Talk:Neturei Karta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Peshkavil not a reliable source, & probs with the '2 factions' thing
I've removed the section based on the peshavil (pamphlet) because it's not a reliable source. It doesn't have any reliable publication data etc & is effectively the same as a random personal website. Could someone also find more info about the stuff added about from Daniel Biton before that goes back in? More generally I think there might be a bit of an original research problem with the two factions stuff ie. do the sources actually justify the claims about leaders, splits & size of various factions. Misarxist (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Intrafighting
The larger branch of Neturei Karta, led by Rabbi Zelig Reuven Katzenellenbogen, issued a strongly worded condemnation of the radical branch, after several of its members had visited Iran to participate in the "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust." Below is a rough translation.
To clarify and to enlighten
It is now close to 60 years since the Zionists established their rule over Eretz Yisroel (the Land of Israel) by founding the impure Zionist state, which brazenly stole the name "Israel" and has waged a full and open war against God through its mere existence...
And this new path, which has never been the path of our forefathers and our rabbis, to replace the study of the Jewish viewpoint regarding the exile with matters of state and political affairs, and to mingle with the peoples, and to try to bring about the dismantlement of the Zionist state by force...
And because of this we have found it to be our duty to clarify:
That these actions go straight against the views of the leadership of Neturei Karta,
And it is the total opposite of the ways of Neturei KartaWe must clarify how much we have been hurt by the huge desecration of God's Name caused by these actions and it is impossible to remain silent on this issue.
Rabbi Daniel Biton, a Beit Shemesh-based Neturei Karta scholar, published a book in which he severely criticized the radical faction for their deep involvement in “the Internet and the international media,” secular media they use to advance their message, and more importantly, for their “partnership and connection to Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian politics which involves serious transgressions.” In response refutations to Rabbi Biton's book were subsequently published by a number of Neturei Karta scholars and sympathisers both in Israel and the diaspora.
If we can't provide a source for the peshkavil we should try and use Rabbis Call to Excommunicate Neturei Karta Members in Iran and Satmar court slams Neturei Karta. Chesdovi (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- The pashkevil is not here as an RS, but as an indication that some degree of internal disagreement exists. That, it obviously does proof. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Members of Neturei Karta Orthodox Jewish group protest against Israel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
 |
An image used in this article, File:Members of Neturei Karta Orthodox Jewish group protest against Israel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
Talk:Sikrikim
A contribution to the discussion on he-interwiki would be appreciated. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge Moshe Friedman
Moshe Friedman is nothing more than an opportunist who has used his sect's religious and political views on Israel and Zionism to establish relationships within questionable or fringe groups of anti-Semitic or anti-Israel (or both) communities in order to advance his own business deals. He has proven, even among those people, to be less than reliable and even dishonest. At best, his bio is worthy of a notation on the Neturei Karta's wiki page and not his own. He is neither the founder, nor the leader of the anti-Zionist group, and at best is just a sidenote. This article should be incorporated into that page and deleted as its own MosesYisroel (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Section started at Talk:Moshe Friedman#Merge_discussion to keep the discussion in one place.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Whole page has to be redone from scratch
Will start today but needs many good sources. Will start leaving some random sources for others also http://www.timesofisrael.com/conference-of-presidents-time-to-cut-off-neturei-karta/ http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-zionism-advice-neturei-karta/ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4247444,00.html
as Neturei Karta gone too far? A recent visit by the ant-Zionist sect’s representatives with Hezbollah officials in Lebanon has mainstream US Jewish leaders calling for “all parts of the Jewish community to denounce and disassociate from those who embrace the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people.”
A statement released Tuesday by Richard Stone, chairman, and Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman, of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said “The Jewish community should act collectively now to cut off the extremist group and end these repeated acts of betrayal that embarrass the community and undermine its vital interests.” Tellyuer1 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Associated groups
This is the disputed sentence, which I think violates NPOV:
An anti-Zionist vigilante group with what Ynet calls "loose links" to Neturei Karta called Sikrikim gained worldwide attention in 2011,<:ref>"ZAKA founder slams haredi violence". YnetNews. February 3, 2012. Retrieved March 6, 2012.</ref> when they violently protested in front of a girls school in Ramat Bet Shemesh.<:ref name='Guardian'>Sherwood, Harriet (October 31, 2011). "The Battle of Bet Shemesh". The Guardian. Retrieved November 7, 2011.</ref>
The problem I see with this version is that the sentence is about Sikrikim rather than NK. It uses "loose links" to associate NK with the violence of Sikrikim.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- it is clearly NOT encyclopedic presentation of content appropriate for THIS article -the second article does not even mention NK and is thus also violation of [[[WP:SYN]]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Loose or not, links are links are links. If a third party source reports it, so do we – this is the essence of WP:NPOV. Also, as I mentioned in an edit summary, the word "violence" has a dictionary definition, and if there is a report of a protest that involves violence, we cannot omit the violent part for the same reason (observation of violence). Lastly, @RedPen – the first article mentions the links, second article reinforces the protest report, there is no problem here (the footnotes are appropriately placed). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not true. If the article is on X, a source says X is related to Y, and another source says some stuff about Y but fails to say that that stuff is related to X then we don't include it in the article about X. Go put that stuff in the article on the Sikrikim. In here, it is synthesis.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- see the policy WP:SYN for why each source must explicitly support and be related to the content of the article in which it appears. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Saw it a while ago, just re-read it, and no... the policy explicitly states that a source must make the connection. The Ynetnews source meets that burden, and the second source reaffirms the Sikrikim story. If there were no source making the connection, you would have been right – but there is, so you're wrong. If you still think that the policy backs up your decision, please cite the exact sentence. Here is my citation:
- "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
- Ynetnews is a reliable source, hence the section belongs. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- you can you the Ynet source for the conneciton that it makes, but hte other source does not amke the connection and you cannot use that source outside of the connections it explicitely mankes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Saw it a while ago, just re-read it, and no... the policy explicitly states that a source must make the connection. The Ynetnews source meets that burden, and the second source reaffirms the Sikrikim story. If there were no source making the connection, you would have been right – but there is, so you're wrong. If you still think that the policy backs up your decision, please cite the exact sentence. Here is my citation:
- see the policy WP:SYN for why each source must explicitly support and be related to the content of the article in which it appears. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not true. If the article is on X, a source says X is related to Y, and another source says some stuff about Y but fails to say that that stuff is related to X then we don't include it in the article about X. Go put that stuff in the article on the Sikrikim. In here, it is synthesis.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Loose or not, links are links are links. If a third party source reports it, so do we – this is the essence of WP:NPOV. Also, as I mentioned in an edit summary, the word "violence" has a dictionary definition, and if there is a report of a protest that involves violence, we cannot omit the violent part for the same reason (observation of violence). Lastly, @RedPen – the first article mentions the links, second article reinforces the protest report, there is no problem here (the footnotes are appropriately placed). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The first source is used to make the connection. The second source is used to cite the violent protest story. Since the first source reaffirms the undeniable connection between the two, we can move on. The footnotes are appropriately placed. Again, I went ahead and cited the policy. The second source is not used to reaffirm the connection between Neturei Karta and Sikrikim, because the first source is sufficient for that. The second source is for the protest story. Two parts, two sources, the burden is met.
- Two more sources that explicitly tie the two together: Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- it doesnt matter. it is still actions taken by a completely different group whose inclusion would be solely used to tar by association the actions of the other group on the this group. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sikrikim is not a "completely different group", but is explicitly connected to Neturei Karta, both by statements made by multiple reliable sources and by actively pursuing the same anti-Zionist agenda in a violent and militant manner, as demonstrated in said sources. Both groups are on the verge of being proclaimed as terrorist.
- Source 1: "Sikrikim is the name given to a fringe anti-Zionist vigilante group with loose links to Neturei Karta that is said to have been at the head of many of the violent protests and attacks." The article also links to this description of Haredi violence, thus making the connection even more obvious.
- Source 2: "National Union chairman Yaakov Katz promotes bill aiming to classify Sikrikim as members of terrorist organization (...) the Sikrikim group of the Neturei Karta faction (...) Older members of the synagogue then advised Katz to leave before being attacked by the violent mob.".
- Source 3: "A bookshop in a strict ultra-Orthodox neighbourhood of Jerusalem has come under attack from religious zealots whose "mafia-like" intimidation tactics have created a climate of fear and resentment among members of the area's business community. The shop, known as Or Hachaim/Manny's, has had its windows broken twice, its locks glued shut and has been pelted with fish oil by members of the fringe Sikrikim group, an extremist breakaway faction from the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta movement, which opposes the modern state of Israel because it was established by man and not God.". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- So in conclusion, there are no violations of WP:SYN, WP:TONE or WP:COATRACK. Unless there is a valid objection (e.g. backed up by a direct quote from a policy, which has to be pertinent to the specifics of this case, and with full consideration to everything stated in this thread), the text should be reinstated and the paragraph should be expanded using the additional sources. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sikrikim is not a "completely different group", but is explicitly connected to Neturei Karta, both by statements made by multiple reliable sources and by actively pursuing the same anti-Zionist agenda in a violent and militant manner, as demonstrated in said sources. Both groups are on the verge of being proclaimed as terrorist.
Edit warring
I'm not going to weigh in on the subtler issues being discussed. The anthem quote was an unambiguous copyright violation, and reinserting it will result in a block. As for the rest of this, discuss it, and stop reverting. This is not such a clearcut case that there is any unambiguous policy statement that forbids or permits the material, you have to seek consensus. More tug-of-war will result in blocks all around.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hagigah 76c
Does that page actually exist? I thought Talmud pages, at least in Bavli, were just 'a' and 'b', the front and back of the page. Is Yerushalmi different? Hagigah 76c is what the Neturei Karta list on their own site. --FeldBum (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Some editions of the Yerushalmi were printed with 2 columns a page, hence the "c" - 1st column on 2nd side of a given page. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Removal of WP:ARBPIA
I propose removing the ARBPIA banner from this page. I see no reason why this should apply to this page. There was also no editing in this area in the run up to its insertion here. Chesdovi (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think parts of the article are within scope of ARBPIA's 'broadly construed' approach. 1RR applies to those parts, not the entire article. Admins have also affirmed that ARBPIA covers issues related Israel's proxy war with Iran (such as the content that was just added by Gene Hubbsar, an AndresHerutJaim sock puppet). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sean, where is this affirmation? nableezy - 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- See here for example. That turned out to be a AndresHerutJaim sock puppet as you know, the same person that added the material to this article, and it has been restored by someone currently topic banned from ARBPIA as far as I'm aware. Ironic. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sean, where is this affirmation? nableezy - 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I had thought that as this group are not Arabs or Israelis, ARBPIA should not apply. It is an internal Jewish dispute. But I can see how if NK align themselevs with the Israeli "enemy" (dispite the Iranians not being Arab themselves) they could be seen as being connected to the conflict. I guess we also should add ARBPIA to Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez government and no doubt numerous other similar pages whih have been left out. Chesdovi (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, there are parts of this article about the I-P conflict, and not only tangentially, that's enough for the 1RR to apply. nableezy - 14:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean "not only tangentially"? There are parts in Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez government abt i/p too? Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Beliefs sections, the two(!) History sections, and the Factionalism section of this article all are related to the I/P conflict. That's nearly every section of the article. In contrast, the article Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez government has 4 mentions of some form of Palestine in the entire article, and only deals with the conflict in 1 section out of page nearly 3 times the size of this. Making these comparisons that are wildly off the mark isnt a convincing argument. nableezy - 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- 1RR applies to content covered by ARBPIA. There's no dependency on the presence or absence of a talk page ARBPIA header or the kind of warning message presented in some articles when people edit the article e.g. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean "not only tangentially"? There are parts in Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez government abt i/p too? Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, there are parts of this article about the I-P conflict, and not only tangentially, that's enough for the 1RR to apply. nableezy - 14:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Links
>> Israeli jailed for attempting to spy for Iran(Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).
neturei karta are holocaust deniers
they not mention in the article but it said "Other Western “revisionists” presented what they called new facts about the Holocaust at the conference, which also attracted attendees from some ultra-Orthodox Jews belonging to anti-Zionist sects that reject the state of Israel" ome ultra-Orthodox Jews belonging to anti-Zionist sects that reject the state of Israel it clearly said the anti zionists ultra orthodox jews are holocaust deniers and the neturei karta belong to that sect the ny times say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.133.127 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- No it didn't say that they are Holocaust deniers, it said that they attended the conference and that they are anti-Zionist. That is precisely what the quote is. ... discospinster talk 01:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- yes it did it said "Other Western “revisionists” presented what they called new facts about the Holocaust at the conference," what do you think called new facts about the holocaust mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.133.234 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- We aren't supposed to infer meaning from sources, we are restricted to reporting what the sources actually said. Neturei Karta do not deny the existence of the Holocaust; their "revisionism" is to blame it on the Zionists (both for provoking God and for failing to help). Zerotalk 01:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- yes it did it said "Other Western “revisionists” presented what they called new facts about the Holocaust at the conference," what do you think called new facts about the holocaust mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.133.234 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
the ny times said they calling new facts about the holocaust. what do you think that mean calling new facts about the holocaust? " We aren't supposed to infer meaning from sources" calling new facts from the holocaust means exactly holocaust denial the ny times said exactly they called new facts about the holocaust which mean they denied the holocaust the meaning is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.133.234 (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's not obvious from the article. Unless it says what those "new facts" are, you are speculating and we can't have defamatory content added to articles about people without proper sources. ... discospinster talk 04:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yisroel Dovid Weiss said in an interview that they are not Holocaust deniers, they went purely to publicize their anti Zionist views. SupremeandGloriousLeader (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism by Avraham
Video evidence is a reliable source no matter where it is hosted.LazyTime (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is simply not true. Please read WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Specifically WP:RSE#Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources?. -- Avi (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please review Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources WP:RS. Just because somebody posts a video on the Internet, it doesn't automatically mean it can be used a source in Wikipedia. Usually, a reliable secondary source must cite the video in order to use it in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC))
- Specifically WP:RSE#Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources?. -- Avi (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
