Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 2

A call on everyone who reads this page: Let's get some more pictures
Hi everybody. I would like to call your attention to the fact that we lack pictures. We need more pictures of Haredi life, of yeshivos, botei knesses, etc. I am planning to hold a small picture tour of my own neighborhood (Givat Shaul), Geulah and Meah Shearim this coming Sunday. I call on the others who are involved in these articles to do the same. We need to get some good illustrations of Haredi Judaism all around the world. I can take care of Israel, but I need you to take care of other places. London (Redaktor?), New York, and other places. I will present my pictures here next week, probably on an external hosting site first (I don't want to clutter Wikimedia with unnecessary pictures), so we can decide together which of them to use. Sign up here. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

dress
Hi there. I was wondering if perhaps tzitzit should be given a mention under the "dress" section? Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tzitit are not particular to Chareidim. Do you mean wearing them out? I believe Rav Moshe Feinstein was against it, so it is certainly not universal. Probably better under Chasidim.62.219.96.219 Michael Krumbein (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the vast majority of chareidim in Israel wear their tzitzis out, at least 97% or so. That includes chassidim, litvaks, mizrachim (who used to have them in I think, in the past). A very large number of dati leumim also wear them 'out'. Maybe in the US it is different (never been there), but the vast majority of chareidim can be found here. As for the original question: I'm not sure. Need more opinions. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From my observations, most chareidim in the United States wear them out as well. And yes, that was what I was referring to. I should have been more clear on that. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that...many non Haredim where them out as well. I know people who where Tzitzis and no Kippa...no big deal. 72.208.165.190 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "most" is quite subjective and needs a source. This has certainly not been my experience, particularly at the workplace. The Mishnah Berurah appears to insist on it, but Rav Moshe was dead set against it, so we have a draw there for the U.S.77.127.188.114 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

style
does the following really belong in the opening statement?:

"Hamodia reports that New Jersey attorney Stephen E. Schwartz, Esq., convinced the largest newspaper in New Jersey, The Star-Ledger, to drop the term Ultra-Orthodox.[4] "64.129.127.5 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does not belong there and I have moved it into the body of the article. I don't think that the fact that some New Jersey lawyer convinced some New Jersey newspaper to stop using the term ultra-Orthodox is so central to Haredi Judaism that it qualifies to be in the lead section.  shirulashem     (talk)   01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I can agree with that. I misread this comment earlier - I thought it was about whether it belongs in the article at all. It does. I do agree that it doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead section. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Haredi poskim who permit television and using the internet for non-business purposes
Has anyone heard of any Haredi posek who permits television and using the internet for non-business purposes? I challenge you. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not know every single Haredi Jew in the world. Wikipedia is not a place for generalizations, so please stop. Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to be a Haredi Jew with hundreds of books who lives in a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem and, honestly, I think I am quite more deeply involved with the subject matter than you are. I repeat again to you: stop this nonsense. Give me the name of one single Haredi posek in the world who permits television and using the internet for non-business purposes. All other religious Jewish editors will gladly confirm that I am correct here. I must note that any religious Jewish editors who do not live in Israel will not be online until Saturday night (their time), since they have Yom Tov Sheini shel goluyus and then shabbos right after that. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that's interesting. Then what are you doing on the internet, since this is not business? You are not all-knowing. Clearly the editor who first wrote that part did not believe that it was forbidden across the board. Unless you know every single Haredi posek in the world, you cannot say that all of them forbid using television and internet for non-business purposes. Change it to "most" if you'd like, but, I say again, generalizations do not belong on wikipedia. Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, if you want some sources: first of all, I am not going to waste time on this. You are asking me to prove a negative - asking me to prove something that isn't. About television: the issur against having a television in the house is so well-known and wide-spread that it is difficult to find anything about it, just as it is difficult to find a place where it says that Haredi Judaism forbids Jews from eating pork. About the internet: see these: 1, 2, 3, 4. These are from Israeli Lithuanian Haredi rabbis. As for others, don't ask me. I can merely assure you that I am absolutely 100% sure that there are no Haredi poskim in the world who permit people to have a television in the house and use the internet for non-business purposes. If you want to prove that there are, then give me the name and location of that posek, and I will verify it.
 * Further: I am not the issue here. I will gladly admit that all Haredi poskim forbid using the internet and yes, I do violate that, since I am not perfect. Again, this is not about me. Next: I do know that there is not a single Haredi posek in the entire world who permits these things. The Haredi world is 'organized' in ranks. The smaller rabbis (lower poskim) will forward any big and difficult questions to the higher, greater poskim. These are the rabbis who are mentioned on Wikipedia also, such as for example the members of the Badatz of the Edah HaChareidis, or Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, or Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Only their opinion is relevant (ie, them and several others of similar stature), since all 'lower' rabbis will only decide on 'lower' issues. The issues of television and the internet for non-business purposes have both been decided upon by the great poskim of these and previous generations, and their decision around the world has been unanimous: both of these things are completely forbidden and not allowed in any way. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed both "most" and "all" as a compromise. Just saying "Haredi poskim", in my opinion, might be acceptable to both of you. Another alternative that you may want to consider is "The leading Haredi poskim ...". I do believe that just saying "Some" would be misleading, because all the leading poskim have forbidden it and I've never seen, and cannot imagine, a posek who allows it.  shirulashem     (talk)   01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I had actually been thinking about doing the same thing. I just did not feel that it should say "all" without specific, reliably sourced evidence to back it up. I would agree that removing the qualifier altogether makes sense in this situation. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, this way. However, I really don't see the difference between this and writing "all". The way it looks now it is also obviously implied that all Haredi poskim hold this view. But Tad, as you see, Shirulashem confirms my words: there are no Haredi poskim who permit these things. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, he says he's never seen one and can't imagine. That's my point. I am fully willing to believe that is the case. But Wikipedia generally does not support usage of words such as "all" without out specific reliable sources supporting such a word. Anyway, as I said, this wording is fine with me. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone who grew up in that community, i can testify that TV's are practically non existent, and internet, though does exist, is generally considered 'evil'. if you look hard enough, you may find a rabbi that will permit it, but that is beside the point, TV is not tolerated in their society, and internet is frowned upon. and as a result, TV is virtually non existent, and internet and computers are only in houses of people that are less compliant/dedicated/faithful or "modern" as they re called by the haredi's.

Hrneo (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In view of the consensus above I'll remove the Disputed-section template. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine. Thanks! --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

History
This section is almost entirely devoid of references and much of it is subjective interpretation of historical events. As it stands it reads as a personal essay, verges on POV and falls well short of the standard set by much of the rest of the article. Please can we have some citations to make it more verifiable?

In the subsection "Effects of the Holocaust" an anon editor deleted the phrase "Although illegal, and sometimes socially suppressed" in relation to the spread of anti-semitism "in the 1930s in many countries of the World". With the greatest respect to Tad Lincoln who re-instated the phrase, describing its removal as vandalism, I agree with its deletion as it implies that antisemitism was, at that time, generally illegal throughout the world; the "social suppression" of anti-semitism also needs to be explained to warrant inclusion. I've left it in place for now, but would welcome either references to back it up or an explanation as to why such a sweeping generalisation should be entertained without backup. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of Haredi outside of Israel
Last year I had a section here about the fact that the term Haredi is strictly an Israeli term, not used in the US or elsewhere. I brought numerous proofs from Jewish contemporary sources that this was accurate. Do the talk sections fall off with disuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvia613 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was archived to here last October, unfortunately the link to the archive has subsequently disappeared from the top of the talk page. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like my list of non-Israeli publications, and the fact that all of them refer only to Haredim in Israel and never use the term for the same people outside of Israel, nor do the people themselves, was ignored. The implication that there is something called Haredi Judaism is patently false.  Haredim was a name given to Israeli's by non-Orthdox groups, and in Israel the name stuck.  It has no use outside of Israel, and "Haredi Judaism" has even less meaning. It is convenient because you can have a Haredi Judaism page and a  Modern Orthdox Judaism page, but convenient is not the same as accurate. Tuvia613 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What do I have to do to force the issue?Tuvia613 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange. I only moved to Israel at age 49, but I thought I was Heredi? One difficulty here is that the popular Heredi publications in the U.S. (Mishapacha, HaModia, although American Yated is independant) originate in Israel. What term is used then? Certainly not ultra-Orthodox! I suppose Torah Judaism, but I think this will be termed POV. I would prefer right-wing Orthodox, but no-one uses that. So Haredi is the only usable term. Mzk1 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultra-Orthodox
I have removed all content claiming that the term Ultra-Orthodox is a pejorative for the following reasons:
 * 1) No sources supported this claim.
 * 2) The source cited in the lede (Encyclopedia Britannica) does NOT say that the term Ultra-Orthodox is used by outsiders or that it is perjorative.
 * 3) The one Haredi source (Hamodia) that the article claimed reported on this issue actually uses the term itself on its own website! (see this).
 * 4) A google web search that specifically searches Vosizneias.com, a major Haredi news source, shows that Vosizneias.com uses the term constantly.
 * 5) A google web search of another major Haredi news source, theyeshivaworld.com, reveals the same thing.
 * 6) A google web search shows that this term is used by all major, mainstream media (e.g., CNN, NPR, NBC, New York Times, Haaretz, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Washington Times, ABC, CBS, Forward, Guardian, etc.)
 * 7) A google book search shows that this term is the standard term used in books - even from "Orthodox" Jewish publishers.
 * Note I have stricken 5 of my arguments above because they were, in fact, OR. Let's stick to the sources.  -shirulashem (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do NOT add this content back in without providing reliable sources for it first.  -shirulashem (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. -Lisa (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of your (Shirulashem and Lisa) positions are good enough. According to NPOV we are supposed to report all non-fringe opinions which can be cited to reliable sources.  It is perfectly obvious that there is widespread disagreement over this question.  The article should openly state that both opinions exist and give sources for both. Zerotalk 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as Zero says. While my time is limited right now, I must point out two mistakes in Shirulashem's arguments.
 * The HaModia page you linked to is intended for potential advertisers (including non-Jewish business owners), in which case it can be justified. It should be noted that HaModia itself (outside of this page) does not use the term "Ultra-Orthodox".
 * The articles on YWN (Yeshiva World News) are all copies/quotes from other sources, such as Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post. YWN itself consistently uses the word "chareidi"/"charedi".
 * Failing to note these points is a big mistake and is yellow journalism. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Zero, can you provide reliable sources for "there is widespread disagreement" or that "both opinions exist"?  -shirulashem (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the question. I'd love to see a single source that says Haredim are okay with that label.  As an Orthodox Jew, I'm not happy with the label Orthodox.  I use it because it's what people will understand.  But I'm quite aware that it started as a pejorative, and I'm equally aware that it's misrepresentative.
 * I've posted sources from Haredi sources which say, explicitly, that the term "ultra-Orthodox" is viewed as a pejorative. Unless you can find a Haredi source that says it isn't, I suggest that the subject has been resolved. -Lisa (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion on another page about whether Ultra-Orthodox is the most common English-language term, so I've added to this article the sources that were collected for that, so that they're in place if needed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ganchrow source

 * Article content: "often referred to by outsiders as Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (although not used by those involved)"
 * Source: With Jewry in crisis, Reform are still pushing disunity agenda. WHY!?, Mandell I. Ganchrow, Jewish World Review, Sept. 10, 2001: "Isn't it time to declare 'ultra-Orthodox,' a pejorative term and discard it from our vocabulary?"
 * Dispute: This quote does NOT state that it is used by outsiders. As a matter of fact, it actually implies that it IS used by the Orthodox community. Why would the author suggest taking it out of "our vocabulary" if it isn't there in the first place? Who's to say it isn't just the author's casual musings?  -shirulashem (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion:


 * You don't get to dismiss an article by suggesting that it's just the author's casual musings. That would allow dismissing virtually every article in every newspaper or magazine ever.  Verdict: this is a reliable source for the term being considered pejorative. -Lisa (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please identify the sentence in Mendy Ganchrow's article where he states that "Ultra-Orthodox" is used by outsiders and not by those involved?  -shirulashem (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Menkin source

 * Article content: "often referred to by outsiders as Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (although not used by those involved)"
 * Source: Stop Calling Us 'Ultra-Orthodox', Yaakov Menken, Cross-Currents, December 15, 2008: "To call them/us 'Charedim' or simply 'traditional Jews' is both accurate and acceptable — even 'Orthodox' implies something inaccurate, much less the 'ultra' pejorative."
 * Dispute: 1. This source is a blog and should not be reliable. 2. Even if we considered it reliable, the quoted statement about is saying that even the term "Orthodox" is inaccurate!  -shirulashem (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion:


 * Cross-Currents is a blog, but it's not a casual individual blog; rather, it is an online journal and very representative of haredi views. Your objection that the author also objects to the term Orthodox is besides the point.  Most Orthodox Jews will tell you the same thing.  It most certainly did come into being as a pejorative.  It's come into common use because it's really hard to communicate with others without using it.  Verdict: this is a reliable source for the claim that (a) outsiders use the term and (b) we don't like it. -Lisa (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Blatt source

 * Article content: "often referred to by outsiders as Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (although not used by those involved)"
 * Source: http://www.forward.com/articles/110942/ Letter to the Editor], Benjamin Blatt, The Jewish Forward, Jul 29, 2009: "The term 'Ultra-Orthodox' is in my opinion, no less pejorative than any Yiddish use of the Jewish equivalent of the 'N' word in English."
 * Dispute: This source is from an INTERNET COMMENT to an article. Enough said.  -shirulashem (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * Fair enough. It isn't a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.  But as a person, you should take heed and stop trying to prevent the presentation of this view.  Verdict: Not a reliable source.-Lisa (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change
What do people think about changing the lede to:

Haredi or Chareidi Judaism is the most theologically conservative form of Orthodox Judaism. A follower of Haredi Judaism is called a Haredi (Haredim in the plural). The Haredim are often referred to as Ultra-Orthodox , although some consider the term pejorative.  -shirulashem (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. You may have a point with regards to the Blatt source.  You couldn't even find an objection to the Katz source, and your objections to the other two (Ganchrow and Menkin) are invalid. -Lisa (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the lede should not start off with value judgements. Right from the start the article starts out on a contentious note. The first sentence concerns itself with what "outsiders" call the referred to group of people, and right away we are informed as to what is "pejorative." Even the notation that Haredi Judaism is the "most theologically conservative" form of Judaism I think involves a subjective value judgement and is hardly the sort of informative but neutral note on which to start an article. I don't think any of that belongs in the lede. It is all tangential and relatively minor information that might find its place somewhere in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is basically the same way the Christian Conventions article starts out...mainly because of a compromise worked out primarily on the talkpage of that article. Just tossing that out there, in case anyone's interested in how a similarly contentious argument was resolved (resulting, in fact, ultimately, in moving the article to its current location).  Tomertalk  05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?
How come there is no criticism section? Normally every fundamentalist group draws an abundance of criticism, and I am almost sure this one does as well. Cush (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This one does a lot, at least in Israel, mostly the critics are about: their refusal to serve the country, their unwillingness to work while living with governmental aids paid by the tax payers, their tendency to impose their way of life wherever they come to live. Benjil (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this reflected in the article? Cush (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. We should have it, including criticism from the National-Religious/ Modern Orthodox Judaism. Benjil (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a single article listing all the various groups be sufficient? I mean, what's the notability of Jewish fringe groups? Cush (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Haredim are not a fringe group, they are 10% of Israel's population and the National-Religious are around 10-20% depending of the definition. Benjil (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In a planetary population of over 6 billion that is still fringe. And this is not the Israeili Wikipedia. So what is the global significance of this group that keeps us from incorporating it into a general article about Israel's or Judaism's religious landscape? Cush (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You should take a tour of Wikipedia and you would understand how ridiculous what you just said is. Benjil (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A tour of WP only shows that there are way too many articles about peculiarities of Judaism that could and should be merged into larger unified articles with subsections ... Cush (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well no. You don't decide what is "fringe" or not and what should have an article or not. So if you have nothing constructive to say anymore - like how to improve this article with a criticism section - we will stop here. Benjil (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fundamentalist is POV, Cush. -Lisa (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are indeed other words I would normally use when I communicate about such religionists. I do not have to be neutral in talk pages. Cush (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific context is much more important than its relative weight in the world. To an outsider, all Jews might seem alike, (and I think many Jews truly wish this was true) but in reality there are many flavours. Additionally, this fragementation of Judaism is not a phenomenom of the last few or dozens of years, so there is much more history involved to make each 'flavour' distinct, and even with a different culture being developed, hence legitimate articles on each. --Shuki (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But given the small number of adherents to Judaism, a further splitting into even smaller groupings seems a little overstretching the importance and notability. I could understand if there were articles about factions inside Catholicism, which makes up one sixth of the world's population. But Judaism always seems to be given undue weight. After all this is not the Encyclopaedia Iudaica, although numerous articles certainly read like that. Cush (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many articles actually started out as Jewish Encyclopedia dumps. :) That said, I'd be interested to learn what articles on factions within Catholicism are lacking articles...especially since a number of articles on WP started out (and a great many have progressed little from that state) as dumps from the Catholic Encyclopedia... In this case, if the situation you're describing is real, the solution is to improve WP coverage of whatever it is you think is getting undue lightness.  Instead of asserting that Judaism is given undue weight, your efforts would better serve the Project by encouraging editors (who know the relevant subject matter) to expand on the areas you regard as poorly covered.  Tomertalk  05:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, if the article is to stay, there needs to be a section that states the obvious rejection that the fundamentalist grouping receives, especially from outside Judaism Cush (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually amazed that you would think significant coverage of that subject would represent "balance". If anything it will tip the article into the realm of POV and systemic bias. Tomertalk  05:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? It is a fact that Haredi Judaism is regarded lunatic fringe. The article should reflect that. Cush (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By you perhaps, and by people who share your worldview. This is not a "Cush's worldview encyclopedia project", this is Wikipedia.  Tomertalk  21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So if this is only my worldview, why do they get ridiculed everywhere they appear? When I am at an airport and a group of them walks in, the comments and expression on the faces of the people are unambiguous. Their appearance and their theology are certainly not considered "normal", at least not in Europe.Cush (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am flabbergast that you appear to be seriously proposing that the article would be improved by including significant coverage of what appears to be an astonishing degree of intolerance and bigotry on your part, and that of what you perceive to be general European attitudes. How can you seriously believe that doing so does the Project anything but a grave disservice? Tomertalk  02:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush: I will remain polite and not respond to your numerous insults. However, I do wish to clarify some things. First of all, while our appearance and theology certainly differs from what is considered 'normal' in Europe (and most of the world - including Israel), we are a legitimate population counting hundreds of thousands. We most certainly aren't a "lunatic fringe". How can you consider a group consisting of, I would estimate, at least one million people, a "lunatic fringe"? Further, I completely agree with Tomer, Shuki and Benjil. To them, I apologize for not replying earlier - I've just been too busy lately to get involved in this type of nonsense. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One million in a global population of over six billion is certainly fringe. Their theology is rather aggressive and their appearance is pure vanity and they are considered extreme fundamentalist, which equals lunacy in European mainstream view. You cannot seriously tell me that everyone is happy with them and what they represent, I certainly am not. It seems to me you just are unable or unwilling to accept that they are not received with instant sympathy wherever they go. The outside perception of Haredi Judaism and its adherents is just as important for this article as the presentation of their particularities. Cush (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In wikipedia we are supposed to believe in the other editor's good faith but I must admit I have great doubts in your case. According to you, we should speak only about the Chinese or Indian people (there are over 1 billion). Well I am not even sure because they are different from "European mainstream view" whatever that is. Why should we behave accordingly to "European mainstream view" is a mystery. I believe the only fringe extremist here is you. Benjil (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When the issue is a religious article good faith is definitely the wrong term. I do not consider abrahamic religions good faiths because of the vile nature of the fabricated deity and the lack of enlightenment in its adherents. All around the world, except for a few backward places, people have stopped having dresscodes and haircuts to please their sky friends. In the civilized world humbleness is a virtue while total submission to ideology is not. Non-Jews do not have sympathy for ultra-orthodox Jews. Global popular opinion on this is pretty unanimous, just as it is on any other radicalisms. Cush (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. Benjil (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cush, please review WP:TALK. Talk pages are not the place for you to assert your own prejudices, but rather to discuss article content. Do you have any reliable sources making the points you suggest are important? Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My own prejudices? Funny. Maybe I should have taken a video with my mobile of my recent encounter at the airport and the reaction of the people all around. And just don't tell me that Haredi Jews are well-liked. I will try to dig up sources that deal with the issue of these fanatics and their perception by others... Cush (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A "video" with your "mobile" would be original research. Sources to support your contentions are what is called for. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. I just wanted to point out how silly it is to claim that Haredi Jews are not faced with criticism and open rejection basically everywhere they appear. Cush (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In my personal opinion and according to my personal observations, this would be incorrect, but more importantly, for Wikipedia purposes your assertions are un-sourced. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but isn't the real question whether there are reliable sources which cover this issue in a fashion suitable for reporting? For example, I think Noah Efron's book "Real Jews: Secular Versus Ultra-Orthodox: The Struggle for Jewish Identity in Israel" (2003) is an excellent source regarding the antipathy between the Haredim and others in Israel. Zerotalk 08:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Efron's book is interesting, but really only deals with the Haredi/non-Haredi relations in Israel. It does discuss the often extreme antipathy felt by secular Israelis towards haredi Israelis, but these feelings are based on a whole host of issues unique to the Israeli political system (e.g. army service exemptions, bloc voting and political parties, school system funding). Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm only suggesting it for the Israeli situation. Zerotalk 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Cush does not have to have warm feelings for the Haredi subset of Jews. But the article has to be built on sources. If Cush wishes to delete or merge this article there are procedures for doing that. Haredim happen to represent Torah Judaism. "Fundamentalist" is just the negative spin placed on "Torah Judaism." Fundamentalist is really little other than that. I don't think it is necessary that Cush present endorsements of fashions in clothing styles etc. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed elsewhere, the moniker "fundamentalist", vis-à-vis Judaism, especially to describe blackhatters, is only used as a vile pejorative or out of ignorance. "Fundamentalist" has a meaning, and the last Jews to whom it could accurately be applied were the Sadducees.  Tomertalk  17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cush has raised two quite separate issues: whether this article needs a "criticisms" section, and whether Haredi Judaism is notable enough to warrant a separate article. These are quite separate, but the above correspondence shows a worrying tactic of using one issue as a blocking tactic whenever anyone raises the other. Everyone agrees that criticisms should go in, provided they are properly sourced. So when people protest "yes they (Haredim) are notable", there is no point in replying "many people don't like them, and you are trying to censor criticism". For the record, my impression is that most of the criticism of Haredim as such comes from other Jews. So far as criticism by non-Jews is concerned (leaving aside criticisms of Jews or Judaism as a whole) I get the impression that Haredim are regarded as a picturesque irrelevance: if a particular group is singled out for criticism it is far more likely to be Gush Emunim types and West Bank settlers in general, who fall within the Religious Zionist camp.

Putting it at its kindest, User:Cush is arguing as if Wikipedia were a bound book encyclopedia with a fixed maximum number of pages, so that one can say "Jews are only a small percentage of humanity, Haredim are only a small percentage of Jews, therefore in the interests of proportionality they only merit a few lines in the overall work". As Wikipedia is an on-line resource, there is no need to limit its volume in this way. The only question is whether a topic is "notable" in the sense of being the subject of serious academic study; and this Haredim (and their subsets) clearly are.

The view of Haredim as a "fringe group" is a mistaken analogy drawn from Christian sects, where (say) Exclusive Brethren are a completely separate denomination from (say) CofE and Catholics, who either ignore them or disown them. In Judaism there is no such schism. Leading Haredi sages (such as the late Moshe Feinstein) are part of the continuum of legal-religious authority, of whom any Orthodox rabbi, in making a decision, must take account even if he disagrees; and when an ordinary practising Jew is looking for a religious bookshop or religious artefacts such as a Torah scroll, he is as likely as not to find his needs met by a Haredi. There may be profound ideological disagreements, as well as differences in the level of observance, but they are within the family. Particular subsets of the Haredim, such as Neturei Karta, may well be regarded as something like a fringe group, but that is another matter. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. "Haredi (חֲרֵדִי) is derived from charada, meaning fear or anxiety, ... "one who trembles in awe of God"." There was once a Christian sect called the Shakers (not Quakers, they're different), who felt much the same. Unfortunately for the Shakers they also believed in strict celibacy, and apparently there are only eight left. Evidently the Jewish Shakers are more sensible - but then Jews were always less obsessed with sex than Christians. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical Edits in initial section
I made some grammatical corrections in the initial section. No content was affected.Tuvia613 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Such uncontraversial improvements to the article don't really need to be announced here, but thanks anyway. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On articles where intense discussions regularly take place regarding seemingly small changes, it is actually a very positive thing to report, notice, explain and clarify all edits - especially to the initial section - on the article's talk page. I wish more people would do that. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tuvia613, you made no "grammatical corrections", and content was indeed affected. You moved the alternate name down to the second paragraph, and added the unsourced original research "especially in the media". I've restored the previous order, which follows Wikipedia standards for ledes, and removed the original research. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you need some significant lessons on sentence structure and use of commas, both of which are done incorrectly, and both of which qualify as "grammatical corrections". I have redone the opening to be grammatically correct, use proper punctuation, and have proper sentence structure.  "Especially in the media" is not any research, it is from the footnotes.  The footnote sources list many, many sources, and almost every one of them is a newspaper, periodical, or "media" journal.  Thus "especially in the media".  My emendations make the opening readable; it was far less so originally. No meaning or content has been changed. Tuvia613 (talk)
 * Tuvia613, there are no grammatical issues with the wording, and it uses both proper punctuation and sentence structure. The claim that the term is used "Especially in the media" is not found in any of the footnotes; rather, it is a unsourced conclusion of yours. Please carefully review WP:NOR, and please comply with WP:LEDE. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Most theologically conservative?
What does this mean? Do you mean religiously conservative? That I could accept. What theological differences are there between Haredim and Modern Orthodox? I could think of a nice counter-example, in fact. How about just removing the "theologically"? Mzk1 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is not clear what "theological" refers to in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New look at "ultra-Orthodox" - request for info on the Yiddish Morning Journal
I wish to mention a new source for the use of this term. My impression from the New York Times was that the term was used in the same article for several different groups, and simply meant "a religious Jew we don't like", or at least "disagree with". Some new information has come up in a documented cite in a recent issue of Mishpacha (English edition, I think Passover), which quotes the New York Times in 1912 as referring the the publisher of the Morning Journal (Yiddish Newspaper notable enough that when the merged Day/Journal folded, it was on the front page of the aforementioned NYT) as "ultra-Orthodox".

Now I somehow doubt, given the year and place, that he was Chareidi. But unfortunately, there is (shockingly) no article here on the paper. If anyone has any knowledge regarding this, I would appreciate it.Mzk1 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Refraining from bias in this article
This article clearly causes a lot of tension by those who are apologetics for Haredi Jews and by those who dislike them.

I request that this article should not be used to vent frustration in either direction. Particularly, since this is a very closed community and infomation about them has to be accurate rather than postulation from outside observance, since this leads to misguided romantization or vilification.

Having completed a my research into this community, I plan to add some information including a section on demographic trends.

Please do not simply change anything in the article, because you dislike what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.254.108 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see from what you have written here that you are using too narrow a definition of Chareidi. WHAT is a "very closed community"? The very modern German Orthodox were an important part of the Chareidi movement, and although recently they appear to have left it in Israel, I am not sure this is true in other places. How about Baltimore, which is mostly Chareidi, culturally at least? Is it particularly closed? You need to do more research. (I am "inside", by the way, and have also been outside.)Mzk1 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What I write here also goes for the next section.Mzk1 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Uniqueness of Haredi Judaism
(The following is copied from my user page, with slight formatting.)

Haredi Jews: "Based on what? Name one clear universal international distinction, besides the color of the Kippah."

Can I just clarify that you argued that there the only distinction between Haredi Jews and other Jews is the color of the Kippa? I suggest you some books about Haredi Jews, like the ones I referenced.

Some basic differeces: Haredi Jews do not belive that living a non-Haredi lifestyle (including Modern Orthodox) is consistent with being a religious Jew. Haredi Jews shun secular education, whilst other Jews value it. Birth rate is very high and encouraged. Generally, they are opposed to the State of Israel

You can read a book called "One Above and Seven Below: A Consumer's Guide to Orthodox Judaism from the Perspective of the Chareidim by Yechezkel Hirshman, published 2007" This was written by a Haredi Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.254.108 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I AM a Haredi Jew. I have also been "Modern Orthodox". I have attended both sorts of institutions. The classes are NO DIFFERENT. Statement number 1 is simplistic. Statement number 2 is a false generalization. (Countless counter-examples on request.). Statement number #4 is false, except in theory. Generally, they strongly support the state of Israel, although they disagree among themselves as to whether it would have been better if it had not existed. Read a Chareidi magazine or newspaper, without cherry-picking.Mzk1 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

-- end of copied section -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I checked your first source, and it contains this amazing quote: The men are bearded, wearing long black formal overcoats and black wide-brimmed hats. The women dress modestly, with only faces and hands visible, the hair of married women covered by wigs.

Now, this is on the order of "the sun rises in the West". Clearly, non-Chasidic Haredim do NOT wear long black coats. (The part about the women only makes sense if you consider stockings as not leaving something visible.) He is making a false generalization, leaving questionable any other generalizations he makes that do not directly impact on his economic thesis. Please feel free to give quotes from the other books that show your thesis, and we can discuss them.

For a counter-view, see Helmreich's "The World of the Yeshiva" (Free Press), wherein he does not differentiate at all between right-wing Modern Orthodox and left-wing Haredi, putting both groups into a category called "Strictly Orthodox". Now this is a seven-year academic study, something I doubt you can say for your other sources. Of course, I think things have changed a great deal since he wrote it, but as long as you aren't going to believe the other things I say....Mzk1 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

--

Thanks for your reply, and I wish to clarify a number of issues you have raised:

1)	You claim that I ascribe a narrow definition of Charedi Judaism. You are certainly correct, but this is based on the fact that it is clearly very difficult to define who is a Charedi. The purpose on the first few paragraphs of the article is about making generalized statement of this group, whilst providing the limitation of this definition. Further in the article, I think we can both agree, there needs to be a specific section on the various definitions of Charedi Judaism.

2)	When I write “closed community” I do not claim that this is the unique aspect of Charedim. But that they seek to be distinct group from outsiders and they do not aspire to acculturation. This is not intended to give a negative (nor positive) view of Charedim, but to offer a description of they perceive of themselves.
 * Assuming that both sections are yours (please register), I was referring to the fact that you appear to claim to have gained a unique entry into this mysterious and closed sect, so to speak, as if we were the Black Bumper Amish (not even the Car Amish). When you consider the hugh output in writing of the Chareidi community in English alone, this is kind of silly. Every week publications by and for Chareidim are published in the English language.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

3)	I am not sure what you mean by “very modern German Orthodox Jews” Are you referring to the Yeke community? Most of whom have adapted the Litvish culture.
 * I don't know what a "yeke community" is, although I know what a Yeke is. I am referring to the various philosophies of German Orthodoxy, such as that as Rav Hirsch. I am specifically referring to the Brauer community. In a recent book about Rabbi Solveichick, he is recorded as having stated that the main Chareidi organization, the Agudah (I am not sure which incarnation he means) was started by two members of this community, Rabbi Dr. Brauer, and the historian Halevi, whose work forms the basis of such Chareidi histories as Rabbi Miller's Torah Nation and the Actscroll's History of the Jews.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

4)	When you write that “I am inside” this doesn’t give me any greater assurance that your views are accurate, and I certainly don’t mean to insult you, but Charedim, in general, want to give a positive view of their community and hide the negative aspects. Let’s not mention how they view “goyim” or “shvartzes”, how teachers in cheder hit the kids and how the community thrives on gossip . (you can delete the last sentence, once you have read it).
 * I replied to this below. I suggest that you would not use such language, "let's not mention how they", when talking to African Americans for example. Such language and attitudes do not belong in a scholarly discussion.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

5)	Thanks for your recommendation to do more research, but I have practically read any book or article and have spoken to many current and former Charedim. In addition, I have studied Yiddish, and I note that you cannot speak the language from your interest page.
 * Answered below. You cannot define Chareidim based on some portions of the community.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

6)	“Statement number 1 is simplistic”, this is true, but I intended to portray the overall view of Charedi society. It is difficult to suggest otherwise, give that when an Modern Orthodox were to walk into a Charedi synagogue, many would simply stare at him as a strange alien. However, it does depend on which synagogue and its size.
 * No, I do not think they would.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

7)	“Statement number 2 is a false” They certainly do shun secular education, and I am happy to read any counter examples. But you can read the OECD 2010 report on the Israeli economy, which discusses the Charedi education system at length. There are also continues court case battles in Israel, to make Charedi schools teach secular subjects.
 * To start with, Israel is not the world. The statement, as you state it above, in false even for Israel. I will give counter-examples if you will first define precisely what you mean by "shun" and "secular education". More below.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

8)	Statement #3 applies to many Modern Orthodox. The total fertility rate of Dati’im in Israel is 4.4 children. By contrast, the total fertility rate of Charedim is 7.7 and rises to 9, in some areas. I would consider that a very significant difference.
 * If Modern Orthodox have higher fertility than everyone else, and Chareidim have even more, then does not define them religiously.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are privy to data that no one has. I recently spoke with Prof. Barbara Okun of the Hebrew University. She is an expert in demography. She just explained to me that there is no valid data regarding the fertility rate per religious groups. They try to estimate it but it's not very precise. So we can't know also what is going on. Some people think the fertility rate of Haredim is going south in the last years but it is almost impossible to prove for the moment.Benjil (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

9)	“Statement number #4 is false” I am not sure which crowd of Charedim you socialize with, but you are right Charedim Le’umim and some the Shas Party. It also depends what is meant by “supporting the State of Israel”. If you follow the Talmud, the Messiah will not return until the State of Israel ceases to exist. Charedim do not believe that the Messiah has returned yet. I do read Charedi newspapers, including the ones in Yiddish. My guess is that your perceptions of Charedim only come from an Israeli perspective. If you read some American Yiddish newspapers, the anti-Israel rhetoric is plentiful.
 * If it does not apply to all major groups, it is not a defining characteristic. A comment on your amazing statement about the Talmud is below.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

10)	You are right that “many” non-Chasidic Haredim do NOT wear long black coats. “The women dress modestly” would be an accurate description, given that Charedim value the notion of “tzenius” so how would you define that?
 * This has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is that such a statement in your source means that it cannot be believed for certain similar sorts of statements, although it may still have valuble information. Concern with Tzniut (one of the compromises of around 1900 that has been in the process of reversion in all communities since around 1970) is certainly not a unique concern of the chareidim. For example, a recent issue of Moreshet quoted Rav Eliyahu as telling soliers to refuse a direct order to attend a female singing presentation. Or see the program of The Wrold's Strictist Parents regarding a Dati Leumi family from California in Nof Ayalon which hosted two British teen-agers. The basic rules are agreed to across the board (although there are fringe opinions, and disagreements about such things as trousers and stockings).Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to sum up, I do not intend to make any changes to what is written now, given that it creates contention from those who are protective of the Charedi image. However, I do plan to add three new sections which I believe is currently lacking: 1) definition of Charedi 2) Charedi demographics, 3) Leaving the Charedi community.
 * Please do not do (1) without first achieving consensus.Mzk1 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

--128.232.253.138 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a little time to respond. However, I see three main flaws in your reasoning:

(1) A conflation of Israeli Chareidim with non-Israeli. (2) An over-emphasis on the Chareidi Right, as opposed to the more acculturated Chareidim. Plenty of Chareidim know zero Yiddish. Many major yeshivot teach in English or Hebrew. Have you read Mishpacha in English or Hebrew? Just as an example, widely-distributed papers such as "Mishpacha", "Hamodia", and "Yated" are fanatically pro-Israel, even as they retain anti-Zionist aspects. When Mishpacha talks about the Chareidi right (in a nice way, I might add), one occasionally wonders if one is reading Ha'aretz. An example is an article a while back on Chassidic matchmaking practices. Some of your statements (#6, for example) are nothing short of astounding if referring to this group. (3) A misunderstanding of the non-Chareidi, which we will call Modern Orthodox, as the term appears to no longer be considered prejorative; I include here the group that Rabbi Lamm referred to as "Centrist", as well as the Dati Leumi. My point is there is no position held by all Chareidim that is not held by some Modern Orthodox. Increased fertility, for example, even if on the average it is not as high as the Chareidim. Another example (also in B'sheva) is the appearance of Dati Leumi Talmud Torahs, that is, boys' high schools with no secular education. Obviously, many Charedi institutions have secular education; if you want examples of "valueing" it, I will attempt to supply them. (Please clarify what you mean by "value".) Just two more comments; I don't want to go point-for-point now, and in any case it would make things too long.

You stated, "If you follow the Talmud, the Messiah will not return until the State of Israel ceases to exist." If this were true, then all religious Zionists, and many Chaeidim (see interview with Rav Duchovsky in B'sheva), are heretics. I sincerely doubt this is so, to put it mildly. Or do you mean that the messiah (sic) will bring an end to the State of Israel? Are you sure all Religious Zionists think that under the messiah Israeli Democracy will exist in its present form?

I will leave in the paragraph you offered to let me remove, since it shows the flaws in your reasoning and sources. Do you honestly think all sorts of Chareidi schools would allow teaches to hit their students? I suspect many would throw out a teacher for raising his hand! As far as your other generalizations, I would suggest you will find similar unfortunate attitudes among many Modern Orthodox and other Jews in New York. (My wife is African American, by the way.) I simply mentioned that I am inside because you trumpeted a book as being written by someone inside. That you misused it to launch a tirade against Chareidim and later suggested a cover-up makes me question your good faith. That is not the only statement of mine you misused, by the way.

How would I describe it? Like this:

"Around 1900, the main split in the Orthodox communities changed from one over the Chassidic movement, to one over Zionism. Eventually, those favoring Zionism became known the West as Modern Orthodox, and in Israel as Dati Leumi (Religious Nationalist). After World War II, as many Chareidim dropped their opposition to the state, the difference became as to whether Zionism (and later the State of Israel) was given religious significance. More recently, this distinction has blurred, and the difference is more a matter of self-identification, based on both ideology and form of religious practice - the Chareidim being more conservative - although the line between the two groups is somewhat blurred."

Something like that.Mzk1 (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have thought about this, and I think I see the difference in approach. You are approaching one of the two major modern Orthodox religious ideologies (note the article title is Hareidi Judaism, NOT Hareidim) from an anthropological perspective, and comparing it to secular Western thinking. I believe, however, that it should be looked at WITHIN the context of Orthodoxy and Orthodox tradition. Your approach will tend identify characteristics as belonging to Chareidim when they are not exclusive to them. However, I doubt you will listen to anything I say.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about recent reversion for lack of sourcing.
I am puzzled about the following reversion, regarding Touro College:

(Reverted good faith edits by 68.193.148.18; Rv unsourced. (TW)) (undo)

How can one revert an edit for being unsourced, when the text it is editing is also unsourced? Furthermore, it appears to make sense - Touro is quite old, and the split was less at the time, plus the paragraph itself is strange, as YU, the center on modern Orthodoxy, has separate SCHOOLS for men and women on the undergradute level.Mzk1 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dress
Nothing on women's dress? So 50% of the population go round naked? Or are they cloistered, and so what they look like doesn't matter? Can't work it out from the article. All I can see is that we won't get to see any photos of them. Which leads me to - Sexism in Haredi Judaism. Got anything on this? 86.133.210.177 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, based on the prejorative way you wrote this, I am not sure you want a serious answer. But I will assume good faith.
 * The concept you are referring to is Tzniut, or modesty, which has its own article. This is not particular to Chareidim; mainstream Orthodox opinion of whetever sort is that a woman must cover at least to the knees and elbow, and a married woman must cover almost all of her hair (at least outside). Of course, Chareidim tend to be more conservative, but like most matters, it is difficult to find something that applies to all Chareidim and does not also apply to a significant portion of Modern Orthodox / Dati Leumi (Religious Zionist). The thing that seems most clear to me is that Chareidim generally require stockings.
 * Regarding sexism, Orthodoxy in general believes in gender roles, at least to some extent. I suppose some would consider this "sexist". There is an article here quoting perhaps the foremost Modern Orthodox Halachic authority (details on request) that it would be best if women and converts not be chosen as Synagogue presidents, where not necessary. Then we have Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, considered by a large percentage of Chareidim to be the greatest of his time in the U.S., who agreed with this idea, but also stated the Judaism did not, Heaven Forbid (his words) consider women inferior to men (Igrot Moshe, "On Womens' Liberation"). (I am sure the fomerly quoted autohrity would agree with this, as I did get to know him a bit.)
 * So the point is that it is very difficult to pin down specifics, particularly with unbiased sources.Mzk1 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Charges of Discrimination

 * Well right now in Israel we are dealing with the issue of racism in Haredi Judaism. Shouldn't we add something about it in the article ? Benjil (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I live in Israel. Who is "we"?Mzk1 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Israelis, if you understand English. Including Haredim - even if they defend the ashkenazi position - they have to deal with it. Benjil (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are talking Emmanuel, then we are talking about a position where the facts are hotly disputed. In fact, from what is coming to light now, it seems to involve anything but "racism". I think if one wants light here, rather than heat, the place to start is the court decision itself, which seems to have some actual facts, but appear to be as widely read as the Arkansas immigration law (that is, not at all). Does anyone know where one can find a copy?
 * (By the way, since we ARE talking English and not Hebrew, it is rather questionable that the term "racism" would make any sense unless we are talking about the Ethiopeans, and then we would need to start with the secular consensus (in spite of the Wikipedia article) that they not in fact Jewish (before conversion). (See, for example, Dr. David Berger on yutorah.edu, end of the Shituf lecture.)
 * Oh, also by the way, I see from here and above that you have a tendency to state your personal (bigoted) opinions as if they are facts. This is not the way to conduct a scholarly discussion.Mzk1 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My bigoted opinions ? Well give me just an example, that will be funny. In the meantime, the parents at the school in Emmanuel were indeed condemned for their racist behavior. Maybe the Supreme Court is wrong, but contrary to you I am just stating the facts not my opinion. Knowing very well the haredi world, saying that racism toward sefaradim (and let not speak about goyim) exist is an understatement. Benjil (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I grew up in the U.S., and we were taught about bigotry. One of its components in generalization. Expressions like "the way they" is the language of a bigot. I think this would be clear to any disinterested party.
 * Note, again, "their racist behavior". Things aren't facts because you state them. Furthermore, you did not respond as to why, even if this is so, the word "racism" would apply when everyone is the same race.
 * Regarding the Supreme Court decision, that is the question. I think it is probable that the Supreme Court did get the facts correct. But a rather lengthly quote that I read from a journalist who actually read the decision said that the facts <I>as stated in the decision</I> do not point to any sort of discrimination. The decision was made on the basis of "equality of result". (The journalist did not appear particularly pro-Chareidi. Unfortunately, the his name was given, but not his paper.) Have you seen the decision? I would like to get ahold of it, so as to clarify the facts. Unlike you, I actually would like to know the actual facts.
 * As a Chareidi who attended two respected Israeli Chareidi Yeshivot (majority Israeli), I do not recall ever hearing a word against Sephardim. I do however, a fellow student claiming that we Ashkenazim were Khazars.Mzk1 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an article from an anti-Chareidi paper, the Jerusalem Post, which characterizes the issue as being completely about religious standards: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=178692. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First you will stop accusing people of bigotry - by the way when did I say "the way they" ? - if you want to continue being active in Wikipedia. From my point of view, you are a POV pusher here only to defend haredim no matter what. I have nothing against haredim. Half of my family is haredi, both ashkenazi and sefaradi. And yes, my friend, anti-sefaradi racism is very very common and widely known and acknowledged. The sefaradi haredim being the first to complain about it, I guess they know better than you when they say they are discriminated. Regarding racism - I use it in the general sense. In case you don't know, there are no races at all among human beings, all human beings are the same race, but racism in the meaning of xenophobia does exist. Regarding the Imanuel case, do you even believe in the nonsense you write ? Jerusalem Post anti-haredi ? JP is one of the most right-wing and pro-religious newspaper in Israel. And yes, the Supreme Court is sending people to jail because of what it sees as clear discriminations. That's also what many haredi sefaradi rabbis say like the rav Lalum who started the issue, the rav Yaacov Yosef, the rav Amsallem- nothing to do with religious standards but discrimination of Sefaradim.
 * When you refer to people it would help to identify them as to why their opinions matter. You note that I did this above. I would think, though, that Rav Ovadia's opinion counts for more.Mzk1 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is Wikipedia is not here to take a stand on the issue but to present the facts. You clearly are not interested in facts but in promoting and advocating the haredim and in fact specifically the ashkenazi one. This is not tolerable here. Benjil (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait a week before looking at this, because it is getting ridiculous, but someone else's comment drove me here. Here is your quote, "their unwillingness to work while living with governmental aids paid by the tax payers". This is a bald, unsupported statement, like all of the rest of your statements. It fairly drips of bigotry, or, as you put it, racism. It is a prime example of generalization. Specifically, you state "they". That is, the chareidim. But at most this applies to the Lithuanians - although I would argue even that, certainly not the Chassidim. So it is a bigoted statement, or as you put it, racist. This is a lot worse than pushing POV; frankly, a person who talks that way should not be editing articles on butterflies, certainly not people. But "some of my best friends are Chareidim", right?


 * First learn to read. I was quoting criticism about Haredim - "mostly the critics are about: their refusal to serve the country, their unwillingness to work while living with governmental aids paid by the tax payers, their tendency to impose their way of life wherever they come to live." Your conduct is another proof of your manipulative ways. By the way, the fact that the participation of haredim in the work force is low is known data. It is changing slowly, I am very happy about it. But nothing to do with "bigotry" or "racism" - it's a fact. Benjil (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me, in all seriousness, that your statement "their refusal" was saying what other people say, and not your version of a "fact"? Really? I would have no objection to that, but then you ought to improve your style.


 * Regarding the Jerusalem Post, it may be right-wing (although I think this has changed) and pro-religious, but it is certainly anti-Chareidi. In any case, it is a reliable source (unlike the English internet editions of Ha'aretz and Ynet, as opposed to the actual papers in Hebrew). The only non-anti-Chareidi paper I know of (besides the Charedi papers) is B'sheva, and they blew this one.


 * I have the feeling that "anti-haredi" for you is just criticizing haredim, no ? By the way, the JP did not say what you said it was saying, he never claimed the issue was just religious. Once again, learn to read. Benjil (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am referring to a slant. Extreme bias is not anti-chareidi, it is bigotry, or racism, or anti-semitism, whatever you want to call it. Please tell me where the article says otherwise.


 * The main issue here to me, is that for two months I have been hearing, and believeing a basic lie about this issue. That is, that there were schools, one Ashkenazi and one Sephardi, separated by a wall. I think at this point, it is clear that this is false; the "Ashkenazi school" is 27% Sephardi, and one of the parents in jail is a Sephardi in jail for sending their children to a school that supposedly discriminates against Sephardim. There probably is discrimination elsewhere, but having been burned here, I will not accept anything without good, unbiased sources.


 * The fact you did not understand the facts or the issue does not change that there is here a clear issue of claims of racism and discrimination. We are not here to say who is right and who is wrong. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are here to state the facts. Discrimination of Sefaradim among the haredim is a real issue. That's the reason Shas was even created. You have no right or claim to forbid wikipedia to talk about it. Benjil (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. You do not discuss issues. You make judgements. You invent facts. To simply use a trigger-word (racism) of questionable applicability in English (as opposed to Hebrew), a word that to many Americans is the worst possible thing imaginable, shows that you clearly are here to decide who is right and who is wrong. You did not say there were "claims". You stated one side, and one side only. I stated that the issue was unclear.
 * 2. It is not I that did not understand it. The whole country was led to believe that the situation was as stated above, two schools, one completely Askenazi, one completely Sephardi. I live here, this is what I hear in the street. I saw almost nothing of the reality even in B'sheva. This is simply false; the Supreme Court decision says otherwise. There is a Yeminite now in jail for sending his kids to a school that is supposed to discriminate against Yeminites. THAT is a fact. Even the Dati Leumi believed this until now; they are now starting to reverse their position.
 * 3. I have no problem with "discussing issues". I do have a serious problem with people who cannot recognize their own POV, who confuse their personal prejudices with facts. There is nothing wrong with having a POV; one one the ways in which Wikipedia is written is by collaboration by people with differing POVs. I have a POV, but I know how to edit while taking it into account. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who thinks he is unbiased.Mzk1 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have a friend who can their children into any Ashkenazi Chareidi school, but was turned down by at least by at least one Sephardi school because he is Ashkenazi. Since he is a Black convert from Africa, this is a rather weird version of racism. I will leave it at this for now, as I did not intend to post at all.Mzk1 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point - the issue is real. Benjil (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What issue is real? That a particular school discriminated against an Ashkenazi? I was simply explaining that racism was not properly descriptive.
 * Regarding racism, my objection to the term did not start here, but to people using the term as a club against Israel. The difference between Jews and Arabs is not racial. Insofar as your statement that there is no such thing as race, that is a legitimate view, but it is POV. The subject is a debatable one scientifically, and is probably semantic.Mzk1 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best not to mention the issue at all for the time being, and only write on it at the beginning of the next school year. Reason for this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The issue at hand is, as shown above, hotly disputed between the sides; I don't really take a position in this, as I believe both sides have merit. I believe that there is no way to include this entire dispute in the article in a neutral fashion that is acceptable to all. If you two, Benjil and Mkz1, cannot agree with this, I would suggest mentioning it in two subsections, one portraying the chareidi position and one portraying the secular (Bagatz) position. This would allow the reader to draw his own conclusions. However, as I said, I would rather suggest leaving the topic until the school year starts, and revisit the issue then, so that we can write down a neutral version of the entire incident, which by then should hopefully be historical (ie, closed); this will greatly improve editors' abilities to write from a neutral point of view. I'd like to hear your opinions, Benjil and Mkz1. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I support your proposal. Benjil (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If Benji will not admit that there are two sides to the issue, I don't think it will matter how long we wait.Mzk1 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think such remarks will get us anywhere. (For the record, I'm religious and support the Slonim side - but I can also be neutral and impartial when it comes to Wikipedia.) We will wait until the matter has been completely resolved, once the next school year has started. I have a feeling that the issue is long from over. We're only having a break now - and as I expected, both sides pretend the vacation will NOT end in a matter of weeks. There is nothing in the media regarding talks to reach a permanent solution, and I fully expect the whole thing to blow up again at the beginning of the next school year. To me, that's all the more reason *not* to mention the entire story on Wikipedia: we will only be able to write a truly neutral encyclopedic section about it once the entire incident is completely over, once the fire is under control, so to speak. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yarmulka color and material
It is not necessarily true that the yarmulka is black velvet; the black cloth yarmulkas (either four or 6 part) are just as common among the yeshivish and chasidish. There are also some Haredi Jews who wear black sroogies (knitted), but those are the minority. The color/makeup of the yarmulka is all but irrelevant; why persist in adding irrelevant and probably incorrect material? -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I said that it is "Typically Black Velvet." It is very true. I have many sources for that, and the black cloth is not as common. Do not insult my material.

XavierAJones (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There! I made a compromise, and you cannot dissagree that Haredim mostly wear Black Head coverings. Are we cool?

XavierAJones (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You did not bring sources, so it is not acceptable, and secondly, it is probably irrelevant. Perhaps we should let others opine on the matter? -- Avi (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, let others mediate, I do not want argue with a fellow Jew... Why dont you bring sources next time you insult my intelligence. XavierAJones (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one adding the material, so the onus is on you to justify it. -- Avi (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since you asked, I would say that a black, non-knitted Kippah is pretty much the clearest distinction between Chareidi and Modern Orthodox / Dati Leumi. Everywhere else the distinction is blurred. And the article is pretty heavily unsourced, in any case. So I would put it in, and leave out the knitted bit. (My impression is that black knitted is still Dati Leumi; of course, I consider Chardal to be Dati Leumi rather than Chareidi.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Velvet or cloth though, I've seen both pretty much evenly amongst the yeshivish and chasidish. Regardless, we need a source for it as it is not WP:CK, even if we know it. -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all I was saying is that most of the Haredi Community is seen in black attire, including head coverings. I will try to find a source, but most of my most reliable sources are Orthodox Jewish forums and off of Jewish newspapers. XavierAJones (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am not saying you are wrong vis-a-vis black (everyone I know, myself included, wears black, although close to 50/50 velvet vs. cloth). The main issue I had was with velvet, as in my decades of observations of the frum world, it's been pretty mcuh even, although there may have been a trend to velvet over cloth in my limited experience over the past 25 years, but 1) I am not a reliable source and 2) I'd need to see some evidence for one being dominant over the other, although the black sroogie/black leather are by far in the minority. -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

process of reconciliation
There is a paragraph on the process of reconciliation between Haredim and Secular Israelis. However, the analysis is not sourced and appears to be written without any evidence to support the argument. Whilst the author does discuss two or three examples, this hardly suggests a process of reconciliation. I propose that the section be removed or rewritten, so as not to reflect the personal opinion of the author. This should be done by using other sources to quote for or against the arguments made.

--Exfrum (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the notion of a "process of reconciliation" between Haredim and Secular Israel is highly questionable and does not reflect reality. I would argue that recent trends indicates a rise in tension and demonstrations on both sides, and therefore contradicts the idea of reconciliation. If anything, it moving further way from such a process. --Halma10 (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Are there any Haredim who edit Wikipedia (including this article)? Do their religious beliefs forbid them from doing so? How about the Internet in general? Might be worth mentioning what their stance toward technology is. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number, including myself. There is even a userbox. (I wish we didn't fight so much.) The general ban on non-business use of the internet is probably general enough to allow it to appear in the article, but it isn't absolute, as each community (in the sense of groups AND locations) is different. I live in Haifa, but I come from Baltimore, MD, and there is no general ban there. (We had a general community meeting several years ago; it should be reported in at least WWW and maybe BJT - possibly even the Sun.) The variety of attitudes and sets of rules would be quite fascinating, but most is OR. One interesting point is the use of software which sends a list of the sites you accessed to another person; while this is usually thought of as something for children, among Haredim it is also used by adult men as a sort of guard upon their own actions. There also are some very nice filtering options available in Israel.
 * The kosher phone item should be modified to mention the discounts involved in return for a higher rate for Sabbath use (and of course there is none), and minutes to other kosher phones - if someone has a source. (I wish I had known before I signed up for a regular plan!) Recently I have seen a kosher phone with programs installed (Halachic times).Mzk1 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Stonemason: 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Depends on the particular community and its stance, 4) I don't think so. Unlike other religious groups, there is no "stance" against technology per se. Rather, it is a safeguard against accessing the filth that is all over the internet. Some groups feel that the risk is too great and prefer not to use it whenever possible; others are ore willing to allow self-policing. No one does not use the internet simply because it is advanced technology. -- Avi (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Demographic data
As you might notice, I have added a section on population data by country. Please help in populating the table and adding information on the demographics. Take caution, that there are many different figures floating around. It is best to put in a range where there's uncertainty. I put the section near the top, since it is highly topical relevant issue. However, if you believe it should be moved somewhere else, please state your case. --Halma10 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting that. I've moved it to the correct location, where populations are discussed, and I've removed the speculation about current populations, as this kind of guesswork is forbidden by Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOR, WP:CRYSTAL). I've also reformatted it in a wiki-friendly format. I've had to remove the material for the United Kingdom, which was based on http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/Synagogue%20membership.pdf . It's a fascinating and valuable document, but it doesn't actually state what the Haredi population is, and in any event "Strictly Orthodox" is not the same as Haredi, as the document itself makes clear. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing up the table, it does indeed look better now. I have a number of comments and would be useful to discuss before I make any changes:


 * The figures for 2011 is not "guesswork" as such, but based on calculation from the growth rate. The reason I put it in, is because the Haredi community grows so rapidly, that data from a few years ago is already out of date. It be more useful to add a footnote with something like "due to the high growth rate, the figures are likely to have changed significantly since the period stated."


 * I cannot find anywhere in the JPR paper for the UK that the Strictly Orthodox are not Haredi. The term "strictly orthodox" is just a more politically correct version of ultra-Orthodox (Haredi). The paper states the total number of families as 9,049 which can be multiplied by 5.9 to give the figure of around 52,000. I should have added this source, which explains this more clearly (http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/33358/alderman-should-face-facts).


 * I note that you have stated the Haredi community as doubling every 17-20 years, based on the Berman paper. This method used in this paper is not a useful means to estimated the growth of the Haredi population and is focused on Israel only(see http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/publications/tec19.pdf). There are so many different estimates, so it is probably not good to quote just one.


 * I added other countries, like France and Belgium since they also have a sizable community but I cannot find any data. In fact, Canada probably has more Haredim than the UK and it would seem misleading to suggest that the UK has the third largest community.


 * The upper bound for Haredim in Israel is 795,0000 (if you read further in the article). As I noted in the intro, most of these estimates are probably underestimation due to the lack of participation in surveys from Haredim. The quoted study finds that 50% of Haredim refuse to participate in surveys compared to around 13% for non-Haredim.

--Halma10 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Extrapolating from growth rates is not allowed in Wikipedia - it's called original reaserch.
 * You have it backwards - you need to show that haredi = "strictly Orthodox". Unfortunately, the source does not use the term haredi anyway, so there's no way of knowing if they mean the exact same thing. Also, you cannot do these kinds of calculations; you must use numbers that the sources explicitly give. We're not demographers.
 * I used two different sources, one which an Israeli that said 17 years, and an American that said 20 years. You can't do your own calculations about growth rates, that's complex math, and falls under WP:NOR.
 * If we find data for other countries we can add it.
 * OK, let's use that.
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) agreed!
 * 2) I used the source from the Jewish Chronicle which states the total number. The article also used the term Charedi. Strictly orthodox is commonly used in the UK as an alternative to ultra-Orthodox. See the source (that you yourself have quoted) read the first paragraph. It is clear that haredi = "strictly Orthodox".
 * 3) Firstly, I am not sure what you mean by complex math (doubling rate = ln(2)/growth rate) this is the same in the Berman paper. Besides, as previously cited (http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/publications/tec19.pdf) the Berman's paper method is not a credible method of calculating population growth. Indeed, his prediction (made in 2000 for 2010) proved completely wrong. Additionally, the other paper you cited for Manchester University (written in 2007) says that "By the year 2020, the Ultra-orthodox population of Israel will double to one million"-this is 13 years. The Professor Joshua Comenetz from Florida figure of 20 years is for Hasidic Jews only  Indeed, the figures that follows this seem to contradict this figure.
 * 4) Thanks for the edit.

--Halma10 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

--Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.boardofdeputies.org.uk/file/StrictlyOrthodox.pdf is a very good find, and it does confirm that "strictly Orthodox" = haredi. However, it also estimates the haredi population as "22,800 and 36,400". That needs to go in there too.
 * 2) This just goes to show that doing our own calculations is a bad idea, since no-one appears to be able to agree or get it right.
 * 3) Thank you for your edits and comments.

--Halma10 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There are quite a range of figures on the doubling rate. This one quote Tzipi Livny (head of the opposition party in Israel) that the doubling rate is 10-12 years . Also, the Berman paper you quote says 16 years in another version . I guess, we could either just say a general statement on the rapid growth, or state the figures with caution (something like, the data varies widely but estimates range from X to X). The range could be very wide, but allows the reader to read up on the various citations.
 * 2) The citation of "30,000" comes from the same source of "22,800 and 36,400". The article just took an average. It is worth reading that article you quoted in detail, before making changes.
 * 3) On the issue of the terminology section, thanks for clearing up. I thought it was important to set it in context, by clarifying that it is the most widely used term, and not give disproportionate weight to the, relativity few source, who oppose the term ultra-orthodox. It might be better to shorten the whole issue, rather than using a collecting of a quote,a Canadian body and a certain New Jersey based newspaper, this may also violate WP:SYNTH.

Joining and leaving the Haredi community
We need a section on joining (ba'alei teshiva) or converts and leaving the community (yotz'im lishei'la) from the Haredi perspective.

Anyone willing to start this section? I can assist with content and citations. --Halma10 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the terminology is more properly "going off the derech (way)" in English and "yordim min haderech (going down from the way)" in Hebrew. "Chozrim bish'ela" is used more by secular people for someone who stops being observant.Mzk1 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Haredi
I took out a paragraph on the meaning of Haredi as "fear and anxiety" because the two sources, while technically first-rate, clearly showed anti-Haredi bias in their titles by using "extremism" and "fundamentalism" (see POV for use of this latter term) which combined with the prejorative nature of the definition, makes them unusable as the primary definition of Haredi. Also note that, as I showed in the opener, Haredi orginally often meant simply Orthodox; it does not make logical sense that the Modern Orthodox OU would have referred to itself as "anxious". As a check, I looked up the verse given in a Mikraot Gedolot, the traditional commentaries most likely to be used by Hareidim. One (Rashi) translated the word - it is a verb there - as "to hurry with trembling" and the other (Metzudot) as simply to hurry. If "ignore all rules" means anything, it means to use common sense.

I think this paragraph would be all right if it did not head the section, and if the person who placed this (and presumably read the papers) would preface it with a description of their view of Haredim.Mzk1 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood; we rely on what reliable sources say. These sources are both accurate and factual, and one's personal opinions about whether or not they have "bias" are irrelevant. If you have other reliable sources that define the term a different way, please feel free to bring them forward, but you cannot simply delete this. Please don't do it again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * RS depends on a number of things, such as context. A sociological study that is clearly antognistic towards its subject is rather questionable when giving the major meaning - a historical issue by definition - of the term the group uses to define itself. (I note the first source in its self-description refers to "deviant behavior".) To claim that the classic Hebrew word for Orthodox was intended to mean anxiety is an extraordinary claim, and it needs a better source.
 * (These could go in a criticism section, or perhaps at the end of the section with a description fo the attitiude of the authors.)
 * Since you appear to be the author who added this - I did not realize this at first - could you tell me if the articles have sources for these statements, and what they are? Or are these simply primary sources making unsupported assertions? (By the way, I wonder at your straight claim that the article is "accurate and factual"? Based on what?)
 * This reminds me of the case cited by Dr. David Berger of a publication of Harvard University Press that defined "Eivah" as "Hatred of Gentiles" instead of "Fear of Anti-semitism", leading to a statement that every anti-semite would have loved to get into Wikipedia. In this case, it appeared to be sheer laziness, as anyone even slightly familiar wih the literature would have known better. That is, he simply translated instead of checking with the literature or an expert. I suspect this is the case here. (yutorah.edu, David Berger, Shituf, towards the end; more specifics on request.)Mzk1 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is original research. It is not appropriate here.  Zerotalk 04:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources meet the requirements of WP:RS. If you don't think they do, please take them to WP:RS/N. If you have other reliable sources that give different views, please present them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mzk1, you'll have to justify the removal of this reliably sourced and accurate information here in this talk page. It will remain in the article if and until there is a consensus to remove it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will need more information. I would appreciate if you would answer the question above. What sources did the articles give for this explanation (not the verse, the extraordinary explanation of it).Mzk1 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stadler cites Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman (1991), The Haredim in Israel, p. 198. But more importantly - why would this be relevant? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am more interested in the other article, which I think is making an extraordinary claim, although it is good to have some some source for the use of the verse, as even the Hebrew article has none. Is it sourced, or is this the author just asserting it. And to why - well, even the short FAQ at the top of the WP:IRS talk page points out that no source is reliable for everything. We have an extraordinary claim by a paper whose official description is extremely pejorative; forgive me if I am a bit suspicious. If he has a source, great. Otherwise, I think we are dealing with what is basically a semi-primary source, and in a field (history and linguistics) not that of the article (sociology), and one where the author likely has questionable motives; so I think that while the paper is a RS for some purposes, it is not so for the derivation of the word. one questionable for this particular purpose. To repeat, it is clear in the FAQ that there is no such thing as a source that is automatically RS.Mzk1 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but the only reason you have provided for not considering these sources reliable on this matter is your personal dislike of what they say. Actually I don't understand your objection because what they say is not extraordinary but rather the explanation I have read multiple times.  Btw, ben-Yehuda cites page 9 of Friedman, Haredi Society, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Jerusalem 1991 (Hebrew).  Zerotalk 14:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not personal dislike. It is not a rational claim to say that a group would refer to itself by such a term, and the source itself is prejorative. More to the point, he seems to be mixing up modern terminology with terminology Haredim themselves are likely to use. The Hebrew version (horribly POV, by the way) at best refers to this as folk etymology. It seems that no-one actually bothers to do research; they pick the verse they think it refers to, then at best check a current dictionary. But I will check Friedman first.
 * It is true that I dislike prejorative material, in general. I would not censor it, necessarily, but it should be labeled as such. I wish someone with more knowledge than I would clean up Modern Orthodox; too many of my fellow Chareidim seem to have got ahold of it.Mzk1 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities of Concentration
I have added the cities that Hareidim are concentrated in; something I felt was sorely lacking. I have done Israel and America. Also, I split up demographics and history in the Israel and America section.עזרא משה (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology section cleanup
The terminology section does need a cleanup.

It is currently structured as follows:

1) a formal definition of the Hebrew term "Haredi" 2) the use of the term ultra-orthodox 3) alternative terms

I think this structure is good and should remain this way. However, section 2 seems to be entirely focused at a few relatively obscure sources who deep the term as controversial.
 * Norman Lamm, a modern Orthodox (not Haredi) Rabbi, is quoted. Possibly okay to leave in, although not sure of its significance.
 * Canada's Centre for Faith and Media is given a lengthy space with a long paragraph. There is little I can find on this organisation apart from its own website. There is no reason why wikipedia should give it so much credit at the expense of the vast majority of other credible media organisations who do use the term ultra-orthodox.
 * The Star Ledger, a New Jersey based Newspaper, relatively tiny in the context of all newspapers who ever report on Haredi Jews.

This section should either be cut down and be more succinct. Alternatively, if the Star Ledger and Canada's Centre for Faith and Media are noted, should all the other papers and bodies (who do use ultra-Orthodox) be listed?

Again, I refer to my original structure and that is a good way to have it: Discuss the fact that ultra-orthodox is the main translation but there are a few who deem it controversial. Anyone who reads up on Haredi jews in English who find 95% use the term ultra-orthodox, so I cannot see why wikipedia should only focus on the few who oppose it.

Please discuss further... --Halma10 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources may be reliable, but that doesn't mean that they themselves are not using it in a prejorative manner. If one goes back to the earlier part of the last century, one can see Jewish history being treated this way (see Malcolm Hay, Thy Brother's Blood, Hart Publishing Co., 1975) in many cases; today this is still found for certain politically-incorrect groups. Also, if a large portion of the people themselves consider it prejorative, this also makes it contraversial. I do concede that as of late this term has been used by some Haredi sources.Mzk1 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of reliable sources indicate that the term is, or can be, controversial. The article presents this in a brief and NPOV way. I don't see where the tag is warranted. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, yes there may be a few sources and I do agree that some view the term as controversial, and this should indeed be noted in the article. My concern lies in the proportionality of the discussion. If you were to read articles/news/research on the ultra-Orthodox you would find that this term is used almost universally. Thus, the wiki section gives the false impression the the view of it being a pejorative term is somewhat mainstream. As Mzk1 pointed out, this term is also used amongst the ultra-Orthodox.--Halma10 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it gives that impression, but in any event, you can't add your own opinions to the article - everything you add must be cited to reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the prevalence or use of the terms "haredi" or "ultra-Orthdox"? I'd be happy to see them, and to help you add them to the article, regardless of the position they espouse. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this disturbing that one person (Jayjg) has hogged this article, when this author has clear lack of knowledge of the Haredi community - given that various comments made (for example, being completely surprised that Strictly Orthodox was the same as ultra-Orthodox). If every word on wiki was sourced, 90% would be gone - including this very article. Facts are figure are sourced, but broad overviews are not (if you look at any article). Wikipedia relies on experts in those fields to give an overview and provide citations where relevant. I am not going to engage in this this further, but find it a shame and baffled by this person's motives (unless he/she view themselves as a proponent or opponent of Haredim, rather than objective author). I am concerned as this person seems hardly willing to engage in any discussion (for example, a citation by the BBC was removed with no reason). It would be better if there were more authors involved in these discussions rather than the self-styled owner of this page. For people who read this, be cautious of this page's content and read some reliable material elsewhere.--Halma10 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will proceed with a Dispute Resolution request in the coming week, and we can hopefully resolve some these matters that way.--Halma10 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so, but if I were you I'd carefully review WP:V and WP:NPA first. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fired for observing the Sabbath
The article contains the passage:

"Jews refusing to work on the Sabbath were almost always fired at the end of the week;[citation needed]; the large majority of those who desisted from working on Saturday had to face the formidable challenge of finding new work each week).[citation needed]"

I don't think citations can be found to support this. Starting in the 1880's, the first large wave of Jewish immigrants included many who founded businesses, then hired other Jews, providing a way to remain both observant and employed.

In my moderately extensive reading, I have never come across stories of Jews who hired on to Gentile firms, concealing their refusal to work Saturdays, then surprising the employer at the end of the week and getting fired. How could this happen? New Jewish immigrants could not conceal their Jewish background. English was not taught or spoken in the ghetto, and the immigrants' accent and limited English proficiency would have given them away.

Someone who feels they have some intellectual authority on this point should consider removing the quoted passage.


 * I personally know people whose (great)grandparents were affected by this, and who told me it was indeed quite common. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a famous book, All for The Boss, by the daughter of one of the haredi leaders of america at the time, i've read it, it's a perfect citation. just too tired to put it in :/

Involvement in the Israeli political process, military, economy and education
Can somebody add some more information about recent Haredi involvement in Israeli political parties (only Shas discussed in some detail so far) and in the IDF? In the labour market? Or lack of involvement, voluntary or involuntary? Also on curriculum of Haredi schools and to what extent it overlaps with the one taught in other Israeli schools? I don't know enough about if myself. Many thanks. Nescio vos (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are completely right, but I think it reflects a wider problem that the entire article needs a major cleanup. Some sections are written in long essay style form and also doesn't reflect what is happening with Haredim today (as you mentioned with education, employment etc.)--Halma10 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"like other Orthodox Jews"
isn't the phrase "like other orthodox jews" in the opening pgraph too vague? i'm not sure that Modern Orthodox Jews would consider themselves part of an unbroken chain of tradition. Doesn't the very title "modern" imply otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.77.244 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything I've read indicates that Modern Orthodox Jews consider themselves part of an unbroken chain of tradition. And all movements in Judaism today are "modern". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Awful Sara schenirer photo
OMG what a terrible looking picture! don't tell me thats the best picture available!! and if it is, better to delete it and put a pic of the seminary building or a graduatuing class. no?
 * still having nightmares from seeing it...* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.130.251 (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Explaining edits on January 19, 2013
The follewing content was part of the first paragraph: Haredi Jews consider their belief system and religious practices to extend in an unbroken chain back to Moses and the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, and they regard non-Orthodox, and to an extent Modern Orthodox, streams of Judaism to be deviations from authentic Judaism. Its historical rejection of Enlightenment values distinguishes it from Western European-derived Modern Orthodox Judaism. Here is why I deleted this: 1) The first unsourced statement defines Haredi Jews by their belief that their belief system and religious practices date back to Moses. Besides being unsourced, it is also untrue. Assuming this refers to their religious beliefs (not their political, etc.) and practices, this statement would be true about all Orthodox Jews; and this can't be used to define Haraidi Jews. 2) It further states that they believe that non-Orthodox and Modern Orthodox Judaism to be deviations from authentic Judaism. The sources provided really don't show that. At best this would be original research. These two articles are presented as opinions of individuals, and they don't even claim the positions of Haraidi Jewry. Additionally, even their own opinions don't clearly state what was attributed to them. 3) The last point is an unsoursed POV. Enlightment values is a general term that arguably encompasses ideas that Modern Orthodoxy rejects, as well as ideas the Haraidim embrace. Proud Novice (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Most authentic"
Sure, the one source said as much, but others say differently, e.g. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, Judaism on Trial, "Different groups within Orthodox Judaism often argue that their interpretation of Judaism is the most authentic one"; Ronald Berger, Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, "the various religious factions are positioning themselves in a 'hierarchy of credibility' as they fight over which group ... offers the most authentic version of Jewish identity...", etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is true, but I wish to include the general perception that Haredim are the "real Jews":
 * "All this is true, but the secular today are at a disadvantage in the struggle with the Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox because they concede that the Judaism practiced by the religious is the only "authentic" Judaism." (Lee Walzer - 2000)
 * For the most part, 'traditional Jews' no longer have a sense of what authentic Jewish experience might be. Once again this leads them to see other Jews, whether they be Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, as holding the key to authentic Jewish experience. The 'traditional Jew' imagines a 'traditional community,' an ultra- Orthodox one, which he or she sees as the space of Jewish authenticity." (Landau,Wolski & Fagenblat - 2006 )
 * "Here, too, Brenner was a typical representative of the atheist stance dominant in Eretz Israel of that period. The only authentic expression of Jewish religiosity — which they loved to hate — was the religion of the ultra-Orthodox. The more ultra-Orthodox, the more authentic; the more authentic, the more they abhorred it." (Shvaid, Hadari, & Levin - 2008)
 * "We fail to act because, I think, deep in the hearts of non-Orthodox Jews there lingers the belief that the Haredim are the real Jews, or the safeguards of our future, or perhaps the sweet, cuddly Tevyes of our imagined Yiddish roots." (Michaelson - 2013)
 * "Jews and non-Jews need to know that the Haredi-Fundamentalist community does not represent true Judaism or hold a monopoly on Jewish authenticity." (Knopf - 2013)
 * "Almost four-fifths of all respondents (79 percent) disagreed with calling the Orthodox the most authentic Jews, a sign of diminished admiration." (Cohen & Eisen - 2000)
 * "Street demonstrations by Haredi militants in beards and black hats can make the image of "authentic" Jewish orthodoxy seem threatening rather than quaint." (Gruber - 2002)
 * "Orthodox rabbis, perceived as constituting the authentic interpreters of the Jewish law" (Newman & Peters - 2013)
 * "First, the ultra-orthodox are perceived as the most authentic bearers of the tradition." (Stern - 2003)
 * Of course there are dissenting views, that's why this is notable. Chesdovi (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As there are dissenting views, it won't do to present only one view. Honestly...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact is there is a widely held perception, however much it is disputed and simply wrong, that they represnt the most genuine form due to their rigid adhereance to the Law. There is no dissenting view on that. If you find one, we can add it. (i.e. "Many secular view the modern Orthodox as most authentic"..., "Some in Orthodoxy view Reform Judaism as most authentic", etc.) Chesdovi (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But I did provide dissenting views. Not only that -- you did as well: you very helpfully included some in your list.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear. Sure, there are dissenting views about who can/can't claim a monopoly on Judaism, each group believing their outlook is correct. That I do not dispute. What is clear is that there does seem to be a general perception by many, Jewish and non-Jewish, that the ultra-Orthodox tend to represent genuine Judaism. Can the same be said for the other streams? It is a common phenomenon in life: Whoever is more strict, more abiding, is seen as being more correct. It is a natural reaction. That is why the polls specifically ask that question and why the journalists are trying to make the public aware not to be led astray! Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What's missing is an understanding that some believe there is no "most authentic" group. Non-orthodox groups usually don't claim to be the "most authentic" -- but they also reject the idea that the Haredim are the most authentic by virtue of not having changed.  You might be interested in the work of Samuel Heilman in this regard.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had added text to demonstrate that very point. Chesdovi (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please remind me of it. What I deleted from the lead "and such a perception has long been held by mainstream Jewry" didn't have any nuance at all.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "and although this claim is contested by other streams". Chesdovi (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain: "NPOV/cherry-picking". Chesdovi (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Views on 'immodest female exposure', male-female segregation and associated public controversies
I agree that some of the wording of JBluestein's edit was rough and needed work. But in the end I think we need something along the lines he included. Chesdovi asks: 'Should we add "Rarely, it also happens that a Hiloni will use verbal or even physical violence towards a Hared he considers to be a parasite"' -- to which I think the answer is, yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have looked at British Asian and cannot see any mention of anti-Semitic attacks. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Bluestein here. As of now Chesdovi has systematically deleted all of my (many) edits and additions without any discussion prior. Are you guys native Israelis? I am. I come in contact and speak with Haredim every single day. I live in Ramat Gan, which is right next to Bnei Brak. Everything that I've written is extremely common knowledge in Israel, and the vast majority of the Israeli population could tell you these things about the Haredim - including the Haredim taking pride in those things themselves when asked. All of those issues, by the way, are reported on the Israeli media on a weekly basis, and on Haredi media on a daily basis. I intend to re-add all of the material I have previously put on the article in the near future - this time with better (and less subjective) phrasing, as well as many more references (as it seems the 18~ references I've put before could not satisfy some people's urge for deletion). I will back up everything I add thoroughly. If Chesdovi so chooses to act as impulsively as before, I shall ask Wikipedia admins to intervene. It seems to me that Chesdovi is Haredi himself and is acting by inter-communal agendas... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: As promised, the paragraphs were returned. Improvements were made upon the text. It is now more neutral and objective, with better phrasing. Number of references and citations grew from 17 to 32. I wish to ask Chesdovi to avoid any further one-sided deletion without discussing matters on the talk page first. It would be inappropriate and would force me to involve other wikipedia editor and moderators in order to prevent such vandalism. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As for Chesdovi's previous claims:
 * - The way Haredi women are dressed in public is only momentarily discussed earlier on the article, and finds its proper depth of discussion under the section dealing with the way Haredim approach female bodily exposure in public.
 * - Two references are to entries on the Hebrew Wikipedia. They refer to very good articles with a lot of references to Hebrew sources, for those who wish to investigate further (do remember that it's all about Jewish culture, so most of the material and references is in Hebrew).
 * - It is well known in Israel that Haredi men attack immodest women on a daily basis. Such things are reported at least once a month, but it happens every day in Haredi cities and communities and usually goes unreported. People who actually live in the country (like myself) have seen such things with their own eyes. I see and meet more Haredim in the National Park in Ramat Gan near my house than most people see in their lifetime.
 * - Continuing the latter argument - I've actually spoken about all of the issues I've written about with a large array of Haredim from many sects. Wikipedia might require references (which had been provided), but I sure as hell know what I'm talking about here.
 * - No, it is not at all common that a secular Israeli would attack a Haredi because that person is Haredi. That is extremely rare.
 * - There are no politics involved in those controversies. These are purely religious matters and conflicts.  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "That is extremely rare?" I think you mean Israeli media reporting on such attacks are rare! I once saw Old City Arabs spit at passing Haredim. Shall we go and add this to Arab citizens of Israel? Shall we add to Israeli Jews how many Israeli women go around half-naked in public thereby offending the sensibilities of others? Or is that style of dress considered "normal" and therefore not considered an "attack" on others? Haredim are under attack each and every day by the promiscuous fashion of Israel’s streets. Maybe we should consider adding these pernicious attacks by such women on the orthodox public in Israel to Israeli women? Chesdovi (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, please don’t feel upset that I have removed a lot of your material. You are simply giving too much WP:WEIGHT to certain issues. You have added a large paragraph detailing censorship of women in Haredi media, which can rather be summed up in a sentence or two. Another paragraph about Mehadrin buses can be drastically trimmed, especially as there is a linked page. Sentences like “To a Haredi men, sometimes even the show of exposed arms and legs might prove too much for their religious tastes and preferences” and “(interestingly, it is nonexistent in other countries, or at least goes unreported)” are unencyclopedic and WP:OR. Hebrew Wikipedia cannot be used to cite. You re-added “The wigs and shaved head are meant to make the Haredi woman less attractive to men” – which is not reliably citied. To state that Haredi women are meant to look unattractive is baseless and figment of your own imagination. Besides, this can be elaborated on if necessary the Dress section. Another undue paragraph is about Women of the Wall. This can be mentioned in passing. Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that issues like the attitude towards womens' appearance and gender segregation are important and should be in the article. However, I think Jonathan's version is too much like a personal essay and much too long. Give a more succinct summary and rely on the sources to provide details for someone who wants them. Zerotalk 13:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jonathan here. I wish to reply to the arguments made by both Chesdovi and Zero...
 * It is difficult for a person living outside of Israel to understand the importance of the issues I have brought up and described. Because such issues are rarely reported in the world media, an outsider such as yourselves would easily perceive them to be of lesser importance, and my additions to be too detailed and excessive. However, this cannot be further from the truth. In Israel, the issues I have been writing about are absolutely central to Haredi social and communal relations with Orthodox, Reform and Secular Jews. They are not only reported on newspapers almost every day in some variation, but are also in the center of the most heated and well-known debates that had ever taken place in the Israeli Supreme Court. I know this because I am a native Israeli, and also a Law student.
 * The many tensions between Haredim and the rest of Israeli society are also at the heart of most conflicts in the Israeli political system. Even though these may appear political at times, in reality all of these tensions are religious by nature, and stem from the struggles between Haredi ultra-conservatism and religious world view and other outlooks which are relatively more liberal.
 * My representation of all of these issues is not 'personal', but reflects the everyday reality that's in Israeli society and media. From my point of view, you should know, your criticisms are absurd. Just to give an example: Chesdovi wrote that I made up the claim that Haredi women shave their heads and wear wigs to look less attractive. But this is common knowledge in Israel!! Ask any Jewish Israeli (including seculars) on the street why Haredi women dress modestly, wear hats/wigs and sometimes shave their heads, and they'd all tell you the simple, well-known truth - that it's part of their 'modesty' (Tsiniut), and is meant to make them less attractive so men would have indecent thoughts to act upon (Mahshavot Zima).
 * It seems to me that those who criticize what I've written are simply detached from this culture and reality. Such things as those I've written are very obvious and well known in Israel. Whenever I meet Haredim they always speak of those issues openly. They'd even tell you that "it's obvious", and would be surprised if a fellow Israeli would not know of such 'facts'. The things which Chesdovi has been portraying here as my own inventions are therefore mainstream ideas within Haredi society...
 * That being said, I will work towards adding more references to my claims and writings in the near future. Please do not alter stuff in the meanwhile. Thank you.
 * Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't live in Israel but I read the Israeli press all the time and understand everything you say. But the way you write about it emphasizes that you are producing a personal essay.  Adding sources is good but if it turns out like a well sourced personal essay that isn't much better.  (It isn't much relevant, but what you write about wigs isn't the whole story.  Many women wear realistic wigs in order to look attractive while obeying the rule to cover their heads. Of course this is frowned on.)  I don't agree with Chesdovi's attempt to reduce these issues to a few sentences, but you go too far in the other direction.  You two should work towards a compromise. Zerotalk 14:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Will try to work on the phrasing to make it more objective and encyclopedic, as I did before following Chesdovi's initial criticism. Do allow me to ask though - which Israeli press do you read? Generally speaking, one has to be exposed to a variety of sources to get the full picture, if one does not live among Israeli. Biggest newspapers Yediot Aharonot/Maariv and their websites (Ynet.co.il and  NRG.co.il) are the most balanced relative to others. Haredi media usually represents Haredi interests. Haaretz is a left-wing newspaper (well known; for better or worse). Israel Hayom is a right-wing newspaper owned by a friend of Bibi Nethanyahu which ignores many tensions with the right-wind and portrays the government in a more positive light. The Jerusalem Post is slightly detached from Israeli reality at times and does not reflect Israeli culture, but more of an 'American translation' of it (but that's only my opinion).  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Hannah Naveh is of the opinion that when it comes to "accurate coverage" the Jerusalem Post is the best. I personally would be very wary of relying solely on the Israeli media, especially on this subject, when Haredim claim they are subject to the worst bias out there! A section about this to be duely added? Let's not forget Efron who notes that "much of the language used by secular Israelis to describe the haredim is eerily reminiscent of classic anti-Semitic rhetoric, attacking their clannishness, greed, and looks" and according to Rubel: "Since the haredim assume religious, and therefore moral, authority in Israel, secular Israelis delight in divulging any dirty secrets of haredi communities." Chesdovi (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your problem is that your understanding of the issue comes from reading books, while mine is grounded in physically knowing the subject matter. You think that quoting some scholar who wrote a book is superior to quoting the Haredim themselves? You are severely mistaken. This holds within the bubble world of Wikipedia, but does not stand the test of real world knowledge. The fact of the matter is that there's lots of hostility between Haredim and the rest of Israeli society. This hostility is not racial (they're mostly all Jews anyhow) but religious from the Haredim's part and cultural from the other side. It stems from the very basic notion of Haredim considering Seculars to be inherently inferior, calling them 'Captive Babies' (Tinok shenishba - a very degrading term (the wikipedia page discussing this is mostly referring to rabbis of older times, but this has gained a much more negative connotation in recent decades); babies have the qualities of being naive, infantile, helpless and unintelligent compared to adults - that's the analogy Herdim use for seculars on purpose. The Orthodox Jews are in the eyes of the Haredim even worse, since they supposedly understand the Torah and Halacha well, but 'choose' to not abide by them as necessary and even, God forbid, modify it against the belief of the Haredim, spreading 'incorrect' Judaism. I challenge you, if you ever come to Israel, to sit down and talk with Haredim from Bnei Brak, Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Beitar Ilit, etc... They will confirm everything that I've written here, and most will not be ashamed to admit that the Haredim and Halacha consider the Orthodox, Reform and Seculars as 'inferior huaman beings'. Think I'm racist? That's what I have myself heard with my own years from hundreds of Haredim over the years. To that, you might add the military enlistment related tensions, the fact that commonly there are extreme Haredim who attack 'immodest' women, that Haredim live in enclosed communities (some of which don't allow outsiders!), that many Haredim are poor by choice and live off social security (taxpayers money), etc etc etc... and you get a good base for the development of prejudice, bias and hate among the Hilonim (secular), who of course also aren't always acting so well in the context of these social tensions. What has also been enraging people in Israel for decades is that Haredi political parties have been pushing themselves into coalitions with no political agenda whatsoever, willing to 'get into bed with anyone' as long as the Haredi Yeshivas get massively funded (billions of shekels) and that the status quo regarding non-enlistment of haredim is maintained. Through their political takeovers, the Haredim have also managed to get for themselves free or heavily subsidized public housing, while Israel has been going through its most major housing crises ever during the last 15 years, and other people had to take mortgages for 30+ years time. Also, in addition to all of that, the Haredim pride themselves publicly as being a 'pure' community, "without any sins, criminals, homosexuals, bad habits or bad manners" (generally speaking, they're also extremely hostile towards homosexuals on several front and in several ways). This is why the Israeli media delights in finding moral faults in Haredi communities. But you know what? It's the Haredim themselves who like gossip the most (even though it's considered bad habit in Halacha). The majority of Haredi gossip and talk over nasty stuff in their society reaches and is published on Haredi media first (with careful language, of course) - especially on Haredi local newspapers and Haredi radio. But I doubt you've ever read a Haredi local paper or listened to Israeli Haredi radio...
 * You see now?... All these issues, and many more, you know about well by actually living here, with the Haredim. That's not something an outsider normally understand well, although there are exceptions, of course. How can you then pretend to lecture me on these issues?... I'd have loved to bring a million references to all the points raised in the previous paragraph, but there's not point to it. It's ridiculous. You probably wouldn't be able to read them anyhow, you don't want to (seems only interested in eliminating any just criticism towards the Haredim), and it's in any case common knowledge held by most Israelis. Such things would have never even been brought to discussion on the Hebrew wikipedia.
 * 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs)

The Haredim have been despised by the secular from the outset. That 80% of European Haredim perished in the Holocaust is in part due to the meager 5% quota given to the Agudah by the Jewish Agency who did not want the ultra-Orthodox in their new state. Any antagonism on their part is in reaction to how they have been treated by a hostile anti-religious society. A Haredi dare not set foot into some northern Tel Aviv suburbs lest he be the target of a barrage of verbal abuse. I know of a young yeshiva student who was subjected to an unprovoked attack by local anti-religious thugs and needed stitches. But of course, it is only the spitting it seems you are aware of... Talk pages are not forums. You can blog your thoughts elsewhere. This site is for verifiable material added in a neutral fashion. Together we can attempt to cleanup this page because at present it is a mess. Chesdovi (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the place for your detailed additions belong over at Religious relations in Israel. This page is to provide a detailed summary about this particular stream of Judaism, and is not meant as a comprehensive essay expanding on each and every facet of their life and culture. There are enough other pages about these things and links should be provided where relevant. If Haredi women are meant to be “less attractive” why have the full body burkas been condemned by the Edah? Modesty does not mean a person should endeavor to look unattractive, rather it means dressing in a way that avoids attracting attention. A Haredi woman must be attractive to her family and presentable to the world. The “word on the street” and fact are two different things and must be presented as such. Chesdovi (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Religious relations in Israel is in fact much longer than what I've added. My stuff is like a summary of that page.
 * There are several reasons for why the full body covers have been condemned:


 * 1. To distinguish Jews from the Muslims, who commonly wear full-body covers.


 * 2. Because it is the most extreme form of cover, and Jews in general avoid going to the most extreme form of anything. That line of thinking is very old, but is represented well by Maimonides' 'Middle Path' (which in my opinion parallels the thoughts of Confucius on this matter).


 * 3. Most Haredi society distinguishes itself from other Jews by making its adherence to Halacha ever-more rigid with every change in general society. This process started with the 'Ein Hadash Min HaTorah' principle (אין חדש מן התורה) - the principle on which modern Haredi society is formed, which determines that as principle, Haredim object social/technological innovation, and also abhor much in the way of religious innovation. So whenever secular society goes one way, the Haredi rabbis try to pull the other way to distinguish themselves. But putting on full covers, they ironically wouldn't be able to go further no more with their extremism. You cannot 'threat' to become 'even more devote' if you're already as devote as possible... That's like an inner Game-Theory conflict that the Haredim have. 'Threat much remain credible'.


 * 4. Full-body cover would prove too much for Haredi women to bear in the Israeli heat, and they would oppose it and cause inter-communal commotion and controversy. The Haredi rabbis always play a risky game, drawing the thin line that's between pushing people to go to the extreme, and having people object their wishes. Like Zero justifiably commented, there are many Haredi women that intentionally revolted against the wig thing by wearing very attractive wigs. The original purpose had been to make women less attractive, but this proved too much for even Haredi women to bear and cooperate with. Going for full-body cover would probably cause a similar reaction, which is unwanted.


 * 5. A super-extreme Haredi sub-sub-sub-sect called The Shaalim (השאלים) have began using full cover for women. They are despised by other Haredim, and general Haredi society wishes to keep away from them.


 * Hope that this answered your question...


 * Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd additionally like to ask - why is it so improper to quote the Hebrew wikiepdia? It includes a much greater wealth of knowledge on Judaism and Haredim than the English Wikipedia. It is heavily referenced and cited on these issues. We are dealing with a people who native tongue and holy tongue are Hebrew. Most of the sources telling and reporting on Haredim are in Hebrew. Claiming that the Hebrew wikipedia cannot be relied upon is like claiming no Wikipedia can be relied upon, which makes the entire concept of Wikipedia invalid. Moreover, it suggests that the people who make such claims might not be able to read these sources all that well, if at all. I have the advantage of being a fluent speaker of both Hebrew and English, and being able to converse and write in both on a Native Speaker level. I don't see how someone who's not a high-level Hebrew speaker and unfamiliar with Israeli culture and lifestyle can seriously comment on issues relating to Haredim, which are at the heart of internal religious conflicts in the broad world of Judaism. The only exception might be via someone who has done serious academic research on the matter, but then again - would you seriously consider the opinion of someone who has merely read books and reports of the Amish in Hebrew, and does not even speak English and probably have never lived among such a community? He might know something about the Amish, but he's no authority. That's the equivalent folks... I speak the language. I live among them. I have conversed with an endless number of them. I participated in demonstrations on the issues I write of (segregated buses, enlistment of Haredim, Haredim spitting on girls in Beit Shemesh, etc). I have read lots of literature and an endless amount of original news reports about these issues. I have studied law and the relevant legal and constitutional issues relating to how Haredi society mingles with the rest of society in Israel. Therefore, I consider myself an authority on these issues. There are many in Israel who know much more than I do, but compared to most people who're not native Israelis, I am an authority. I do not make stuff up - I have lived through the stuff I write about; have seen all these things with my own eyes. Do not underestimate that. Anyone who doubts my sincerity and experience on such matters can call my Israeli cell phone: 972-54-6888992  Jonathan Bluestein (Yonatan Bluestein). I ain't hiding behind no nicknames and I sure as hell ain't lying or making up stuff. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Using WIkipedia itself as a source is forbidden by policy, see WP:CIRCULAR. Zerotalk 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Get your research published by a reputable publisher so that your material can be peer reviewed by other authoritative scholars. Then we can cite you. Until then, your thoughts are as good as mine. WP:OR. Chesdovi (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)