Talk:Moshe Aryeh Friedman

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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 13 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Category suggestion: Jewish anti-Zionism

Currently there is an an anti-Zionism category but there are multiple strains within it. There are some branches of anti-Zionism that are clearly anti-Semitic, but there are other branches, such as this Judaic branch that bases its anti-Zionist beliefs in religious interpretations, which include Moshe Aryeh Friedman (and Neturei Karta in general, although there are numerous others see: [1].) Thus I propose that we create a category called "Jewish anti-Zionism" as a subcategory of anti-Zionism to make the distinction between this branch of anti-Zionism and the others clear. --70.48.243.138 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --169.132.18.248 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extensive article on Friedmann

lizaswelt.blogspot.com, a German blog entry, but with some sound sources given for some information.

Time given, I might expand the article and corroborate what follows with the Austrian Press: Moshe is a self-styled "Chief Rabbi", having attended a Kollel for some years without receiving a diploma. Besides, his jewish "congregation" is not acknowleged by the Austrian government, as he presented a members list containing some signatures given unwittingly, and some others that could not be verified. For what is known, he's a one man operation. Austria's real Chief Rabbi and all Vienna Rabbis, both orthodox and ultra-orthodox, condemned his conduct.

I saw the guy at the last al-Quds day in Berlin, Germany, speaking up for the organisers. Here's some German Islamists interviewing him on that occasion, and some pictures. That he was born 1972 in New York might be true, the rest is bull. --tickle me 13:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rabbi" Friedman

Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger has explicitly challenged whether or not Rabbi Friedman does indeed have Rabbinic ordination (semicha) that would allow him to use the title. Rabbi Metzger's challenge is public and sourced. The BBC source used to justify the title only shows that he is called "Rabbi" but makes no statement as to where (or from whom) Rabbi Friedman received his semicha. That people will readily assume that anyone with a white coat in a hospital is a doctor or that anyone with a long beard and hasidic garb is a Rabbi, does not make it so. While we should have explicit sources for all Rabbanim, the fact that we have such a public challenge from a reliable source dictates that we have some source that says something like "Rabbi Friedman received his semicha from..." that would constitute a verifiable confirmation of his claimed status. That he is referenced as a Rabbi in an article in the general media does not satisfy this standard. Alansohn 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum being a rabbi? Well, of course he had 120,000 followers and presided numerous Jewish legal courts, but, do you have any reliable source for him being a rabbi? Similarly, for Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach? In fact, the latter likely indeed did not have semicha, since especially in the Litvishe world learners don't get smicha. The same thing for Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman. Please provide sources that they are rabbis - and the BBC does not qualify - otherwise I will delete all references as 'rabbi' to each of them. I hope you understand that this is ridiculous. If the guy calls himself 'rabbi', fine!
And what does the 'Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel' have to do with that? The guy is a pathetic Zionist who has no influence and is just a puppet of Rabbi Eliashiv (from whom the Torah community also disengaged due to his involvement with the Zionist State). He himself is accused of numerous crimes including corruption and fraud, and his Sephardic colleague is accused of being involved in a case of kidnapping and beating up an innocent young man.
So now if I bring you sources that the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem has stated that Metzger does not have semicha, you are also going to remove the title of 'rabbi' from his name? Please stop this crazy behavior. The fact that you don't agree with him doesn't mean that you can deny his status as 'rabbi'. By the way, I don't hold by him either, he has no status for me either. My rabbi decried him as an extremist who people should stay away from, on a very large distance, and not to support him in any way. But that does not mean that I am going to allow Zionist POV lies to be inserted into this article.
Regarding the cherem thing, Metzger's 'assistant' said this. --Chussid 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I know of no individual who has challenged the semicha of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach or Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman. If you have verifiable and reliable sources to question the status of these Rabbanim, the place to add them would be to their respective articles. As to Rabbi Yona Metzger, he is the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel and his sourced statement challenging Friedman's semicha needs to be addressed, regardless of your concerns regarding Rabbi Metzger. It's hard to see issues raised regarding Friedman's semicha as "Zionist POV lies"; after all, all that would be necessary to prove the "lie" is to have someone state where and from whom Friedman is a musmach. Furthermore, your earlier edit summary of "in the chareidi world, we call many people 'rabbi' when they do not have any 'ordination'" would seem to tacitly acknowledge that Friedman's status as "Rabbi" is at best a colloquial title. Alansohn 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Yonah Metzger is not exactly the cream of the rabbinate in Eretz Yisroel, but even if you want to say that a stopped clock is right twice a day, he has every right to condemn Friedman. Even anti-Zionists and non-Zionists like myself, who recognize Metzger as nothing but a politically appointed chief rabbinical clerk of the medina's bureaucratic rabbinate "mi-taam", roundly condemn Friedman. If you go to my site http://www.frumspace.com and click on Outrage of The Year, I have a link to a video of him speaking through a microphone on Shabbos Bereishis 10/21/2006 in Berlin. There is no excuse for Friedman, and no reason to show him for anything but what he is - a freak.

Also, please be careful to note that the AUTHENTIC Neturei Karta condemns him. His buddies Weiss, Cohen, Beck et al call themselves Neturei Karta as well but are not connected with the authentic organization/community/philosophy of Reb Amram Bloy ZYA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.49.37 (talk • contribs).

Weiss, Cohen, Beck, etc. also distance themselves from him because of his chillul shabbos - although they appear with him together often, they say he has nothing to do with them if you ask them 72.84.199.215 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Correct, see also the bottom of Talk:Neturei Karta. --Chussid 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haaretz

If anyone is interested: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/810100.html . --Chussid 13:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JPost: Neturei Karta rabbi's kids expelled

First off, even JPost calls this guy a "rabbi" thus it shouldn't be a controversial issue. Second, according to this JPost story, the guy's kids have been expelled for their fathers actions. There are now some legal proceedings underway. Can someone with an account add this information to the article?

--70.48.68.68 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be Responsable

Okay individuals. I don't want to have anything to do with this article, or several of the other similar ones I've tagged like this, but Please please please obey wikipedia policy about living people. Review the policy. Things about living people must come from main stream, impeccable sources. Alos guilt by assosciation is not permitted. Basejumper 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a well-sourced article that documents the assertions made about the individual in full compliance with WP:BLP. The articles cited support the claims made, even if the links are no longer available. I will be more than happy to review any specific complaints, to source them if there are issues, or to remove claims that cannot be supported. If no specific issues are listed as being in dispute, the Blpdispute will be removed. Alansohn 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response. Please forgive me if my own responses are not so timely, I do not want to get involved in these articles too deeply. It seems that many of the sources do not meat the notability requirement needed for a biography of a living individual, and others like ynet cannot be used on this particular article because they are partisan in the opposite direction of the individual. Also, the talk about his marital situation is against wikipedia policy for a living persons biography as it has nothing to do with his noteriety. The criticisms also far outway any other information, which is against policy. I have already reported the article on the appropriate board, so I am going to end the discussion here and allow an admin to handle it. THe entire deletion log is full of insults and the like, and thus against Living Persons policy. That is not to mention the insults and unverified accusations on this talk page that need to be deleted immediately. Basejumper 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have removed the details regarding his wife and other claims that were unsupported. If there are any other claims at issue, I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. If not, i will remove the Blpdispute tag. Alansohn 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me on these things. I think we are making good progress but should not remove the tag until the discussion on the message board is completed.

I'm going to mirror a messsage I will place there here, so we can discuss it here as well, and perhaps encourage others to find that board and give comment:

Regarding sources. I am not sure they all are up to the standards of a Living person's biography. For that purpose, partisan sources are not allowed.

Jewish Tribune is the Agudath Israel paper in England. Agudath Israel has a very hostile relationship to the organizations the gentleman the article is about is affiliated with.

Note 9 is from YnetNews, which follows the tradition of many fvery good European and Israeli papers by being openly partisan. One can argue, and I would, that this is actually much better journalistically because it is full disclosure of bias, which always exists inherently. This paper is Revisionist Zionist, pro-settler and pro-settlement paper. This means that it cannot be used on an article on a living person who is very opposite in the other direction.

Also there remain guilt by association and POV problems.

"May 2006 Friedman met with Atef Adwan of Hamas and an acting Palestinian Cabinet Minister in Stockholm, Sweden - where Adwan was attending a conference.[6]" Seems an attempt at "Guilt by assosciation" and was left without context. The article sited mentions this meeting was in order to arrange humanitarian food aid to the West Bank. This, I think, could be fixed just by expanding the description.

"Friedman also is known to have an association with the far right Freedom Party of Austria. A far right politician and Holocaust Denier attended his son's Bar Mitzvah.[7]" This is guilt by association, which is not permitted on a Biography of a Living Person.

The section on the attack against him is poorly sourced, and seems to lionize the attacker, and the attack is portrayed as justified. It needs to be more neutral and to portray the event similarly to the way any other vigilante attack on an unpopular person would be discussed on Wikipedia. It also has a statement that the man removed himself from Orthodox Judaism by denying the holocaust. None of the sources in the article make the claim he denied the holocaust, only that he attended a conference where many denied it. He himself seems to have defended the historical record at that conference. (That is beside the obvious point that even if he said the holocaust didn't happen he would be a poor historian, but Judaism does not require one to believe in the holocaust to be a member of the faith.)

In general the article also needs to have a tone change. It reads like a hit piece, and could be better organized into sections. Basejumper 11:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • All of the sourcing issues raised have been addressed, with alleged "partisan" sources replaced with sources better known for providing greater journalistic balance. The wording of details of his meeting with A Hamas minister in Sweden and of his being attacked in Poland have been reworded. Details of attendance of a far right politician at his son's bar mitzvah have been removed. If there are no more specific issues to be addressed, the Blpdispute tag will be removed. Alansohn 12:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited some languag and took out unsourced things. Now it seems fine. I think it's okay to remove the tag now.

One thing I found disturbing, and I think there should be accountability for it: THere was a source sited for him being worried to go back to Austria because of fear he'd be accused of holocaust denial. This same source then went on to say he had not denied the holocaust but had in fact pointedly defended the reality of the event. That part was left out of our article. It seems to me quite clear that a particular editor wanted to paint the subject of this article as a holocaust denier and purposely left out that part.

That's a very harsh thing to do on an article of a living person, seeing how it is a crime punishable by prison in much of the world. Accusing people of crimes falsely should have consequences on wikipedia. Is there a way we can find out who added that part and perhaps give them a stern warning? Basejumper 09:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His views?

I'm curious to find out where he is coming from. I think that some other readers of the article would feel the same way. If he is just a nut case he probably is not notable enough for an article, even if he did attend the Holocaust conference in Iran. Steve Dufour 12:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article could very well end up deleted if the only content is: "This guy went to the Iranian Holocaust conference. That was a bad thing. He must be a bad person. Lots of good people don't like him." Steve Dufour 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I plan to nominate this article for deletion soon, on the grounds that Friedman is one of those people who are famous for just one incident. Please discuss, if you like. Thanks. Steve Dufour 19:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made the nomination. Steve Dufour 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afraid to return to Austria?

I removed this sentence twice, after it had been put back in:

Following the conference in Tehran, Friedman was said to have delayed his return to Austria due to his fears that he would be arrested by Austrian authorities for holocaust denial. [1]

As was mentioned above, Holocaust denial is a crime in Austria. So this is certainly potentially harmful material about a living person. Besides that, the original source claims to be able to read Friedman's mind to tell us that he is afraid. All this is in violation of WP policies. The "was said" just goes to show how weak the sourcing for this is. Steve Dufour 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With the other source from Friedman's side, the statement is ok with me now. Steve Dufour 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • With sources from both sides, it seemed rather well supported. Alansohn 19:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You need good support to tell people what someone is feeling, fear in this case. Steve Dufour 00:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PL link

Administrator please add pl:Mosze Arieh Friedman to english site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.15.69 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of title of "Rabbi"

Not unlike the assumption that any male employee at a hospital is a doctor and all female employees are nurses, the media is generally convinced that any Jewish person with a beard and a hat is a Rabbi. An editor has provided sources to support the claim that he calls himself a "Rabbi" and that he is referred to by this term in newspaper articles. However, given the presence of multiple sources directly challenging the existence of his rabbinic ordination and the legitimacy of his use of the title, the sources provided do not prove that he is properly entitled to use the title of "Rabbi". Reliable sources will need to be provided to support the claim that he has received semicha and where and who it was received from. Without these sources, the use of the title is at best misleading.

As such, the question is should the courtesy title of "Rabbi" be retained? I, for one, strongly oppose the use of the title when there are reliable sources challenging its legitimacy and no reliable sources supporting the details and circumstances of his rabbinic ordination. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I must, respectfully, disagree with you. The sources who question his usage of the title clearly do so out of anger over his activities, rather than over solid knowledge over any purported lack of semicha. And the unnamed "Jewish Community of Austria officials" merely "expressed their doubts over his status as a rabbi" because he didn't prove it to them. Considering he doesn't recognize their standing, I don't see how they could have expected him to provide them any documentation, or why he would be required or care to do so. Additionally, the usage of "Rabbi" is a rather loose title. Semicha today is not a halachic requirement to be a "Rabbi". The semicha today is not the real semicha (which indicates an unbroken chain to Moses.) Indeed, the Chofetz Chaim did not receive his semicha until his old age, and then only because of a specific one-time need. Undoubtedly, any reasonable observer would apply the title of Rabbi to the Chofetz Chaim long before he obtained his semicha, the Chofetz Chaim's humble deferment notwithstanding. (And there are examples of other great Rabbis who hadn't bothered obtaining semicha.) So semicha isn't needed for usage of this honorific. Indeed, the non-Orthodox clergy are not recognized by (at least most of) the Orthodox as being entitled to the title regardless, and would challenge their usage of it. Yet we do not remove it here on that basis.
As far as Wikipedia, the rules permit the application of this title, especially with the reliable sources provided for it, the challenge notwithstanding (although it is entirely appropriate to note that challenge in the article - as it does.) Nor do we require details of a semicha (especially since semicha itself is not a requirement for the title) on top of the reliable sources that he has the title, as otherwise many if not most bona-fide title-holders would be subject to lose that reference in their articles.
Personally I find this mans actions and statements repulsive (not his anti-zionism, but his association and coddling with these criminal Jewish-hating murderers, and his supporting of them.) Despite that, my personal religious perspective (not used in editing Wikipedia), is that non-Orthodox clergy are not entitled to usage of this title. Just as that does not negate the application of the title in articles of non-Orthodox "Rabbis", similarly our strong disagreement with the subject of this article does not negate his usage of this title. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has a general policy issue with use of courtesy titles in articles. While I will respect the use of the titles when there are no issues presented and there is consensus that a title has been earned, such is not the case here. While one may refuse to recognize the rabbinic ordination of those from other branches of Judaism, I can assure you that the exact details of the institution that granted the ordination would be right in the article or readily found. If the term "Rabbi" is merely a "rather loose title", there is no excuse for using it here, where there are specific challengers to its legitimacy. I can call you "Reb 198.77.206.228" informally, but that doesn't make you a rabbi. I would be more than willing to reconsider my opposition to the title if any details can be provided as to the basis of his use of the term. In the absence of any supporting details as to the nature of his use of the title, it should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia supports this article maintaining the title, as its been reliably sourced (ironically, what you had requested [in the history] in order to keep the title) and for the other reasons discussed - such that a challenge to it does not cause one to lose a title. (i.e. we can document cases of Orthodox Rabbis challenging its usage by "Rabbis" outside of halachic Judaism.) Certainly there are a great many Rabbis, beyond question as bona fide Rabbis, that it is not readily known where OR IF they obtained ordination. Like one of the points previously made, ordination is not a prerequisite for usage of the title. Joseph (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What has been reliably sourced is that the media parrots his claim that he calls himself a rabbi; no source has been provided to support the claim that he actually is a rabbi, which is what I was requesting, as required by Wikipedia policy to support the claim. While there are those who will make the claim that the ordination of Conservative and Reform Rabbis is non-halachic and should not be recognized, I can assure you that every one of those Rabbis can respond to that challenge by stating exactly where and / or from whom they received their ordination; you may not accept it, but they can prove it with reliable sources. I am willing to grant an assumption of validity to any Rabbi who uses the title in its formal sense, but where challenged it must be supported, as required by Wikipedia policy, a standard that has not been met with the sources provided. If, as you state, "ordination is not a prerequisite for usage of the title", it should not be used on Wikipedia at all, and should certainly not be used where there are reliable sources refuting the claim. If the title is only being used here in its informal sense -- I have a long beard and a hat, therefore I am a rabbi -- it is false and misleading to use it as a title in the lead sentence of the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia requires reliable sources for it, 3 of which including the New York Times, The Jerusalem Post and The Guardian of London have been provided. It has more than met the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. You're insinuating that the N.Y. Times, the J. Post, and the rest of the media simply take what they report at face value and is inaccurate is not acceptable. You have the heavy burden of proof of demonstrating that the NYTimes, JPost, et al are all wrong. One source merely questioned whether he is or is not a Rabbi and the other source merely stated his opinion that such an individual he does not consider a Rabbi - much like he would not consider the Reform clergy to be a Rabbi - he does not state any knowledge of lack of semicha or any other reason. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The sources that question the validity of his title are from Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger (who by the way, per his article, "received his ordination from the Yeshivat Kerem BeYavne hesder yeshiva"): "Metzger said. 'To deny the most sensitive issue in Jewish history, and to co-operate with the Hitler of our day? One of those men introduced himself as the chief rabbi of Austria — and he's not even a rabbi.'", which directly questions his lack of qualifications, and does not state that Rabbi Metzger believes he is a Reform Rabbi. The second source states "And despite his insistence that he is a chief rabbi of 'hundreds' of anti-Zionist congregants in Vienna, Jewish Community of Austria officials say he cannot show proof of having completed his rabbinical studies, and relatives, too, expressed their doubts over his status as a rabbi.", again directly challenging the legitimacy of his title. In the face of rather direct challenges from reliable individuals at reliable sources, these questions need to be taken seriously. Again, I would be more than willing to reconsider my opposition to the title if any details can be provided as to the basis of his use of the term: where did he go to yeshiva? Who gave him his semicha? Given the lack of this information, the use of the title violates Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It clearly is supported by Wikipedia policy. It has highly reliable sources from three different continents, from the most prestigious and reliable sources on each of them. Your insisting they are all wrong, notwithstanding. Additionally, you would have a difficult time maintaining your previous assertion that these sources are "convinced that any Jewish person with a beard and a hat is a Rabbi" especially as applied to the Jerusalem Post, one of the sources, otherwise they would be calling the majority of hareidim in Israel Rabbi's every time they had an article about them. Your Austrian source questions, but does not deny he is entitled to the title. And your Israeli source is the chief zionist Rabbi who clearly has an interest in those opposed to zionism (based on a religious Jewish basis.) The chief rabbinate has in the past questioned the validity of other branches of Judaism, and his questioning the validity here falls in the same category. He doesn't even particularly question his "qualifications", but rather his rights to the title. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Chief Zionist Rabbi" has explicitly challenged the legitimacy of this particular alleged Rabbi. There are no sources available to document the fact that he has received semicha of any sort from any source, and the Vienna Jewish community has explicitly expressed those same doubts. Given these challenges and the lack of any response to them, the use of the term "Rabbi" in relation to Friedman cannot and should not be taken seriously. A statement that says "One of those men introduced himself as the chief rabbi of Austria — and he's not even a rabbi." could not be possibly more direct in its challenge to Friedman's legitimacy. Do you have any proof that Chief Rabbi Metzger believes all non-Zionists are non-Rabbis, regardless of their qualifications? I am more than willing to accept sources that support his receipt of rabbinic ordination. I hope that you will take seriously this lack of documentation and address it without ignoring the clear challenges to Friedman's right to use the title. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You are under no obligation to take it seriously, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned the multiple reliable sources suffice for its inclusion. There is no additional requirement to document more than the common usage of it in the sources. I have not stated that he maintains that you must be a zionist to be a Rabbi. But there are quite a bit of references to the chief rabbinate "challenging the legitimacy" (as you put it) of Reform/Conservative "Rabbis", in at least as strong terms as he challenged the legitimacy of the subject of this article. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article reads like a character assassination piece on the subject. Considering Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living individuals this is wholly inappropriate, let alone being unencyclopedic. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You may want to review the discussion above regarding potential POV concerns, the edits made to the article to reach consensus and the results of the AfD that resulted in a clear conclusion of keep. Every single statement made in the article is properly documented with reliable and verifiable sources in full compliance with WP:BLP. It's entirely unclear what the supposed POV issues are, and I assume that your recent series of edits were specifically intended to address these issues. Marking the entire article as POV accomplishes nothing; Specifying what these specific issues are in detail here on the talk page will have a far more likely result of identifying and addressing your concerns. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I am specifically referring to the writing style and the tone of the article. "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Additionally, the heavy reliance on questionable sources such as the Iran Daily, Arabic Press, EJP, "Adelaide Institute", and Friends of Al-Asqa could hardly be considered mainstream, especially as used for a living person. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • These sources have been used only when they support his position and I am more than willing to consider any specific issue on any specific statement or source. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It shouldn't matter whether they support his position or not. Such non-mainstream sources are suspect regardless. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)