non-Jewish society." I perceive the tone in that sentence to be argumentative. I don't think it belongs in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Users Debresser (talk · contribs) and Bus stop (talk · contribs). The core problem is actually very simple, that when discussing Haredi Jews and Judaism, otherwise well-educated and rational secular, academic, non-Orthodox writers and scholars lose their normal dispassionate and clinical way of looking at things, and switch to one or more negative attitudes and POVs to tones of disdain, patronization, snootiness with elements of hostility, anger, disgust and many other "bad flavors" in their mouths. These type of "experts" can be found in the secular media, they infest the academic world with a snobby false sense of superiority, and many authors who pose as "Jewish experts" or "experts about Jews" are often simply Haredi-bashers to one degree or another. In Israel one can see this attitude in the political positions of the virulently anti-Haredi Yesh Atid party that is going head to head with the Haredim to uproot them wherever they can. While that may be part of the secular, academic and political reality, it does NOT belong on Wikipedia because WP subscribes to WP:NPOV plain and simple. So it is pretty ironic that while WP has many good articles on Haredim and Haredi topics, but the lead article itself is infested with the type of snooty, haughty, disdainful air that is so pervasive outside of the Haredi world. And it must change to have credibility otherwise it is just another piece of trashy "yellow journalism" junk verbiage not worthy of a great encyclopedia. A simple way to understand this is via the phenomenon of antisemitism that while almost any Jew can sense when it is in the air, it is sadly often-times the default mental and POV of many people on Earth who just don't get what is wrong with it (they just think Jews have horns...!), and likewise the minority Haredim (viewed as black garbed "ogres") among the majority of secular Jews suffers the same way the minority of Jews suffers from the lies, half-truths, and vilification sadly often leading to sanctions and even violence, among the majority of gentiles who quite often don't get it and don't want to get it and would not recognize the truth and the facts if it struck them in the face a thousand times. It is a sad situation but fortunately WP is a WP:NPOV encyclopedia and this type of "distorting mirror" can and will be fixed. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just came across an article that talks about this, in the secular Algemeiner Journal of all places: "Blurry Glasses Reveal Hate of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (August 9, 2012)". IZAK (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear @IZAK: -- your post at 07:45 is a completely unfounded personal attack on me (even if unnamed) and I kindly request that you redact it. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity: It is not aimed at you because I can't even figure what you believe in or what you think, I know nothing about you or your background etc, so there is no reason to take it personally in any way. It is about the generic anti-Haredi perspective that even the writer in the Algemeiner can figure out. By the way, what do you think of all the sources I have now added to the material I inserted? You seem to change subjects quickly and swing from one extreme to the other searching for reasons to put yourself in the cross-hairs when there is no need to do so and there is nothing "personal" going on here. So cool it. IZAK (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You mention "editors" in your screed. So if not me, then who? At a minimum it is an attack on "otherwise well-educated and rational secular, academic, non-Orthodox … editors" -- and it needs to be redacted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: FYI, "editors" should have said "scholars" and I have changed that to make it clear. By the way, your usage of the word "screed" is obviously not nice, how about switching it to "argument", as it also reveals a mindset that makes it hard to debate you. So far you are not engaging in any real discussion, pity, I would enjoy hearing what you have to say, rather than just what you oppose or agree with. Also just saw that at one time you agreed with my point all along [6], what happened? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying Haredi is conservative is not an attack on Haredi. It is the truth. It is relative to other denominations of Judaism. 67.190.167.127 (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi anon User 67.190.167.127 (talk · contribs). No one argues that Haredi Judaism is conservative, that is not the point. The specific issue so far that I am addressing is that this article introduces the topic of Haredi Judaism with a statement of what it opposes rather than what it is, i.e. "Haredi Judaism... is a stream of Orthodox Judaism characterized by rejection of modern secular culture." And going deeper, I am then presenting why that is so, because the default mode among the majority secular and anti-Haredi outlook is usually to paint Haredim in negatives and not allow the Haredim or Haredi Judaism to be presented in a WP:NPOV manner as required on Wikipedia. Even if backed up by sources, it is incorrect to introduce a subject by what it opposes right off the bat, and not describe and explain what it stands for first. A further problem is that there is not one kind of Haredi since there are many varieties, especially many in the USA yeshiva Haredi world who are not "opposed" to modernity or to secular culture. For example, many members including the top lay leaders of the very Haredi Agudath Israel of America are university-educated professionals with degrees who live in the modern world and are fully engaged in secular culture while still retaining their Haredi identity and lifestyle. They are attorneys, accountants, doctors, computer IT experts, educators, business leaders, CEOs, CFOs, COOs employed in the private and government sectors and much more. In Israel the situation is more polarized but Haredim participate in the political process, sit in the Knesset, and are active in business, and only because most refuse army service are they vilified and not allowed to work in secular society as they do in the rest of the world that does not impose such draconian measures on them. It is not a "contradiction" as this article wishes to allege. The non-expert or Haredi-basher is often challenged and hard put, to make the difference between accepting the values and lifestyle of secular modernity versus living in the modern world and using whatever the secular world has to offer without those Haredim compromising their Haredi beliefs, i.e. accepting the primacy of Torah study, strict Shabbat observance, the authenticity Rabbinic Judaism, accepting the authority of the both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah as co-equals, being guided by Daat Torah and abiding by the Shulchan Aruch and practice of all the applicable 613 mitzvot as the final arbiters of what is right or wrong. By the way, this should all somehow be part of the introduction of what all Haredim believe in and subscribe to and not a pathetic point of what they "oppose" which is just a joke. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not denying that there are business leaders and CEOS that can be Haredi. I'm talking about the religious view of Haredi. Haredi is certainly not liberal, it is conservative and there are many different wordings that can be used to describe conservative religious doctrine. I'm not really defending the wording that says that they are opposed secular culture as it is written, but they are conservative, which means they are not secular. Read fundamentalism. Trying to describe Haredi as classical, genuine, pure, godly, unique, natural is a fundamentalist talk. This article is secular topic discussing stream of Judaism that is very conservative, as conservative a Judaism can get. I hope people don't bring in religious doctrine and ideas into these articles describing religion. There are people that are critical of Haredi and there are Haredi who wants to view themselves as the real Jews and those should be balanced out, but describing Haredi as classical is biased. People need to write religious texts in the Torah, Hebrew Bible topics not in a article objectively/relatively describing a stream of Judaism that is very conservative. People view Haredi as conservative and they are described as conservative. I hope people don't write that Haredi as liberal. Read religious fundamentalism. 67.190.167.127 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

67.190.167.127—You say "I hope people don't write that Haredi as liberal." I think we can agree to be vigilant of that. You say "There are people that are critical of Haredi and there are Haredi who wants to view themselves as the real Jews and those should be balanced out, but describing Haredi as classical is biased." I don't think this is an important point. The lead presently reads: "Haredim regard themselves as the most religiously authentic group of Jews, and although this claim is contested by other streams, it is a perception which is often held in wider Jewish and non-Jewish society." I argue for the removal of that from the lead. I think it barely warrants mention in the body of the article. This is a minor point in what should be the context of this article. Bus stop (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. 67.190.167.127 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi anonymous user 67.190.167.127 (talk · contribs) It would be great to engage you in a serious debate. You seem to be very passionate about your POV, but you are yourself veering into extremism judging by your words and you fail to understand that Wikipedia is neither "secular" nor "religious" it is just an encyclopedia that tries to present a topic in a WP:NPOV way open to all points of view but not to the point of becoming absurd or evil. Thus not every article about Christianity or atheism (just as examples) needs to have in them what non-Christians or people who believe in God have to say. Otherwise every article would just become a useless mish-mash of gibberish. The first and most important object at the outset is to describe what something is and not what it is not, what it is for and not what it is against! later on in an article other factors can and should be discussed but not introducing a topic. We can all agree on that. There are some other problems with your arguments, namely that it is quite obvious that English is not your first language and it is very apparent from the way you express yourself that makes communicating with you and being understood much more difficult. Maybe you are based in Israel where this debate is more emotional. Outside of Israel, or on the English-language Wikipedia, one can (hopefully) be more dispassionate. As for Haredi Judaism it is neither "conservative" nor "liberal" (as can be seen Haredi political parties have and do align themselves with both the conservative Likud and with the more liberal Labor -- and it is not just about the money) because essentially Haredi Judaism or Torah Judaism is apolitical. It is fair to say that Haredi Judaism is religiously conservative, but politically it does not have any orientation as such since it is pragmatic. At any rate, it is wrong to smear Haredim just as it is wrong to smear any religious group that may be different to one's own beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the state of the world right now is that when reporting on, or writing about, or studying Haredim the vast majority of the time it is by looking for their faults, criticizing them vilifying them, finding only the crimes and wrongs they do, something that is not done to any other group except to Jews as a class when they are being hounded by antisemites. Finally, the fact that you do not have a proper registered Wikipedia user account makes it difficult to debate you seriously and it reflects poorly on your credibility, unless you have something to hide. So please come out of the shadows, get yourself a user account and join us as regular Wikipedians do in WP:AGF discussions. Thank you so much, IZAK (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I would appreciate if you try to get to the point. What is it that you want to say on the article. Let's not dance around the topic like a lost animal. If any religion is conservative, I would say they are conservative. If there are conservative stream of Christianity, I would say it is conservative just as I said Haredi is conservative. I don't agree with your view that Haredi is "pragmatic." Haredi is not pragmatic. I think we would save time if you pinpoint what you are trying to say. List all the important ideas. I'm not smearing Haredi. Haredi is conservative and fundamentalist and that is not a smear. It is the truth. There are people critical of Haredi and that should be included in there, but I wouldn't use words like Haredi is "pure," "classical" and "genuine." It is called religious fundamentalism my friend. I'm glad that you are saying that Haredi is religiously conservative, but that religious conservatism is turning into political conservative like gender segregation like what not to eat, what not to wear, what not to view, creating legislations that restrict those freedom. I understand that you are trying to describe a religion but it is wrong to say that that religion is not influencing politics. It is not that clear cut and since it is not clear cut, the political aspect of Haredi should be discussed and balanced out and that's when the controversy over Haredi is coming to be. I understand people trying to be correct religiously and worship the same ideas and be noble, but that pure and innocent interpretation is beginning to encroach on other areas without the worshippers realizing what is happening. I'm totally for describing what Haredi is and their beliefs and ideas, but those beliefs and ideas are creating controversy and that is what should be included in the article also. Therefore Haredi/Torah Judaism is not apolitical right now, it has already become political, though Haredis didn't want it to become political, it has become political because it is encroaching in other areas. 67.190.167.127 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen that we also have an article Criticism of Haredim? Shouldn't such material be in that article? Bus stop (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That article should be linked with this article so that people know the criticism article exists. I didn't know that article existed because it was not linked to anything. I'm totally for describing Haredi beliefs and such, but any very conservative religious variants should have its political aspects, because they are encroaching on politics. For instance, Evangelicalism article has a section called "Politics" that is linked to Christian right. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy if there weren't any criticism of Evangelicalism, which is similar to Haredi in Christianity (very conservative). It is relative. If people just write about simple Evangelicalism in the article without the criticism section people would find that incomplete. Same goes for this article. If people write a half information, it would ignore the fact that there are political aspects of Haredi if people like it or not. People should be smart about this topic and be aware of what other people thinks about Haredi. Trying to be pure and simple is not going to work on this article, because life is not pure and simple. People need to be aware of what is going on around them. Another example of describing Haredi and not discussing the ramifications would be similar to writing the beliefs and ideologies of Adolf Hitler and what he did, and not writing about the ramifications of his actions. It is all about interpretations, what people think, and say on this topic. Is it correct, controversial or non-controversial. The article needs to cover everything. People shouldn't just write theology in this article. This is more than theology. If this was noncontroversial topic, there wouldn't be any controversy. 67.190.167.127 (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

67.190.167.127 stop comparing Haredim to "Adolf Hitler" it just shows how off base you are by uttering such a blood libel and commit a WP:LIBEL against a vast group of Jews. You also fall into the trap of Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Adolf Hitler" respectively), is a term coined by conservative philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951. According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

According to Strauss, Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem or ad misericordiam, a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the term reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card." According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.

Fallacious nature of the argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to – or is the same as – one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. Although previously acceptable policies (particularly eugenics) have been abandoned in part owing to such comparisons, the fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting (like Sir Winston Churchill), enjoying classical music (like some of the July 20 plotters), owning dogs (like Franklin Delano Roosevelt), advocating good roads (like Dwight Eisenhower), demonstrating nationalistic patriotism (David Ben-Gurion), speaking well (like Martin Luther King), or in some contexts having difficulty with existing authorities (like Mohandas Gandhi), all of whom were either enemies of Hitler or ideological opposites. For example: "Hitler loved animals, so animal protection is a fascist activity [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler]." Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable-cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. For example, Hitler was fond of children, but to argue that affection for children is wrong on this basis is not persuasive.

Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such action.

An invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a Reductio ad Hitlerum when it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it.

History of the term

The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have been used in an article written by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss for "Measure: a critical journal" in Spring 1951; it was made famous in a book by the same author published in 1953 Natural Right and History, Chapter II:

In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

The phrase was derived from the legitimate logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.

In 2000 traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming described its use against traditional values:

Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ...

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, IZAK (talk · contribs), but do u really think that this whole megillah belongs on this page? Wouldn't the internal link to Reductio ad Hitlerum (which u so generously provided above) suffice? And if u feel that that page is lacking, shouldn't you add your expertise to that page or to that page's talk-page? -- -- -- 03:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there "-- -- --" and thank you for your comments. Not sure if you have been following, but I have recently added to and expanded the Haredi Judaism#United States sub-section all with serious WP:V WP:RS. Such things take time and for obvious reasons in controversial topics it is always best to proceed slowly and with caution. User Yoninah (talk · contribs) has also just recently completed a very complex merge from a duplicate article after I had encouraged her to take on the job and she has acquitted herself brilliantly, my attention to this subject was drawn by that recent AfD relating to this. In the meantime seemingly out of nowhere an anonymous user has appeared on the scene spouting hostile and defamatory comments, the last of which resorted to comparing Haredim to Hitler! This guy obviously is coming from another culture and I wanted to drive home the point home to him of the seriousness of his allegations and accusations. Sure, I could have just made a simple link, but I wanted to drive home to him the severity of his infraction and instead of launching into angry diatribes I decided to just let him read in full for himself the error of his ways, his obvious prejudice and violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and veering into violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and his terrible lack of logic and rational thinking not befitting an editor of an encyclopedia. Thanks for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of acting and pretentiousness going on in this talk page. You already know what I'm talking about. I'm not blood libeling anyone in this article, I don't know what blood libel means. I'm not throwing blood and spilling blood here. You are acting like I'm anti-Semitic. Wake up my friend and don't try to be an actor like you didn't know what I'm talking about. In all the articles about Jews and Judaism, all the Jewish editors try to be actors like they are persecuted, but you already know what I'm talking about but you want to act like you didn't understand and go back in your cyclical mentality. This isn't about blood, but my point was things should be interpreted. Haredi should be interpreted just like Holocaust should be interpreted. There are interpretations everywhere, but don't be an actor and act like you are confused. Also another point, is be succinct and direct in your writings. A lot of Jewish editors like to circle around the wagon and not get to the point. Maybe Torah is like that, but this is not Torah reading my friend. Get to the point. There are a lot of pretentiousness, acting, comical evading in these kinds of pages, but you already understood what I wrote. Also good point, don't copy and paste stuff here. I can read and understand the Hitler deduction by reading the first few sentences.132.194.206.61 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi anonymous 132.194.206.61, I don't want to waste your time, or you to waste mine, so is there anything you want to change, improve, edit or modify in this article? Otherwise there is no point to this discussion other than you coming here to spout some honest to goodness Charedi-bashing or your farcical warnings of the "Charedi-danger" as if it is a new "holy grail". I am not taking anything you say personally I assure you. Shalom, IZAK (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Two problematic sentences

1. "Its members are often referred to as strictly Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox outside of Israel."

This is not a correct statement. The primary difference between "Haredi" and "ultra-Orthodox" in practice is that the first is Hebrew and the second is English. English newspapers and books published in Israel use the term "ultra-Orthodox" very frequently. I propose that "outside of Israel" be replaced by "in English".

2. "However the term "ultra-Orthodox" is considered a derogatory slur, akin to racial slurs, which Haredi Jews disfavour."

This is a worse problem that has been discussed before. You can't write "is considered" without saying by who, because this is by a large margin not a universal opinion. The source given is an opinion piece in The Forward. To start with, the source does not say "akin to racial slurs" and so that has to go. Secondly it is somewhat misleading to cite this claim to an op-ed in The Forward without noting that the phrase "ultra-Orthodox" is that Jewish newspaper's preferred term whose use the editor-in-chief defends. In addition, readers can't help but notice that a large number of the eminent scholarly sources in the article use "ultra-Orthodox". By all means note that some people consider it derogatory, but don't imply this opinion is wider than it is and don't take sides on the issue. Zero^talk 13:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This clause should be removed from the lead, as it appears in the Terminology section. Chesdovi (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done by User:Zero0000. Thanks. -- -- -- 19:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Afd/Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community

Some followers of this page may be interested in Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haredi Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120219185858/http://www.jewishscouting.org/programhelps/stuff/nertamidworkbookv2-levens.pdf to http://www.jewishscouting.org/programhelps/stuff/nertamidworkbookv2-levens.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)