Talk:Women of the Wall/Archive 1

NPOV
I think my description is extremely mild, especially my description of the reactions of ultra-Orthodox Jews at the western wall. I hope that others will contribute to this page, especially those who are most familiar with the issues and with the latest legal developments in Israel. I hope people will regard this as a neutral encyclopedia article, yet still be will to use strong factual materials and descriptions. -- Metzenberg 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is not NPOV. Mildness does not excuse one-sideness. There is something to be said for the other side. By way of analogy, a group of female Protestant ministers who burst into St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, pulled out wine and wafers, and began holding a communion service out loud would likely be shown the door. This is so even if one believes that Catholics shouldn't be controlling the Basilica and ought to give other denominations equal access, and even if one believes the Catholic ban on women priests or any number of their other beliefs and practices is wrong. Clearly, people on the Catholic side might have something to say in such a situation. There's a reason why "When in Rome do like a Roman" is such a common statement of good manners. We shouldn't expect people in bikinis to be welcome in Mecca, either. When you go to a holy site, you have to behave in accordance with the standards of decorum of the people running the site, like it or not, unreasonable or not. A neutral encyclopedia should give both sides.

Here is a blog entry by a woman who claims she started praying with Women of the Wall but became dissaffected. http://jerusalemrevealed.blogspot.com/2005/01/women-and-wall.html

I've attempted to add in content on the opposing (Haredi) viewpoint and the Israeli Supreme Court decision, not out of agreement with those viewpoints, but because Wikipedia editorial standards on Neutral Point of View require it. --Shirahadasha 16:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

 * Although non-Orthodox movements in Judaism have adopted egalitarian positions and practices, and the role of women has been changing gradually in Modern Orthodox Judaism, traditional authorities hold sway.

This sentence is extremely POV (it almost read as “while everyone else has come to their senses stupid old rabbis who control the area have not”). All it is needs to say is "The Western wall area is controlled by..." (the Israeli rabbinate?)(the Jerusalem municipality) (or whoever). There is no reason at all to mention any other egalitarian movements. It should also make clear when these “traditional authorities” got involved. As I recall it was (at least at first) the people at the Kotel who objected. Jon513 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to organize the article into a factual introduction, a WOW arguments section, and a Haredi arguments section. I've added material including quotes from WOW organizer Phyllis Chester and from Haredi rabbi Avi Shafran's anti-WOW website. --Shirahadasha 01:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are reading your own point of view into that sentence, and projecting onto me an attitude towards which you are very sensitive. The sentence is in fact true. The Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements have completely adopted egalitarian positions. They leave their implementation up to the minhag of individual congregations, but there is essentially no controversy among non-Orthodox Jews. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain an overwhelming majority of Jews are non-Orthodox (although perhaps not avowedly secular, as in Israel). The changes in Modern Orthodox Judaism, at least in the United States where I am familiar with them, are also quite obvious. So that sentence was not meant to offend you or anybody else. It was simply a statement of what the facts are. I'm not sure what it is that bothers you. Is there a better word than "egalitarian" for this? --Metzenberg 04:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Involvement in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
This article doesn't currently discuss any involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Women of the Wall are involved in this conflict, please write a section on their inolvement and cite sources. Otherwise, mention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict category is inappropriate under the verification policy. --Shirahadasha 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right. Sorry, I try to create useful categories but when moving around dozens of articles (which usually requires looking at at least a couple dozen which don't fit) I can make some mistakes.  I try to only apply the category to articles that already talk about the issue.  I went through the Israeli organizations category and had both Women in Black and Women Of The Wall open -- I guess I got confused and it isn't hard to since "Women Of The Wall" could easily be a name used by a group of women protesting or supporting the security barrier.  heh.  --Ben Houston 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Women of the Wall has no involvement and no official position on the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It encompasses women and their supporters from a variety of points of view. It is true that Women of the Wall receives support from many persons and groups who could be described as liberal Zionists, supporters of a two-state solution with a negotiated settlement of the conflict (if possible). For example, Women of the Wall is a grantee of the New Israel Fund. The New Israel Fund itself has no formal position, except that it does not support organizations operating outside of the Green Line other than those within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. --Metzenberg 04:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Status of Temple Mount and Religious Authorities
Reverted recent edits by user:Amoruso because:


 * 1) The Temple itself is considered holier in Judaism than the Temple Mount, revert edit indicating otherwise.
 * 2) The Jerusalem rabbi responsible fot the Kotel is a Haredi rabbi and the opinions he follows are Haredi opinions. Women's prayer groups are permitted by some authorities in Modern Orthodox Judaism but are prohibitted by all Haredi Judaism opinions. It would be incorrect to say that Orthodox Judaism as a whole holds the views involved.

Best, --Shirahadasha 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted the info on the image. The kotel isn't the holiest site, it's the temple mount itself and the holy of holies but western wall is close to it... no need to say it's holiest which isn't factually true. Second, it's not a former temple mount it's the name of the mount. Amoruso 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I realised now what you were trying to say, but second temple can't be holiest site since the temple doesn't exist, it's not a site. Better just not to include this on this article. As for Haredi, needless to say, saying Haredi through out the article is serious WP:POV and it needs cleanup IMO. I'm not aware of any orthdox rabbi who will allow a woman to wear a talit etc - that's classic reformist judaism. Amoruso 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you consider Rashi and Rambam reform? See the Wikipedia article Tallit. See also "Talit for Women," Henkin, Yehuda Herzl. In: Response On Contemporary Jewish Women's Issues. Ktav, 2003. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These historical assumptions are interesting yet irrelevant. Obviously, Having a bar mitzvah for a girl who will wear a talit, a tflin too ? and then read from the bible is not allowed in orthodox judaism. Amoruso 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rabbi Yehudah Herzl Henkin is a contemporary Posek, not a historical figure. See also Rabbi Aryeh A.& Rabbi Dov I. Frimer, Women's Prayer Services - Theory and Practice, Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Winter 1998) and Avi Weiss, Women at Prayer: A Halakhic Analysis of Women's Prayer Groups, Ktav publishers, January 2003 ISBN 0-88125-719-2. These are all undoubtedly very lenient Modern Orthodox opinions that are way outside the hashkapha of the Israeli rabbinate (or yours), but they exist. At the women's prayer group in Avi Weiss' synagogue "women daven together, read from the Torah, and lead the services....omit[ting] any D'varim Sh'Bekedushah." The web site notes that "Many young women have chosen to celebrate their becoming a Bat Mitzvah with our Women's tefillah." See . Whether this synagogue is accurate in calling itself an Orthodox synagogue or not is not for Wikipedia to say. The web site makes clear that yes, they read from the Bible: "The weekly reading is divided into seven portions. For each portion a woman may volunteer to receive the honor of being called up for an Aliyah to recite the Brachot, or Torah blessings before and after the portion is read. It is customary to have a Bat Kohen, daughter of a Kohen, called up for the first aliyah, and a Bat Levi, daughter of a Levi, to come up for the second Aliyah. The remaining five Aliyot are distributed among B`not Yisrael, daughters of an Israelite." Best, --Shirahadasha 20:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Zero's and Malik's reverts

 * Come on, you can't have Wikipedia blame the women for the disturbances or blame the court for bowing to foreign pressure -- Zero0000

1. I don't see how "Over the years, a number of members had been arrested for flouting the law and insisting on praying at the site which had led to disturbances involving Orthodox worshippers" is any different from the original "These actions have upset members of the Orthodox Jewish community, sparking protests and arrests."

2. It was due to foreign pressure that the court overturned the previous ruling. This "pressure" is cited in one of the 'New York Times'' articles.

Neither of you have responded to the charge of the haredi press of mainstream bias, so I will proceed to removed the undue mention of violence at the organised protest. -- Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed your text because it had an openly hostile tone about it, and there are serious problems of fact. Consider "non-Orthodox prayer services" — it is not our business to declare what practice is "Orthodox", and I'm sure your opinion differs from WoW's opinion. Consider "it was illegal for them to do so under Israeli law as it was deemed offensive behaviour by the Orthodox religious authorities" — this is wrong because only the government, with oversight from the courts, decides what is illegal. Of course we know that in practice the police were taking their cue directly from the religious authorities, but this was improper and caused a small scandal when it was exposed. Consider "a 2013 court ruling gave permission" — no, the court ruled that in fact they were not disobeying the existing law.  Rather than giving permission for them to break the law, as your text implies, the court decided they were acting legally all along.  Consider "bowing to pressure from American Reform groups" — to claim that a court is beholden to foreign pressure is a very serious charge that they would vehemently deny. It is at most an opinion of someone who you didn't name, and I don't think such opinions belong in the lead even if they are attributed.  The actual court ruling of course does not even mention Reform groups or outside pressure. You are welcome to add this charge, properly attributed, to some later point in the article.  Consider "were not against the "local custom."" — this is correct but confusing as it misses the reason why the "local custom" is relevant.  The reason is that the regulation under which the women had been arrested uses that phrase, so the interpretation of the phrase is required in order to apply the regulation. Zerotalk 01:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Chesdovi, promises to continue edit-warring are not a good idea. If there are reliable sources that provide the perspective you're looking for concerning the May 10 protests, please add them to the article. The opinion column you cited in the preceding section doesn't qualify. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You re-added text which was added in a npov fashion, you did not balance it. That is Terrible. Chesdovi (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention the problem about "flouting the law and insisting on praying at the site which had led to disturbances". It is strictly true, but it insinuates that the responsibility for the disturbances lies with the women. This is an opinion and not a fact.  Unless the act of praying aloud is a disturbance (which is an existing point of view), the actual disturbance is the protest against the praying.  The previous text is more accurate.  I also didn't like "flouting", which is pejorative. Zerotalk 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Originally it was illegal for WOW to hold services there at all under the Protection of Holy Places Law of 1967 which forbids “conducting a religious ceremony contrary to accepted practice”. Even in 2003 when their right to hold services was recognized, it was still against the law (illegal) for them to do so at the Western Wall itself. In May 2013, a ruling "permitted" (read: gave permission) non-Orthodox worship at the Kotel. As Anat herself states: “Finally, last April, Judge Moshe Sobel of the Jerusalem District Court issued a groundbreaking ruling saying our group was not illegal and we would be allowed to pray at the Wall without fear of further detentions.” The police were acting in accordance with the law by acting to prevent public disorder. It looks to me that you are using a very fine comb to find inaccuracies in my text. I disagree basically with all you have stated. The whole issue has come to fore as the group is non-Orthodox. Egalitarian prayer is non-orthodox and I am sure WOW acknowledge this. Even Haaretz calls the group non-Orthodox, as does probably each and every other media organization around the world reporting on this.  Chesdovi (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

May 10 protests
Actually Haaretz was more conservative than both JPost and Ynet regarding the violence. The citing needs to be fixed up. Zerotalk 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact is thousands protested peacfully and a tiny fraction carried out violent acts. Of cousre the anti-religious press foucsed on those hot heads and ignored the vast majority of protestors. The Haredi press took a very different view of events. Please remember that " Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post, are both blatantly anti-Haredi." Chesdovi (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Is Wikipedia's policy against edit-warring also blatantly anti-Haredi? I expect you to stop edit-warring until this issue is resolved. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And I expect you not to allow newbie Tamtzit to add NPOV content without adhereing to other policy guidelines. How about you stop readding POV content until this is resloved. The cheek of it. Chesdovi (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After watching several videos, I shudder to think of how it would have been without the massive police cordon. On the other hand, I've been in demonstrations that were 99.9% peaceful and yet were reported as violent, so I have some sympathy with your position. But we can't simply censor the reporting of multiple mainstream newspapers, nor can we just make up our own description that doesn't reflect the sources. Zerotalk 10:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The newbie removed "mostly non-violent" and replaced it with a detailed account of the violence which did occur. Of course I am okay to add the violent reactions of the minority, but the way it is presented needs to be balanced, and until it is, the current content should obviously be removed. See Hamodia editorial:
 * "The fact that some 10,000 women gathered peacefully in tefillah was ignored, as reporters made certain to give ample proof to the many who accuse the mainstream media of widespread anti-chareidi bias"....
 * Remember: Over a third of Israelis consider Haredim the most hated group in Israel and that's not because of the throwing of eggs, chairs and water bottles... Chesdovi (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "over a third"? "the most hated group"? can you please give a source for that statement? thanks, BlueHorizon (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who nees a source - just read Israeli papers. And who are the most hated group among the haredim? The WOW! Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it's pretty obvious each of the leading newspapers try to promote their own agenda. I would just like to remind that Israel's jewish population is largely orthodox people, from which many are family related to the Haredim. I feel that "the most hated" is a bit extreme. BlueHorizon (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Feminist Story the Media Missed at the Kotel:
 * "When I arrived at the Kotel a little past 7:00 a.m., there were about 25 (not 2,000 as reported by Ha'aretz) young haredi men standing on the upper level at the far north of the Kotel Plaza shouting and ruining the prayers for all those on the men's side who had come to pray on Rosh Hodesh."
 * "The media showed absolutely no interest in the thousands upon thousands of seminary girls and older women praying on the women's side and not raising their voices above a quiet whisper."
 * "Somehow the media managed to mangle the presence of the thousands of girls, lumping them together with the male hooligans -- often in a single sentence (as in this paper's front-page story on Sunday) -- as part of a single haredi protest."
 * -- Chesdovi (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"But we can't simply censor the reporting of multiple mainstream newspapers": And just how reliable are mainstream newspapers...?
 * "The steadfast prejudice of reporters resulted in gross factual mistakes in the coverage with regards to "who was who", "who said what," and "what happened." The only newspaper well disposed for accurate coverage of the group's issue over the years has been the English-language Jerusalem Post. These findings were indirectly corroborated by subsequent research, even though the media were not exclusively the focus of research." (Israeli family and community: women's time, pg. 130.)
 * Anat Hoffman: "I stood with a journalist once and I told him, “if you write ‘Reform women’ about Women of the Wall I’m gonna hit you.” He wrote “all denominations,” and in Tel Aviv the editor changed it to “Reform women” because the idea that Orthodox women may be non-passive is just shocking to the secular editor in Tel Aviv." ....

"Feminist"
Why is using the word "feminist" to describe this organistaion non-neutral? The Hebrew name of the group encapsulates its feminist mission. The group was founded during the First International Jewish Feminist Conference. . Malik, please explain your removal of this word. Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"American born women"
The words "American born women" is not "insignificant". It is in fact very significant and is specifically mentioned in regard to wow in many sources. Chesdovi (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the description of WOW has to start with the place of birth. I don't object to mention it later on. Cleo (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

False statements in the article
The article states in a few places that the 2003 High Court ruling prohibited WOW from conducting prayer services at the wall. This is a false statement. The ruling actually acknowledged the right of WOW to pray at the wall, however it said that it would be more appropriate (not sure if "appropriate" is the most accurate translation) for WOW to pray at Robinson's Arch, provided that the Israeli government fulfill some conditions. Cleo (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the herstory section needs to be cleaned up. If I added inaccurate material, this should be amended. I have been focusing on expanding the public response section. Chesdovi (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

non-orthodox?
Some of the founders of Women of the Wall were orthodox women, and currently there are 2 out of 8 orthodox board members. . Regardless of these facts, Chesdovi is classifying the organization as "non orthodox".

I was also astonished to see that Chesdovi falsified the 2013 ruling. The ruling does not classify the prayers as "non orthodox". Cleo (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Justice Elon, 2003: "The prayer custom of wow, while it is not against halacha, is not accepted. It is not accepted in an Orthodox synagogue; it is against the prayer customs of Orthodox Synagogues." Quite simply, the manner of prayer service conducted by wow is "non-Orthodox", whether it adheres to halacha or not. Quite frankley, some aspects of the service are in flagarent violation of halahca too! Having "orthodox" boards members means nothing. The whole basis of the organisation stems from a militant feminism which itself is against halacha. It is against halacha to associate religiously, let alone pray together with, members of the Reform, Conervative or Masorti hetrodox movements. That Leora Bechor co-authors a halachic paper published by Reform says much about her "orthodox" credentials. It is 100% forbidden for anyone calling themselves Ortrhodox to do such a thing. If the group was Orthodox, there would be no opposition to there prayer style. Wow is affiliated to the Reform and it is a non-Orthodox organisation. This will be noted in the lead. Thank you. Chesdovi (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, once again, for an unsourced diatribe full of original research. Got any reliable sources to support your view? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some things are so obvious they need no sources. One need not cite for such an assertion! You don't have a clue. Chesdovi (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems over-simplistic to describe the group as non-Orthodox. Chesdovi's "source" is a newspaper headline, which is not a reliable source by itself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Over-simplistic"?! You did not seem to know the different between Conservative and Orthodox. What makes you so sure you know whats what here? I am sure the Rabbinical Council of America would call "Orthodox" members of wow as acting "beyond the pale of Orthodox Judaism". The group is campaigning for the right to hold non-orthodox prayer services. Or did you miss that in the plethora of articles cited here? Chesdovi (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, once again, for the diatribes. And for the personal attacks. Keep it up and you'll be blocked. Yet again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is perfectly fine for Malik to call my edits "venom", my posts "diatribes" and myself a "d**k." I am suprised you have not already been blocked for your horrid PA's. Another case of one rule for Admins and another for non-Admins I suppose. Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My response to this is "who cares?" It seems to me useless arguing over labels. We should say what they do, who likes it, and who doesn't like it. That's information that will actually convey something to the reader. Slapping on adjectives that mean different things to different people (and nothing to the majority of visitors to this page, I'll wager) is not good editing. Zerotalk 14:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the big problem is here quite frankly. That a simple adjective denoting the political outlook of this group cannot be mentioned in the lead is very interesting. Maybe it needs rewording to make it clearer. Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, except that Chesdovi insists on adding labels. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And Malik "insists" on removing them. It seems some people do care. Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

POV tag
This article is a hate-filled diatribe full of cherry-picked quotes intended to portray Women of the Wall as something foreign to Judaism and Israel. Chesdovi, if you keep up your POV-pushing, I will bring up this article at WP:NPOV/N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * i agree. i think the article as it is today should be brought up to WP:NPOV/N. Cleo (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you view my edits amount to a "hate-filled diatribe". But is it really necessary to revert to using such inflammatory terminology? The material I have added relating to Israeli opinion reflects the weight, as I have come across, that it is given in RS. In fact I have not found any book yet in which wow's actions have been sanctioned by the Israeli public. I think this may be found in articles as a result of the recent events. I am in the process of adding supportive material from US sources too, just as Zero suggested earlier. Chesdovi (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * you can start with a study that shows that 56% of the Israeli public support WOW and 34% object . Cleo (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is somewhere in already. But let me just make it clear to Malik: Wow is indeed foreign to Israel, (according to this article anyway: For many American Jews, Women of the Wall, the tallitot- and tefillin-wearing women who read the Torah at the Kotel, have long been heroes of Jewish religious pluralism. Most Israelis, however, are only recently aware of the group The whole battle for the Western Wall is an Americanized and American-imported battle for religious moderation and tolerance) and just as as Orthodoxy views Reform as foreign to Judaism (and visa-versa) Orthodoxy's views, which view wow as foreign to Judaism, will be included here, (and visa-versa). Chesdovi (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Foreign to Judaism": "WoW has had the image of American Reform Jews, because in Israel not only the Ultra- Orthodox but also many secular Jews look upon Reform Judaism as a brand of secularism." --Chesdovi (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Knesset in some sense represents the public opinion in Israel. Laws proposed by Ultra orthodox Knesset members against the activities of WoW were rejected. I strongly agree that there is a serious POV bias in the edits of Chesdovi that portray Women of the Wall as something foreign to Judaism and Israel. Cleo (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well find some RS then. The more I search, the more sources I find that substantiate the claim that wow were originally foreign to the general Israeli society and were viewed as a American import. The books I have used have been written by scholars whom have studied the issue extensively. They are RS as any. These are their conclusions. Read the numerous quotes. Don't argue with me - look at what the RS say. Add more sources if you feel it needs to be more balanced, but you cannot removed sourced material. It is tru that there has been recent support from MKs etc. Add it, or I will do so myself in due course. Chesdovi (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits by 63.73.199.69
Re: removed the word "feminist" from the first sentence, as it adds nothing to the description of who WOW are, and can in fact be seen as a derogatory label (probably why it was inserted in the first place). I cannot fathom how describing the group as “feminist” can be seen as derogatory. I am sure the wow pride themselves in being feminists. It is the personal POV of 63.73.199.69 that considers the term derogatory. This word is used in numerous RS to describe the group, and we describe the nature of organisation in the lead. This is beside from the fact that the wow website has a lot of documentation attesting to their feminist nature and struggle. Their name in Hebrew itself encapsulates this fact. Re: ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_of_the_Wall&diff=561405210&oldid=561402382 Removed first sentence of summary. It is a POV masquerading as a fact]'' and ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_of_the_Wall&diff=561419597&oldid=561413091 They are not a "Reform" organization, whatever that even means. And even if it did mean anything, "israeli society" is not a monolithic entity]'' There are ample RS which we can rely upon to include the POV that "Israeli society generally viewed wow as Reform." (See Reform Judaism for what “Reform” means – I will link it.) It seems to be so widely acknowledged that I doubt attribution is needed either. The last source was written in 2010, so we are dealing with current trends in this respect. Re: Removed more irrelevant material from summary I can’t see how this material is “irrelevant”. It is just as relevant as including “However, of late, Orthodox feminist organisations have voiced support for their right to assemble”, which you have not deleted. This passage is based on material taken from a book authored by the founding members of the group and I feel it is important to state their view on Orthodox participation and support. -- Chesdovi (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Feminist
 * 1) Reform
 * 1) Orthodox standards
 * If there is no objection, I will proceed to re-add this sourced material. Chesdovi (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You might as well go ahead. It fits well with the rest of the POV-pushing you're engaging in. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And what is your reply to the fact that 63.73.199.69 left text which informs of Orthodox support, but deleted sourced material which documented Orthodox opposition? Chesdovi (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This whole article is about nothing more than Orthodox opposition to Women of the Wall. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 63.73.199.69 removed text about Orthodox opposition calling it "irrelevant material", and left material documenting Orthodox support. My question is: Why do you not view that as POV editing? Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I am moving everything back. Please bear in mind that the only reason there is such a page here on wikipedia is precisly because of the orthodox oppostion the group encountered and it is therefore understandable why this aspect features so prominently. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)