Talk:Sikrikim

Untitled

The article makes it seem that this is an organized gang though there are no facts to prove they are. Otherwise, the article should be reformatted as a general definition of the work/phenomenon instead of one that assumes they are a specific set of individuals. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be treated as an organized gang in sources like this one. I can't imagine what you mean by "work" in this context; gang is surely more appropriate, given the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Guardian is a RS for issues on the Haredi sector, and at least the issue in Beit Shemesh apparently has nothing to do with the Neturei Karta group, or any other organzied group. --Shuki (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, do take the Guardian to RSN if you have concerns -- that ought to be an interesting discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, reliable or not, but as far as the Beit Shemesh incidents are concerned, Shuki has a point, the Guardian article cited as source does not mention Sikrikim at all (and neither do any others that I saw (see Beit Shemesh#Gender segregation and hate violence against Orot Banot girls’ school)), it calls them ultra-Orthodox or Haredi - and once "zealots", but that refers to the historical zealots - and Beit Shemesh is a long way from Mea Shearim, were the article places the Sikrikim, Ajnem (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point about the refs that were in use. I've swapped that Guardian article for some others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious to learn what Shuki thinks about the Forward as "a RS for issues on the Haredi sector", but in earnest, the Jerusalem Post is more encyclopedical than Wikipedia, it only says: "These radicals are also said to be related to the extremist group causing trouble at the Orot Banot national religious school in Beit Shemesh." I think it should be changed accordingly, Ajnem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not familiar enough with the Forward, though in the past had tried to read the Yiddish one. My OR was that listening to the Haredi radio in Israel the past week to get a better feel for what was really happenning, a few times Haredi speakers tried to distance their community from it by blaming the Sikrikim, but others in the studio shrugged it off and said that it wasn't true and it was merely avoiding the issue. As of now, there is no proof of any organized leadership to the vulgar individuals in Beit Shemesh and Jerusalem, the same way there isn't in other sectors of society. They exist, and they don't make the news. These are isolated incidents that the shallow tabloid-style Israeli media are recklessly publicizing that actually harm the opportunity to discuss real issue of the status of women in Israel and their exclusion in the general society. FWIW, the media reporting incidents blown out of proportion cause the extremists to become more entrenched and violent. The Haredi community sees how they've become under attack and are less motivated to reign in the extremists. --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I live in Switzerland and I can assure you that in this part of the world, nobody mentions any Sikrikim, but just calls them ultra-Orthodox Jews with the pictures to go with it − and it is not a tabloid matter either. If you read Yiddish, you probably also read German, try this article from Die Zeit. Die Zeit is a fairly highbrow conservative/liberal weekly, as far from a tabloid as it gets in German. Ajnem (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there still an active discussion about NPOV here? If not, then the tag should be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any, let's get rid of the tag, Ajnem (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of members

Hello, there is a bit of a problem when the article (and the media, particularly the Jerusalem Post) claim that there are just “(60-)100” Sikrikim, when hundreds − according to several reliable sources more than 1000 − of them turn up at a rally in Mea Shearim. I made a suggestion how to deal with that in the article, but it may need improvement. Ajnem (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He-iw

The user Nomoskedasticity prevented twice the deletion of a false he-interwiki to the article Neturei Karta. Clearly, everyone familiar with the subject would know that the Sikrikim formation is not identical to the Neturei Karta. While it could be considered by some as a fragment of Neturei Karta (hence the hebrew redirect), it is by no way Neturei Karta itself. If the attempt to link the Sikrikim to Neturei Karta is not a pov-pushing attempt, it still would be a logical mistake, just as if one would link the article "Alabama" to a redirect "Alabama" (leading to the article "USA") in another language project, thus misleading the users. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The article here does not have an interwiki to נטורי קרתא -- that's not possible. Instead, the article here has an interwiki to סיקריקים. Our friends on he-wiki have seen fit to create a redirect from סיקריקים to נטורי קרתא -- so the issue (if there is one) would have to be addressed there. This is not POV-pushing on my part -- I don't care one way or the other about the proposition that Sikrikim is identical to Neturei Karta. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

An interwiki link must link to an article on the same exact issue in another language project. If no article on that issue exists, no interwiki link should be provided. Don't confuse it with redirects: various rerdirects exist in different language projects due to vague semantic proximity between a redirected term and the corresponding subject, while the interwiki links, as opposed to the redirects, are not guided by semantic proximity or by conscious or subconscious mental association, but by the identity of the subject. If, by providing a iw-link to a redirect, you guide the readers to the Hebrew article on different issue (only vaguely associated with the subject of the English article), you thereby misguide the readers making them believe that the linked subjects are identical. Acting in such a way, while linking an English article about criminal organization to a Hebrew article on a controversial subject, you hereby take a clear stand on the controversial issue by knowingly creating a negative association between the two unidentical subjects, thus contributing, whether willingly or unsuspectedly, to a POV-pushing effort. But it's not someone's POV-pushing that bothers me, rather the clear misleading and misguiding effect of the mentioned interwiki link. If your logics are followed, odd things would happen: e.g., if Chinese Wikipedia redirects a Chinese word for "bonehead" to, let's say, an article on a US President, creating a Chinese iw in the English article Bonehead would inevitably lead the redirection from this English article to the Chinese article on the President. Would you honestly expect the en-wiki users to go and argue with the Chinese wiki-community in Chinese about such a redirect? -- Prokurator11 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I would expect: this issue is relevant only to those who read Hebrew, so why not? Of course, your bonehead analogy is absurd. But the people you would need to convince are the people on he-wiki, which is where the redirect is. Your complaint is with the redirect, not with the interwiki. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

When no valid arguments exist, focusing on an example instead of the several arguments and describing it as "absurd" seems to be quite handy. My complaint is about the misguiding of the reader of en-wiki, I don't care about most of the redirects in other projects. You're the one asking to contradict the WP:IP of en-wiki, by misleading the readers to the he-page, which is not "one or more nearly equivalent or exactly equivalent pages in another Wikipedia language", so the burden is upon you. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The example was yours (in case you don't recall). I have no idea how WP:IP is supposed to be relevant. As for "equivalent" -- again, the interwiki here links to סיקריקים. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity is of course perfectly right, no reason to delete the interwiki link to the Hebrew wiki, neither here nor in the Russian article. If you, Prokurator11, don't like the way the Hebrew wiki deals with it, by all means, tell them. You don't have to know any Hebrew for that, they'll understand your English – if you keep it short and to the point. Ajnem (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You can be perfectly sure that in ru-wiki such a misguiding iw would be justly considered an act of vandalism and POV-pushing. :) Anyone there knows that iw is intended to lead to equivalent articles, not to vaguely related redirects. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)