Talk:Neturei Karta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal Neturei Karta is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week The current Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week is Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Zealotry. Translate Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English. Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation New projects Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah Copyedit: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archives 1, 2

Contents 1 Removal of edit indicating that _no_ Jewish religious groups support NK 2 "de-poving" anyone? 3 Numbers problems 4 Desperate need of discussion 5 Not Trying to Start Anything 6 Merge Yisroel Dovid Weiss 6.1 Support 6.2 Oppose 6.3 Discussion

[edit] Removal of edit indicating that _no_ Jewish religious groups support NK

The fact that the Satmars, the sole group the NK have claimed any connection to historically, prominently backed this initiative puts the lie to any further efforts to attempt to present NK as supported by any Jewish religious group. Note, it is not just the 5-6 representatives of NK who went and shared spit with Ahmadinejad who are being targeted, it is the entire leadership of NK. Tomer^talk 05:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Please grow up. That link you are showing (which ynetnews.com prominently reported yesterday) belongs to the 'Jewish Defense Organization', a little group of Kahanist Zionazis. Satmar 'prominently backing' the JDO? Please grow up.

Satmar never criticized all of NK. It is only the 7 guys who went to Iran who were being criticized, both by Satmar-NY and by the Edah HaChareidis. See the Satmar daas Torah pashkeville, above on this talk page you'll find a link. Now please grow up.

Oh, edit: I forgot to mention that these guys are not 'NK', they do not represent NK and do not have any authority to speak in the name of 'NK'. They have been ejected from NK shuls in Jerusalem. --Chussid 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the above diatribe considered to pass for civility in the Chareidi world? Tomer^talk 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While Satmar has no connection to the JDO, there is evidence that the first Satmar Rov, R' Yoel Moshe Teitelbaum ZYA, condemned NK. This would have had to be before 1979 when he passed away and very likely before he suffered a stroke in the late 60's. However, I do not know which specific NK group he was referring to. Also, JDO are not Kahanists; they are a splinter group led by Mordechai Levy, whom I know personally (unfortunately). I can vouch that he is certifiably mentally ill as he spoke to me at length and kept referring to paranoid fantasies about people listening to our conversation and about noises that he heard while we were speaking in a quiet room on Shabbos. Neither the Teheran 6 nor Levy represent anyone other than themselves - both have a handful of fellow travelers.71.247.30.65 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The first Satmar Rov didn't condemn NK. That was up on wikipedia based on a quote from Divrei Yoel, which when I translated it from Yiddish, was actually a quote about Aggudas Yisroel. It has been taken down because of that. I personally think the perso who posted it should be banned from editing, since it was an obvious purposeful misquote. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Operation Crackpot, which called for people to be run out of their homes then posted their addresses and phone numbers, is a terrorist initiative. By every definition of terrorism I personally can think of, threatening people and harrassing them in their homes in order to silence their political views is terrorism. 88.154.27.69 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Operation Crackpot is one group of crackpots having fun with another group of crackpots. May the best crackpots win. However, the Teheran crackpots are widely condemned whereas the JDO is just a handful of misfits.

I'm wondering if anyone can produce a page from Der Yid regarding the Satmar denunciation. Around here (Jerusalem area) the Zali's are all denying it, and Reb Aaron's people are saying the Zali's did say it. Also, I have a radio broadcast of the DOr Acharon, one of Reb Aaron's poseks, yelling that the Zali's have, "slandered honorable Kanoyim," and supporting the Teheran goers. Can I post that as a source that Reb Aaron's people supported the Teheran goers? Any objections, and if so why? 82.81.68.170 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

someonelse found these, as above somewhere, but theyr'e no longer there. so i just uploaded them: Image:Satmaragainstnk.jpg Image:Satmaragainstnk2.jpg the 2nd one is the page from der yid. i know nothing about using radio shows as sources, but why not try it & see what happens...  ⇒ bsnowball  18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read them. The reason they are no longer up at yeshivishworld is because these particular examples (there could be others) are forgeries. Maybe if someone can find real ones, it would be helpful. (They use the word Shoah in them, which is a Modern Hebrew word not used in Satmar releases. They use "the last war" or "the big war" or "the matter of the camps" in their releases.)Does anyone live near Zali area in the Us who could just tear one down and scan it or something? 82.81.103.16 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You are correct that Satmar does not normally use the word Shoah, but it could be a policy change by R' Zalman Leib's people. The irony is that this is what they accused Reb Aaron of - using modern Hebrew. Anyways, it probably is not a forgery. It does seem a bit off though. Calling Iranians "Aravim" is not the most accurate description. In any case, it should be clarified that we are speaking of the Zali's. Kiryas Yoel hasn't made a statement. Shia1 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "de-poving" anyone?

can we remove, or discuss removal of, most/all of the a7 criticisms. they are know to be lies, this can probably be demonstated unequivocally, & no other real news source carried them. perhaps a couple of sentences on a7 'propaganda' is appropriate, but difficult to see how such wldn't be o r. (please note i'm not the annon who blanked that section recently, i don't think that was quite the way to go about it...) also can random criticism like "Such beliefs have led to accusations that the group perpetuates a "ghetto mentality" in which Jews have little to no agency in determining their fate in the world." (marked unsourced for some time) go?  ⇒ bsnowball  09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and yes. --Chussid 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I put up an article from Malchama B'Amalek that disproved the "decades old ban" from our synagogues part of the arutz7 piece, but it was taken down by another user pretty fast without explenation. Can we have a real discussion over whether Ynet and arutz7 are valid news sources. I mean these are the people who had my wife in a panic because her MO family kept calling becase Ynet was saying Syrian troops had massed on the border during the Lebenon War. Shia1 23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ynet is full of errors, intentional or otherwise. A7 has a particular point of view and is often biased. However, everyone, including anti-Zionists, is in agreement that the Teheran 6 represent no one and are deserving of ostracism and ridicule.

Thank you. Does everyone agree we should just remove those parts? Right now the article is internally contradictory. Everytime Neturei Karta breathes Ynet says Satmer put them in Herem. How many times can people be put in Herem? I'm not a dayan, but my understanding is that it is a one time deal. Also, can I ask something perhaps inflamatory? Has anyone put in a call to the B'datz to see if their statement is genuine? Given the amount of emotion and the demonstratable penchant of some to forge documents, it might be prudent. If I were to call, how would I site the call in the article. Would a recording be sufficient if then downloaded onto Utube? Shia1

the usual suspects say yes get rid of it all... but we have the same problem as with the a7 thing (although at least there many will agree it's propaganda, & fairly badly put together propaganda at that) we need reliable source saying its rubbish, or it's technically 'or'. with the phone call, it will be claimed it could be faked etc. is it not possible to find something in writing & translate it? otherwise if there is no discussion, agree, remove, see what happens. discuss if people disagree. & not revert (of course...) while there is discussion. ps last time this came up someone said the satmarer beit din have never put anyone in herem since the rebbe came to america, is this the case? it would make it less likely.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the ynet and a7 nonsense needs removed, because it is self contradictory and, well, nonsense. How can someone put a group of people in Cherem multiple times? But the B'daz and later Zoli Satmar things just need confirmed. What confirmation process would satisfy everyone? BTW, people are making way to big a deal of the Zali statement. It's not a Cherem. I saw theyeshivaworld, or whatever, had the signs under, "The cherems continue." I suppose they can't read. The statement simply says those 7 should not be encouraged or assosciated with; basically consigning them to the same level as the Aggudah is on among the Satmar. Scratch your heads over that one. So, yes, it was forceful; but all it did was put Rav Weiss on the same level in the minds of half the Satmars (Reb Aaron's people said nothing, and, yes, the DOr Acharon flipped out on the Zolis over the whole thing) as the ROsh Yeshivah Lakewood, and one up from the OU who are considered idolators and treife wine for the Satmars. Oh the wonders of Kanoisdika politics. Shia1 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Which statements are POV in the current version of the article?--Redaktor 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers problems

You'll often find numbers disparity between number of delegates in any meeting sighted by news sources, particularly in the Jewish press; and ones sighted by NK or featured in pictures later. I'm reluctant to spill NKs beans, but they will announce a meeting and name the delegates going before they go, but often leave a few out or name more than are going to make it obvious when Op/Eds or News pieces were actually written before the actual meeting and just put in the paper after. It's a funny tactic and one they've used succesfully against Yeted Ne'eman several times. For example, after NKs first mission to Iran, YNeeman denounced the 4 delegates very harshly, except there were five. They also made comments about how foolish NK reps sounded at their Press conference at a certain hotel, when NK had switched it to a different hotel at the last minute. 82.81.103.16 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desperate need of discussion

I would like to add to the history section, as it is very sparce. The problem is that NK history contains several incidents that many Zionist people may not be comfortable being mentioned. For example Amram Blau suffered blunt force castration by the IDF, the printer who printed the leaflett that NK gets its name from was murdered by the hagannah for his actions, and Moshe Hirsh was blinded by a settler. Also, doesn't the violence recently perpetrated against the Iran mission deserve mention? One site I saw brags that the London gentlemans car was destroyed and his home ruined?. Is there a way we can insert this information without it being so anger inducing that the article is vandelized back to its old extremely POV self again? Discussion? Shia1 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reb Amram Blau ZYA did not suffer blunt force castration "at the hands of the IDF." He was wounded by a shell during the 1948 war. There was no vandalism against anyone in London - Cohen is from Manchester. No one knows who threw acid at Hirsch.

Thank you for beginning the discussion. My source for Amram Blau's injury was the article, "We will not believe we will not follow." You are correct about Rabbi Hirsh's attacker, he was not apprehended, but he was dressed like a settler in Batei Ungarin. Do you think we should not mention about his appearence? I suppose there are arguments either way. Shia1

Okay, I found this article "The Lost Leader" (Time Magazine) September 10, 1965 which says AMram BLau was injured lightly by shrapnel, and found "We Do not believe, We will not follow," which says he was castrated by the IDF during a protest against Sabbath desecration. Since we have video now of the IDf conducting blunt force castrations in Armona, I think both are equally likely. Any ideas how to either clear up the confussion, or present both ideas? Shia1 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain that Reb Amram ZYA's halachic status was "ptzua daka" and not "saris." Would this back up the "shrapnel" version? 69.113.169.185 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

we could leave it out here here, as it would only be of noteworthy here if it were definitely 'zionist violence'. i missed the different versions, oops, in the blau stub (that needs a lot more btw) i suppose both versions can go in there? i avoided the whole issue as it's relation to the marriage controversy seemed a bit speculative, but it is all in "we will not follow". with other stuff, maybe most of weiss & tehran should go in weiss's article, just a summary here? also what do we think of removing the "they praised ahmedijad"? israelinfo.com isn't really rs in this context.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should take out the, "They praised ahmedijad." That is accurate. But it should be perhaps clarrified by what they praised him for. RIght now it is ambiguous to the point where it is not clear whether they praised him for having a nuclear fuel program, treating Iranian Jews nicely, being a snazzy dressser, or what. According to the transcripts of their speaches, they praised him for drawing a distinction beyween Judaism and Zionism, and for allowing them to speak. The problem is that if we put in just the facts of what was said, it ends up seeming that the 7 are not bad at all and that the people angry with them are overactionary zealots. There has to be a way to present the facts as they are while showing that the reaction was driven by perhaps justifiable emotions. Also, the whole section on their missions needs cleared up. It's not even chronological right now. I prupose it be made chronological, each mission mentioned, the reaction of the people they met with mentioned, any success from the mission mentioned, any negative consequences mentioned, the reaction of the various anti-Zionist groups to the mission mentioned, and the reaction of Zionists mentioned. If done like that, there will be a nice balance and a clear picture made instead of the POV hate fest presently on the page. Shia1 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Trying to Start Anything

Hey, whomever added the whole bit about Not Kosher etc. Cut it out, this place isn't a place for you to voice your specific objections about any group. If you do have a problem with a group like this one maybe you should try this trick. Find a well-respected or famous individual, let's say Joe Liebermen, (Who is no longer really so well-respected in a lot of circles, but still I think you get the point,) and say Joe Liebermen had said, "These guys are a bunch of idiots who don't represent Judaism." It would be more then OK to put that and even to write something like "Nearly all Jewish leaders and citizens oppose this group, for example Senator Lieberman said," etc. Also if you really want to make a statement sign your name. NOBODY likes someone who anonymously edits a page in a knowingly controversial way. I hope that we can all communicate civilly and that this was an honest misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThatBrendan (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

There needs to be a clear separation between the Yerushalayim and perhaps Beit Shemesh "true" NK which follows in the ways of Reb Amram Bloy (Blau) ZYA and those who parade under the name Neturei Karta in the US and UK (as well as the Hirsches in Yerushalayim). 69.113.169.185 04:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I live in Ramat Beit Shemesh. The RBS Neturei Karta are hard-core followers of Rabbi Blau's son-in-law R' Moshe Hirsch. Last year, on YOm HaAtzmaut, there was a black flag and a Palestinian flag flying from every light post on the main street in RBS-B. ALso, the "true" Neturei Karta are mostly a fantasy of Yateed Neeman. Unless they are talking about R' K's people, at which point the main differences between them ar Rabbi k's people hold you shouldn't have public protests with goyim because you could come to marry them, use the internet because you could come to view evil things, and that it is permissable to bribe Aggudists to show your kids as being enrolled in their schools so the government can't take them away for truency; and R' Hirsch's people hold it is good to publicly demonstrate with anybody, the internet is not to be used for private entertainment, and bribing Aggudists makes you too friendly with aggudists. Everyone suports he meatings they do with goyishe leaders. ALso, can we clean up this article? THere are spots where it is pro-NK glurge, and parts where it is a anti-NK hate fest. Can't it juist be neutral? Shia1 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hirsch is not R' Amram Blau's son in law. He is Rabbi Katzenellenbogen's son in law. In any case it sounds like no one has really taken up the ways of Reb Amram ZYA. 69.113.169.185 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Yisroel Dovid Weiss

[edit] Support

1. Support. I still do not believe he is notable in his own right. -- Avi 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Even Neturei Karta excommunicated Mr. Weiss. See here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/nkcherem.jpg. Accordingly, Mr. Weiss cannot be part of NK. Now that his misrepresentations concerning his affiliation with NK has been exposed, the questions concerning whether those sources which supposedly revolve around Mr. Weiss's involvement with the Netueri Karta are even more poingant. I suggest, and this ought to mean something given my better understanding of this subject, that individuals who are not members of Neturei Karta should not be written about as though they are members of NK. Laymen should not be called Rabbis. Orhotodox Jews who shake women's hands should not be called Charedi. The list goes on. Even if we write an article on Weiss now (and what can it factually say, that he has Hungarian grandparents and that he has been excomunnicated for his misrepresentations to the world at large?) we have to be neutral, and factually correct. Although this appears to be obvious, it has not been the case for this subject. The continued deletions of basic and essential facts have been apalling. Given that it is now absolutely clear that he lied to all the sources, I suggest that we do not write about him nor do we include him in the NK. To do so would be outrageous. 67.81.158.13 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Absolutely oppose. There are lots of entries on Wikipedia for people less 'in the news' than YDW. Also YDW and NK are not the same entity, and merging would make him more 'official' as the NK world spokesman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoram Inger (talk • contribs).
2. Oppose. Weiss is notable enough for inclusion, IMO. CJCurrie 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

now two weeks old & very little interest. also has suvived afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yisroel Dovid Weiss) so this is now only deletion by stealth, am removing the merge tags.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)