Talk:Joel Teitelbaum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Judaism Portal
Joel Teitelbaum 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:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] edits

switched link for a more accurate one, changed some innaccurate information

[edit] Usage of the picture

See Image talk:Satmar Rebbe Yoel.bmp for the right to use this picture for educational purposes. IZAK 03:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] jnz edit-war

humus, the jnz linke isn't being used as a source, its in external links! so aside from you n r s claim being somewhat debatable, it's just plain irrelevant  ⇒ bsnowball  14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(You mean JAZ.) Indeed. And as we have established now, JAZ was founded by Rav Yoelish himself. See Anti-Zionism. --Chussid 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Protected. No edit war please. Work it out on talk. crz crztalk 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You have established no such thing. Teitelbaum created "Jews Not Zionists" not "Jews Against Zionism". The latter is a non-notable unverifiable website as noted in this afd under its pseudonym True Torah Jews. There is also another small group of bloggers who created a secular anti-Zionist group under the same name at http://www.freewebs.com/jewsagainstzionism/. But Teitelbaum has nothing to do with either version of Jews Against Zionists. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Ok, now it's protected. Now, Jayg, Humus and Tewfik: please bring some reasons.
Let me bring a few as well.
1) You guys do consider www.truepeace.org to be a WP:RS.
2) You guys do consider www.israelnn.com , the website of a 'news organization' which was prohibited from broadcasting by the Israeli government because of extreme-right Zionist racist incitement, a WP:RS when it comes to anti-Zionist Jews.
3) We have a RS for JAZ being founded by Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum: http://www.jbuff.com/c100203.htm .
Now please defend your crazy Zionist hatred/vandalism. --Chussid 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jbuff.com/c100203.htm is not a reliable source because it's just some op-ed from a local organization website and on top of that is incorrect. Teitelbaum has nothing to with the JAZ group, his group is JNZ --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not even going to respond to the first part of what you say. It is RABBI Teitelbaum for you. And no, his group is NOT JNZ. JNZ is NETUREI KARTA. And NETUREI KARTA IS NOT SATMAR!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAARGGGHHH!!!!!! How many times do I have to write this!!!!!! The JNZ website has a BIG link to www.NKusa.org prominently on its front page. JAZ has NONE and has sent out an email to all its subscribers CONDEMNING NK. Please GROW UP. --Chussid 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will explain this calmly, as, outside of the 2 removers of good links (JAZ is a good source for what we want, JNZ is not) we have no scoffers. I am reiterating Chussid- JAZ is Satmer/Edah Hachareidis/t, JNZ is NK, Nk would rather have a massive loss of Yiddishe Life than keep the state. JAZ would rather have Yiddishe life than get rid of the state. plain and simple.--Shaul avrom 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to provide some kind of reliable source that confirms jewsagainstzionism.com is the website of Teitelbaum or the Satmar movement. We already went through this at the afd awhile back in which no one was able to come up with any verification that the website was anything but some anonymous person's personal website. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

um, sorry for mistaking jnz & jaz. but to reiterate, this is all irrelevant as it's in the external links, not sources. it isn't being linked as 'satmar official website', merely as stating their views.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

JAZ doesn't qualify as WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
humus, please address the issue, why shld it not be in the external links section?  ⇒ bsnowball  14:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
it would be helpful if you could explain your point properly 1st off, which of the dozen or so points in that list are you claiming the link breaches? site uses "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", for instance, does not apply, unless as i have already requested, you can substantiate a claim about innacuracy.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See #11. It's been pointed out a number of times here that personal websites are inappropriate, and only a few lines above you wrote: "this is all irrelevant as it's in the external links". ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
is just the argument seemed to be it shouldn't be there as it may not qualify as a source. hence i claimed irrelevant. regardless, i suggest the 'Three Strong Oaths' link go as its obviously irrelevant (doesn't even mention the subject of our article!) but the other link 'Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum' contains translations from vayoel which are definitely relevant. in the absence of anything else we should link this, bearing in mind the guideline refered to is only 'Links normally to be avoided', not 'must not be linked to'. find a better one & we can use it, in the meantime this appears to be the best we can do.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we follow the guidelines and avoid links to be avoided. If the content is important, surely it should be possible to find RS supporting it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
please, i pointed out you are not following the guideline, you are 'over-interpreting' it to suit your argument. you are well aware it is difficult to find info in this area. (your case might be helped if you could provide r s, or examples, for the site posting innacurate material) assuming chussid will accept this here, it's effectively you holding out on unblocking the page simply because you oppose the content of this link.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Bsnowball, according to you I am "holding out on unblocking the page". It is you who insists that we should violate WP:RULES. First you were confused (about the subject you are discussing), then lost (in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided), and now you are assuming bad faith. Please reread what I wrote about "the content of this link". ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
i have twice suggested why it is not in violation of that guideline. a discussion in good faith would involve addressing this objection, not simply re-stating your claim. i've also suggested a way of unequivocally proving your case (by establishing innacuracies) which you ignored. you now blame me for getting you to clarify your argument. are you trying to demonstrate bad faith? also remember i did not participate in the edit war which you began. so do you wish to discuss this or does it have to go to mediation/arbitration to unblock? because while i would prefer to be able to add material, as it stands, the page is frozen on my (& chussid's) preferred version. it is up to you to demonstrate that it can be unblocked.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So many words, so little sense. Please understand that private websites do not belong here, so better look for reliable sources. Also you don't have a clue how WP lock/unlock works. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

JAZ is linked from other articles, but always as an external link, not as a source. But two pages from one site usually don't make sense, and in this case the 3 Oaths links seems to be irrelevant. I suggest keeping the JAZ Teitelbaum link (as an external link, not as a source) and dumping the 3 Oaths. Jd2718 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, jewsagainstzionism.com even fails criteria for an external link: "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority" are links links to be avoided. The website is registered privately and anonymously via 3rd party GoDaddy.com and its ownership is therefore unknown and unverifiable. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
as noted above, it's not ideal but in the absence of anything else, obviously we need a link to extracts of one of his most important works. the policy says 'normally to be avoided', not 'must not be used', & here we don't have much choice. also jnz is clearly not a 'personal website' at least in the sense of produced by single person, & verifiablility is irrelevent to an external link unless per #2 it contains factual innacuracies, which would have to be established.  ⇒ bsnowball  18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's completely unverifiable and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And sure we have a choice. We can choose not to put links to anonymous personal websites. If an anonymous personal website is the only source, then the reliability of the data is in question. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

following copied from Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation)

Jewsagainstzionism.org is the official website of the Natruna organization, which is supported by the Rabbis of Satmar, but the website is not the "official website of Satmar". It is a website made by an organization that is officially supported by Satmar, as well as other Haredi groups. Their purpose is to spread the view shared by Haredi Rabbis accross the Jewish spectrum against Zionism before the coming of the Messiah to the English speaking Jewish world. Therefore, the Rabbis of Satmar approved making a website in order to teach this view. Unlike the radical branch of Neturei Karta, they are not interested in reaching the non-Jewish world as much as the Jewish world. They say that Neturei Karta is making a mistake by focusing on alleged human rights violations of the State of Israel, because Haredi Judaism would be opposed to Zionism before the Messiah even if the State were religious and/or perfect in every way. They also say that pointing out any human rights violations to the enemies of the Jewish people is a violation of the Jewish law of Mesirah. Their only goal is to educate the world, mostly the Jewish world, of the belief based on the teachings of many prominent Rabbis that the Jewish people have to patiently wait for the Messiah and not take matters into their own hands in regard to making an independant Jewish state. They do not support the PLO or any non-Jewish organization. They also have a phone line (646) 278-1168 ext. 9. Their address is 183 Wilson St PMB 162 Brooklyn, NY 11211 - I'm sure if you write to them they will give you any information you want. Apparently, however, a Zionist hacker has brought their website down right now. Bobover1 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's nothing even verifiable about this "Natruna" organization. And even if there was, there's nothing to link it to this anonymous website. Even the address you give for Natruna is to a PMB (private mail box) so it's anonymous as well. We just don't put anonymous organizations (which can't even be verified to be real organizations) in Wikipedia. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the Yiddish Wikipedia, the Natruna organization is lead by Rabbi Yosha Katz. I'm sure if you contact him he will give you any information you need. Bobover1 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be something public that can be verified. Anyone can set up a private mail box with a phone number, or an anonymously registered website, and claim it to be anything they want. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It is public knowledge in the Haredi community of Williamsburg, NY that this group exists and owns this website - ask anyone from the Satmar community of Williamsburg. Bobover1 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that's now how verification works at Wikipedia. We have to go on a little more than "hearsay". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JAZZING it up

This discussion has turned into a debate and is off topic at that and is now proposing gaming the finer points of the system in pinpointing a rule out of context. Snowball as usual has a great deal of interest in these topics but knowing less about than than most involved sees a great potential is seeking bias. The claim that Tweedledum had anything to do with JAZ is preposterous, I would find it amazing if anyone else from Porject Judaism came along o discuss this even! frummer 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tweedledum? Who, what? And please keep the personal attacks inside. Bsnowball knows a lot more about some of these things than our Jewish -including orthodox- contributors. --Chussid 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
dudlydoo... plz read up on what exactly WP:NPA is and is not. I find Bsnowball to be a useful wikipedian in his general work but his interferance in this field to be WP:DBAD. frummer 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Tweedledum? Dudlydoo? Could you please explain what these two words mean? And accusing someone else of inserting a bias into articles *is* a personal attack, in my eyes. --Chussid 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Bla bla bla. frummer 02:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you please respond to my question? What is 'Tweedledum' and 'Dudlydoo'? I would like to know. If it is what I think it is, I am removing your name from Wikiproject Orthodox Judaism and request you to eternally stay away from any articles related to Orthodox Judaism. --Chussid 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
what!??!?! lol... so you're the wiki rav now and gunna put me in wiki cherem?! i have no idea what twidly and dudlydoo mean, you brought it up. ;) And about your question, you had one? what was it?! frummer 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
oh, and taking names of lists such as WP:JEW, is not something you can do. frummer 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I came with the expressions 'Tweedledum' and 'Dudlydoo'? You need a mental check and reading glasses if that is really what you think. And anyone else, before attacking me, please read the above part of this section very carefully and then judge whether I am right or not. And my question is very clearly written above, twice even. Don't play to be a fool, you are miserable failing in it. --Chussid 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont see a question in any of the above. Also assertions about my mental stability arent in place here. frummer 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the Satmar rav had anything to do with all these anti-Zionist organizations maybe debatable (it is factual that they are supported by Satmar Chasidim). However, there is no doubt that with out his ideology they would not exist as is today.Emestruth 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Rabbi Kook?

Why is there a picture of Rabbi Kook on this Page? There is no picture of the Satmar Rov on the Rav Kook page - I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.235.236 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2007 [1]