Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

History: A Jewish subculture and debate with more liberal movements

User Chesdovi has deleted this section without proper discussion. The section (which I haven't written myself) seems valid, but requires references. The proper solution would be to improve it and add citations and references - not delete it altogether. It contains a lot of useful information... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User Chesdovi and his deletions

This person has been serially deleting stuff off the page and using very unsound claims for his actions. Here is some of the stuff Hesdovi has uttered as excuses for his last deletions (of many in recent times):

"This is state sponsored Haredi hatered" - Nice conspiracy theory. Next.

"was this about modesty or advertising gambling?" - This had been the completely illogical statement by him in response to an Israeli news report reference he deleted which told of 3 Haredi men stoning a woman: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/1.1624850 . I haven't a clue what he was talking about.

"A news report on a Haredi man who attacked 'immodest' women " you missed out the word "suspected" " - This was Chesdovi's excuse for deleting another report of a Haredi attack. Chedovi, who is not a native Israeli like myself, is unaware of Israeli laws. He is oblivious to the fact that in Israel, the news are not allowed to blame someone for any action until that person has been proven guilty in trial. Therefore, it is ALWAYS written, in any report of any crime by either the police or newspapers, that someone was 'merely suspected', as people could not be directly accused of anything because of this legal issue. Chesdovi then uses the fact they called someone a 'suspect' rather than 'guilty of' as an excuse to delete this reference... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan, please familiarise yourself with wiki policy and guidelines before adding material here. If you wish to add something, place it at talk for initial discussion. I have just noticed you used your image of a swimming pool advert as a source. This is simply unsatisfactory. Chesdovi (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please also desist form altering source quotes and adding unsourced material. ([3]) Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi and User:Jonathan.bluestein: Please note that you're both currently at the limit of WP:3RR. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nomoskedasticity; I tend to loose track of my editing pattern. Chesdovi (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Family and Lifestyle

Chesdovi requested references for two claims I made in a previous edit:

1. That Haredim often don't have a choice of mate (obligated to choose) in the act of Shidduch.

2. That Haredim don't usually study the Bible in their Yeshivas.

Both claims are true, and within my last edit I had added, among many other references, proof for both these claims. Again, we're dealing with facts that are unknown to Chesdovi (?), leading him to delete them, even though it's common knowledge in Israel. How common? So common that two of my references has Haredi men themselves talking and writing of why they're proud that the Bible itself is not studied in the Yeshivas, and instead they study the Talmud and Gmara. Heck, I just had a conversation about this with Haredim at the park near my house tonight. How long is this going to go on, that Chesdovi simply deletes whatever is not to his liking without prior discussion or checking the facts first? =\ Very annoying situation with me having to go back to this page every day to save it from mass-deletions... Chesdovi argues that I need to include more references, but I have added over 40 references to this article over the last 3 days already!! Whenever there isn't a reference, Chesdovi would delete content without giving anyone a chance to review the materials and add something. Whenever there is reference, Chesdovi would just delete it anyhow, using some excuse. But unfortunately for him, there is an endless array of references that could possibly be added to this article. With every mass-deletion by Chesdovi, I will take the time to re-introduce deleted materials (when necessary), improve upon them (phrasing and content), and add even more references. My references are from many, many varied sources, including the Haredi media. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Most couples are not given a choice about their marriage-match ('Shidduch')."

Please state where this is found in sources you provided. I hope you are not confusing Matchmaking with pre-arranged marriage, because that it what it sounds like.

No, I'm not. This is just you trying to confuse people who're unfamiliar with the culture so to avoid criticism on Haredim, as always. There are only two ways of marriage among the Haredim - either a matchmaker finds a mate (matchmakers are always hired by the families and NOT by the bride/groom), or a family already knows which mate they're interested in (as often, the Haredim arrange matches among families many years prior to marriage - like it had been the custom in ancient times in Europe and the Middle East). In BOTH cases, the future bride and groom almost never have a say on the matter. In BOTH cases, the marriage includes detailed business contracts between the families (and I'm not talking of the standard Jewish Ktuba). You know that. I know that. The several articles I've attached as reference also mention it quite clearly, but you pretend like they don't. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked to be directed to the source of this claim. You have not provided it. I am not fluent in Hebrew and I could not pinpoint where exactly your source states that "In BOTH cases, the future bride and groom almost never have a say on the matter." As far as I know, very few, if any, Haredi couples are forced to marry each other. Chesdovi (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Forcing is rarely required, as it is rare in Haredi society that someone goes against the wishes of his family, religion and culture. I have had prolonged conversations with Haredim about this issue. Their opinion is the having some 'professional' choose the right mate for them is a superior way for getting married, and also eventually makes for a better relationship. They are taught to believe that choosing a mate on their own is unwise, as it "usually leads to a bad choice".

Here are selected quotes from the 5 sources I've used:

First source (Shidduch as a business transaction): "עוד חשוב להוסיף בכל הקשור לנישואים ושיקולים כלכליים של פרט מסוג R: (גם) בחברה החרדית "תלמיד חכם" שווה שידוך טוב. משמע אישה שיכולה לפרנס אותו (גוטליב 2007). מכאן ניתן ללמוד שני דברים, ראשית גם במקרה הזה הפרט החרדי פועל באופן תועלתני, שנית, גם במקרה הזה נחשף שניתן לכמת את איכותו של התלמיד למדד כמותני – כמה כסף הוא מקבל מהנישואים (בנוסף למלגות השונות). מכאן אנו לומדים שוב שגם הקהילה החרדית מודדת איכות בכסף: שידוך טוב עולה כסף, תלמיד חכם שווה כסף. התהליך האבולוציוני כאן הוא ברור, הקהילה החרדית מתמרצת אדיקות ואיכות בכסף. הקהילה, אם כן, פועלת בדיוק כמו פירמה תחרותית. לכן יש להתייחס אליה באופן הזה."

Second source : "בסיפור הזה אין רומנטיקה ולא חיזור, ועל אהבה אף אחד לא מדבר. בסצנת השידוכים של החרדים יש רק שיקולים קרים ולא מעט גזענות".

""אצלנו אין מושג של אהבה, אצלנו יש אהבה לבורא", מחדד העיתונאי החרדי ישראל גליס את ההבדל. "הקשר בין בעל לאישה מהווה את השותפות לבורא עולם. אם הקשר הזוגי יהיה טוב יותר, כך גם האמונה והקשר לקב"ה חזקים יותר". "אהבה באה אחר כך. אוהבים כי מתחתנים. הזוג נפגש כדי לבדוק יש ביניהם משהו משותף, מחפשים איזשהו קליק, התאמה, האם הם יכולים להקים בית משותף יחד. כשיש את זה, קודם מתחתנים ואחר כך חיים באהבה". "

"לאחר כל הטרחה מסביב, הציפייה היא שבן או בת הזוג המיוחלים ימצאו עצמם בזרועותיו של האחר לאחר פגישות מועטות יחסית. בחסידויות למשל, כשמדובר בקהילות שמרניות וסגורות יותר, חמש פגישות למטרה של מציאת בן או בת זוג ייחשבו לדי והותר, ועשר פגישות זה כבר מעל ומעבר. "

"מבחינה של התהליך נראה כי מקומם של ההורים דומיננטי ביותר, אולי אפילו דומיננטי מדיי. "זה רק נראה ככה מבחוץ, וזה לא בדיוק כך", טוען גלסנר, שיצא לו ללוות מקרוב כמה וכמה חברים ומכרים בתהליך. בשל ההפרדה בין המינים, עד לחתונה למעשה "לא מכירים זה את זה כמעט, וקשה מאוד להחליט לפעמים, כי זה לא מושג שאתה חי ומכיר אותו", הוא מסביר. "

Third source : :::::::"לאחר שההורים הביעו את הסכמתם להצעת השידוך שהובאה בפניהם, מתחילים בני הזוג להיפגש ביניהם. צורת המפגשים שונה בין החוגים. בחוג החסידי המפגשים יערכו תמיד בבית, אם בבית השדכן או בבית אחר נייטרלי. בני הזוג ישוחחו ביניהם, כאשר, תמיד, יהיה עוד מישהו נוכח בבית, שאשר הוא, כמובן, לא מקשיב ולא מתערב בשיחתם. לא יווצר מצב שבו בני הזוג נמצאים ביחידות. על פי ההלכה גבר ואשה שאינם נשואים זה לזו לא ישהו לבדם במקום סגור – איסור 'ייחוד'. מספר המפגשים הוא מצומצם ביותר, שלושה או ארבעה, ואז הם צריכים להחליט לחיוב או לשלילה. מלבד ההורים ובני הזוג, יש בחברה החסידית משקל גדול לדברי הרבי, האדמו"ר. לעיתים הרבי הוא שדוחף לשידוך מסוים, וגם אם לא, מקובל שההורים הולכים אל הרבי להתייעץ עמו ולקבל את ברכתו. אם הרבי אישר את השידוך, השידוך יצא לפועל, ואם לא - לא. "

Fifth source : "השדכן, אומרים החרדים, הוא כמו רופא. למה רופא? כי כאשר הוא מרפא חולים, הוא בעצם רק שליח של הקדוש ברוך הוא העושה את מצוותו. כך גם השדכן, רק שליח. שהרי כבר אמרנו, הזיווג נטבע מראש. הקב"ה פשוט שולח את רצונו אל פני האדמה באמצעות השדכן."

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While others (Shadchan/parents/spiritual mentor) do the vast majority of promoting a shidduch, there is always the 'Beshow' where the potential pair has their say.

• "Most men, even those not in kollel, will make certain to study Jewish texts (collectively referred to as Torah) daily (most studies though are focused on the Talmud and Gmara, and the actual Bible is seldom studied in-itself."

I cannot make out where in the sources you provided there is support for your claim that "the actual Bible is seldom studied in-itself." This is a fabrication of the highest degree.

--/ Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is just an outright lie. The sources I've added clearly state that several times!! There's a video of a Haredi Yeshiva student talking about it, and an article by a Haredi journalist which is about this very subject! You are playing dumb and taking advantage of the fact that people who read our posts often don't speak Hebrew. The fact that Yeshiva students rarely learn from the Bible itself is extremely common knowledge in Israel, and any Haredi whatsoever you can meet on an Israeli street will have no problem telling you that. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The text you added did not refer to the study sessions of yeshiva boys. Rather it implied Haredi men hardly ever study the Bible. That is a false claim. The thrust of the Haaretz article seems to imply that the Bible is studied in a variant fashion to the way the national religious do it. According to Professor Atkas, Haredim focus on Talmud and study the Bible when reviewing the weekly Torah portion. Chesdovi (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just brought 3 different sources, two of them by Haredim, stating the exact opposite to what you say - that Haredim, in general, DO NOT study the bible regularly. The weekly review of the Torah in Judaism is not a study of the bible - it's reading the text as it is. The Orthodox Jews like to attach philosophical-religious lectures to that practice by the Rabbi present, while the Haredim adhere only to what's written in the Talmud. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We cannot use text which insinuates that most Haredi men seldom study the actual Bible in-itself. While study of the Pentateuch is not typically skill-based in ultra-Orthodox schools, it is studied. And although it may not be the focus of school based Torah study, we cannot state it is "seldom" studied either. The fact that the yeshivot or kollelim do not place emphasis on bible study is one thing - (though I do know of an ultra-orthodox yeshiva which has a daily hour-long session devoted to studying the weekly portion with the commentary of Rashi) - but to say Haredi men outside this framework hardly ever study the Bible is false. They study it in their own way, either by fulfilling Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum, learning Chok l'Yisrael or other personal study. Chesdovi (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What part of "I've included references with Haredim themselves taking pride of my claims on this issue" do you not understand? Just admit you cannot read the sources and don't understand what they're about! Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Using an op-ed, a TV clip and a newspaper article is insufficient to establish the facts here. We need a reliable, published, scholarly, peer-reviewed (preferably English) source which states that Ultra-Orthodox men rarely study the Bible. I believe it will be hard to find one. Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You guys should just have a duel and get it over with. In my set of Talmud the Bible gets quoted on every page as source material, pray tell what does studing Bible mean? looking in a Chimush? Learning Chimush with Rashi? Every Charedi Yeshiva does that. Are you refering to the lack of Nach study? Then you are correct, that was a knee jerk reaction to the Haskalah, as was discontinuation of the study of Hebrew Grammar.

I am removing this clause after speaking to a Haredi man who told me he spends around 20 mins a day reviewing the weekly portion with the commentary of R' S. Yitzhaki. His son told me he studies the same in his yeshiva school. If you want to mention that the Prophets and Writings are not studied in the conventional format, find a good source. Chesdovi (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Dress

• "Many Haredim view manner of dress as an important way to ensure Jewish identity and distinctiveness."

Please indicate in the provided source ([4]) where it mentions that Haredi dress acts as a way "to ensure Jewish identity and distinctiveness."

--/ Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not added this sentence to the article, but I have added references to it. It's pretty clear in the references, but again you're playing dumb to make my life more difficult. Here are selected quotes from that source (that also support the next sentence in the paragraph being discussed in the article):

"הלבוש מהווה סמל הן לריבוד הפנימי של החברה החרדית, והן לשמירה על הגבולות החיצוניים בינה לחברה החיצונית"

"כל מה שאופנתי ומתאים למזג האוויר, אך כמובן צנוע"

"יתרון העולה בקנה אחד עם שמרנות צורנית המאפיינת את הגישה העקרונית של האישה החרדית ללבוש"

"הן מעדיפות, בדרך כלל, את המראה השמרני"

"השמלה אינה נראית אופנתית, במונחים חילוניים. שמלות הקיץ של החילוניות מתאפיינות בחשיפה, קווים לא סימטריים ובדים טבעיים ארוגים בדלילות וחצי שקופים, או מסריגים הנצמדים לחמוקי הגוף. מאפיינים אלו אינם עולים בקנה אחד עם הנורמות האפשריות אצל החרדיות."

"הכלה לבושה תמיד בשמלת - קרינולינה לבנה וסגורה, באורך קרסוליים, בצללית קלאסית מיושנת, בסגנון 'new look' אירופאי של שנות החמישים."

"חתונה במשפחה היא ההזדמנות הגדולה להשקיע עבודה רבה וכסף גדול להלביש לא רק את הכלה והחתן, אלא גם את האחים ובעיקר את האחיות. הסגנון בלבוש הילדות והצעירות לאירוע כמו חתונה של אחות או אח גדולים, הוא מפואר מאד, אך קלאסי-תיאטרלי. המראה מהודר, ומתכתב עם סגנונות הוליוודיים של שנות חמישים, ועם 'מראה הרפד' שהיה רווח באירופה במחצית השנייה של המאה ה-17."

I've also taken care to add another reference for that sentence.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

With the help of google, I have translated the first sentence above as follows:

Dress is a symbol of both the internal stratification of Haredi society, and maintaining the outer limits with external company.

This does go some way to show that the modest dress is used to keep "distinct" from wider society (maintaining the outer limits with external company), but the source text does not support the fact that women dress to protect their "Jewish identity." A woman dressed in modest attire does not imply she is Haredi. We need a source stating that they dress so to ensure their Jewish identity, as opposed to them just wanting to keep the Halacha, or because they are more comfortable covering up.

All the other quotes you provided go no way in corroborating this sentence. I don’t know why you added them here. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

All the sentences which I have provided point to the fact that the Hardei dress code is: 1. Culturally unique to Haredim within Israeli society. 2. Important for Haredim as means to preserving their communal uniqueness. 3. Is strongly linked to Haredi religious interpretations of Judaism, and hence to their Jewish identity, as a separate identity to that of the Orthodox, Reform and Seculars. The entire article (which is quite long) was in fact dealing with the unique attributes of female Haredi dress codes. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with User:Jonathan.bluestein's editing

Citing other wikipedia pages as sources

Despite being informed that it is against policy, ([5] and [6]) Jonathan.bluestein has re-added a number of times citation to Hebrew wikipedia: "Hebrew wikipedia entry describing mainstream Haredi rabbi leader Ovadia Yosef's opinion on 'immodest seculars' (with references). Quotes are from his Q&A book 'Yabia Omer' (יביע אומר)" and For further details see this Hebrew wikipedia entry on Head Cover Among Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women". Please do not continue to add these. Chesdovi (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

With his latest edit, JB has ignored policy yet agian and is using Hebrew Wikipedia to cite text: [7]. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Citing Primary sources which do not support text

Jonathan.bluestein used: "Origin of this Halacha rule is from the Babylonian Talmud, at: כתובות, עב, ע"א and ספרי, במדבר, פרשה יא” as a source for "In public, Haredi women usually wear clothes that cover the majority of their body, as well as distinct hats (which might be identical or different to those worn by Orthodox Jewish women)." This source does not verify the text.

This has been repeated for "Many women also wear wigs on their hair, or even go as far as wearing a wig on a shaved head" with the following citation: "Origins for such Halacha rules: Moses Isserles at: שו"ע או"ח סימן ע"ה סעיף ב' . The Mishnah Berurah book at: ס"ק ט"ו . Rabbi Moshe Feinstein at: אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ב', יב ; And many others."

This is a lie. You're taking advantage of the fact that there are no scanned versions of these sources online (only available in personal and public libraries) and the knowing that most people cannot read the kind of Hebrew in these books. These are strong sources, and no Haredi person would ever dispute their credibility. This is simply a part of your malicious overall attempts to discredit my honest trying to improve this article, because you are afraid of those facts coming to public light (which is utterly silly and ridiculous, since everything I wrote about in this article is common knowledge in Israel) Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY and then you will understand my concerns. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Halacha is a primary source for all religious Jews worldwide. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And again for "The wigs and shaved head are meant to make the Haredi woman less attractive to men": “The Hazon Ish (Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz) said: "לפעמים יש בזה גם יתרון על מטפחת, שמכסה יותר טוב את כל השיער". This is from: דינים והנהגות מהחזון איש" חלק ב', פרק ח' אות ט'”.

Same case with this one. Taking advantage of people not understanding Hebrew and the context. This is a directly applicable reference, which even includes a very relevant quote. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As above, please see WP:PRIMARY. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious that Jonathan.bluestein has not read up on any policy, or has, but continues to disregard it. I fail to see why this needs Dispute resolution when it is so clear who and what is at fault. Chesdovi (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What is clear is that you have an obsession with sabotaging the development of this article in ways which you do not yourself fancy. Even after over 50 references have been added, you are still not 'pleased', continue to come up with lies and excuses, persist with your mass-deletions. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is clear is that you have no willingness to adhere to policy. You behaviour is bordering on being disruptive. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, the article states: The wigs and shaved head are meant to make the Haredi woman less attractive to men. On this, the following reference appears: The Hazon Ish (Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz) said: "לפעמים יש בזה גם יתרון על מטפחת, שמכסה יותר טוב את כל השיער", meaning that sometimes a wig is more modest than a kerchief because the wig does a better job at covering all the hair. If this reference is meant to support the text in the article, then the article must be changed in accordance with the reference. Or else find another source saying that Haredi women purposely try to look less attractive. (If the Mishnah Berurah may be cited as a source, then please see Mishnah Berurah 303:59 where he mentions that a woman is permitted to wear certain jewelry in public on Shabbat so that "she should not be disgraced upon her husband".) -- -- -- 08:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Citing www.youtube.com

Citing youtube.com is against policy: Mainstream Sepharadi Haredi rabbi Ovadia Yoesf forbids that wearing of wigs altogether because they're too attractive. Chesdovi (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is probably the most influential rabbi alive today. He is the head of Shas political party (by spiritual authority though not a politician himself), is considered a 'genius' and 'wise student' by almost all Haredi circles, and is a MAJOR religious authority to Haredim worldwide. His words are important, and this video is from the channel of his own political party, from his own speech, speaking on the subject matter. It is more relevant than any other source you could find. Would you delete a prime-minister's speech reference from Wikipedia because it came from youtube, when this reference has been published on an article discussing the political agenda of that prime-minister? You wouldn't. It's no amateur video. We're talk of a widely acknowledged authority speaking directly on the subject matter. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with jonathan, if this is the official Shas channel then it is allowable per WP:SPS, but it should be attributed to Ovadia Yosef directly eg ' ex chief rabbi of israel Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of Shas says 'blah blah wigs ' .Perhaps a mainstream news source has reported on his views, this might be a better option? rgds 188.222.98.201 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong about policy viz-a-viz linking youtube videos. They can be added on a case-by-case basis. But it seems that the video JB linked is indeed a copyright infringment. The webpage is not that of Dar Vesaharet, the publisher of the video. It was uploaded by http://www.youtube.com/user/yahadot. Consequently, it does not matter one iota what the credentials of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef are. For a student studying law, to use this clip is illegal. Chesdovi (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your observation is correct with regard to the copyrights of this video. I have beforehand only seen videos of Ovadia Yosef giving these sorts of lecture on his own channel, and did not notice that this was not his channel. While we cannot determine the copyright situation here, this is still better avoided as you suggested. I have therefore replace the youtube reference with the following one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3/Aug/13

Using images as RS

"See example in the form of the Haredi swimming pool commercial to the right of this paragraph" is not RS. Chesdovi (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been on a crusade against that picture for a long time, haven't you? Also suggested that it should be deleted on copyright claims, twisting the words of the law on that discussion on the Wikimedia page. Even thought I used the ref tag to make the reader pay attention to the fact that the picture illustrates the point, it doesn't make it a reference. It was simply a tool for me to help the reader pay attention. Bear with it. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

[[File:Haredi swimming pool commercial.jpg|thumb|left|200px|You can draw attention to it by adding a caption, like so. Do not use a footnote to do so. Chesdovi (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)]]

New use of image as a source

The latest image being used by Jonathan.bluestein as a reference is an image of a barrier on the road down to the Wailing Wall, presumably taken on a Saturday: קובץ:מחסום משטרתי072.jpg. Should I be the one to be accused of "playing dumb"? Images cannot be used as RS. Gooodbye. Chesdovi (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Where on WP:RS do you see a mentioned of either of the words 'image', 'photograph' or 'picture'?... Why wouldn't a picture from a physical real-life site being discussed not be a valid reference? Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALSO

JB has re-added a number of pages to the See Also section in a fashion I feel is not using "common sense". Contrary to his claim, this has not been discussed on talk, and he has still reverted this edit 4 or 5 times. Chesdovi (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Because anyone could read through this talk page and the edit-history page and clearly see we have been discussing these additions for quite a while now. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Where? Chesdovi (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Here on the talk page. On the edit-history page, it's in the edit comments. You've been re-deleting the same materials over and over... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to [8] and [9], that is not "discussing". You did not initiate any discussion about this section at talk. I provided a link to a guideline on this matter and you did not state why you feel the relevant links should feature. Chesdovi (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic formatting

In response to Zero telling JB that his "version is too much like a personal essay and much too long - give a more succinct summary" he states: "Fair enough. Will try to work on the phrasing to make it more objective and encyclopedic." Yet this has not occurred. The same material is being added in pretty much the same format. Chesdovi (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus: Censorship of women in the press

JB wishes to add the following text:

Some Haredi publications have a policy of either censuring photographs of women, or not publishing them at all; the newspaper Yated Ne'eman in April 2009 digitally altered photographs of the newly installed Israeli cabinet to replace two female ministers with pictures of men, while another newspaper blacked the women out of their published photograph.[89][90] There had been more extreme cases, too. Some Haredi publications have been known to censor pictures of female children.[90] On March 2013, a Haredi magazine in Israel was reported to censor the images of women from a famous photograph from the Holocaust.[91][92][93] The publications are not always run by extremists within Haredi society. The magazine operated by the Haredi mainstream Shas party and organization also has a policy of censoring women, which it has expressed openly.[94]

I feel this is far too detailed and has the deficiency of using certain occurrences which give slanted emphasis to the issue. It also gives an odd chronological timeframe, as the dating of these instances are very recent, while censorship has been characteristic from the start of Haredi publishing. The use of the word “extremist” for the mainstream Haredi press is POV. Using “expressed openly” is also POV, insinuating there is something intrinsically wrong about it. I have attempted to provide a more concise and accurate body of text to deal with this issue:

Haredi publications tend to shield their readership from objectionable material.[41] The editorial policy of a Haredi newspaper is determined by a rabbinical board and every edition is checked by a rabbinical censor.[42] A strict policy of modesty is characteristic of the Haredi press. Pictures of women are absent and stories of sexual content are avoided. When publication of such stories are a necessity, they are written ambiguously.[43] No mention is made of serious crime, sporting news or non-Jewish festivals[44] and little coverage is given to other streams of Judaism.[45] The Haredi press generally takes an anti-Zionist stance. In Israel, it portrays the secular world as "spitefully anti-Semitic" and describes secular youth as "mindless, immoral, drugged, and unspeakably lewd."[46][47] Such attacks have led to Haredi editors being warned about libelous provocations.[48]

The type of additions made by JB are unsatisfactory and I ask that they be posted here to be checked here beforehand. Chesdovi (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Slanted emphasis"? Who are you kidding. Stuff that gets public headlines in Israeli newspapers for years and gets into the Israeli Supreme Court several times on various accounts (as evident in many of my references) is not a "minor issue" or something that I have unnecessarily "overemphasized". All of these issues are key issues in Israeli societal conflicts, and stand in the heart of the relations between Haredim and the rest of Israeli society. The truth is that it simply doesn't get as much exposure on the world-media, and it pains you that people outside of Israel are getting exposed to this not-so-pretty truth about the internal situation in-between Jewish communities. How many more references do you want me to add before you give up? I've added over 50 of them already. You're simply ignoring everything that's in front of your eyes and continue to manufacture lies and excuses.

These paragraphs are just as detailed as they should be. There are other pages who detail the inter-communal conflicts in Israel in much greater detail (which you have linked to yourself in the past), and those paragraphs which I've added are like summaries of them. I have already explained this to you before.

By the way - are you seriously criticizing the fact that I have called 'extremist' the so-called 'mainstream' Haredi publications for censuring pictures of little girls and women from the holocaust? Ain't that 'extreme' in your vocabulary? Sorry pal - in the context of Israeli society, most of which is much liberal than Haredi society, this is considered extreme.

You live in an imaginary world in which Haredim are a haunted minority, with the Israeli secular having conspiracies about them and trying to constantly hurt them. You have expressed these opinions on the talk page several times already. You actually made claims such as some of my references from mainstream Israeli media being "state-funded conspiracies against Haredim". Pardon me saying, but you are nuts. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

First, can I please ask that you use quotation marks appropriately. I have not used the terms "minor issue", "overemphasized" or "state-funded conspiracies against Haredim".

You used different, though very similar phrasings. For instance - once you deleted a paragraph, partly justifying the deletion by claiming: "This is state sponsored Haredi hatered". I wonder if you could fetch even one non-Haredi source that has demonstrated that the state of Israel has actively funded any "Anti-Haredim hatred"... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, I am getting rather irritated about how you are constantly assuming what my ulterior motives may be. Please see WP:AGF and also WP:NPA while you’re at it.

I feel there is a "slanted emphasis" here, not due to the fact that these are insignificant matters, but rather by the way they are presented, which I feel is not in line with WP:WEIGHT. You have inserted a few random examples of censorship, an issue which I feel my text has sufficiently dealt with much more concise manner. Maybe one example would be sufficient. Your references can be used to cite "A strict policy of modesty is characteristic of the Haredi press. Pictures of women are absent" in my version. But, providing multiple references is not the main issue at hand here.

The word "extreme" may be used by some to describe Haredi press censorship, but others would not. We have to provide a WP:NPOV here. ---/ Chesdovi (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is why I've taken care to emphasize in the text that the censorship relates to only SOME Haredi publications, and also that the violence is not something most Haredim do, and neither is it encouraged by Haredi rabbis. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus: Women of the Wall

JB want to add the following:

Currently there is much controversy in Israel on the issue of male-female segregation at the sight of the Wailing Wall. Segregation exists at the sight because of Haredi dominance of the area. Opponents of the Haredi agenda have pointed out that in the past, there had not existed such segregation (many pictures exist from the early 20th century which demonstrate this claim, and these have been published in the past on the mainstream Israeli media). A group of Orthodox and Secular Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel' (נשות הכותל - Women of the Wall) made a series of provocative actions during recent years, coming to the Wall often to pray in the presence of men (other than in the strictly female area). Following debates in the Israeli parliament and supreme court, it was finally decided to re-segment the prayer regions near the wall to: Male, Female and Mixed (both male and female) areas.[

As far as I see it, this issue is part and parcel of the wider debate regarding the Orthodox status quo and control of religious matters in Israel. There is no need whatsoever to emphasie this particular feminist campaign on this page. It should be removed. Chesdovi (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not a minor issue. This has been a major issue in all of Israeli media for years now, and it has been discussed several times and ruled upon by the Israeli Supreme Court (see more info at: women of the wall). The Wall itself is an extremely important cultural symbol in Judaism. Haredi control over the Western Wall in Jerusalem and the cultural and social influences that this control has are central issues in Haredi relationships with the rest of Israeli society. It seems to me that you're simply an anti-Feminist and personally highly dislike the notion of women having the freedom to pray wherever they want in public venues, and wish to avoid these things getting know publicly outside of Israel. You have all the more reason to do so because you know, just like myself, that this issue has recently been a source of great tension between Jewish communities in the U.S. and the Israeli government, with the former taking decisive financial and political actions to pressure Israeli officials to allow free prayer at the wall. This paragraph on the women of the wall is but a summary of this important issue in Israeli society. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If so, this matter can be mentioned, but in passing, as there are other pages which are devoted entirely to this subject. WP:WEIGHT. Chesdovi (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We've already discussed this thoroughly on lower parts of this talk page. These are appropriate summaries of much broader issues. You are looking to systematically eliminate this information altogether. Your obvious strategy, which you have used several times before, is to first argue it's too long, then reduce the length, and then further argue it's unimportant and delete it altogether. People aren't stupid, and anyone who reads through this talk page would be able to easily pick up on your schemes. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Shock horror: I have just noticed that on all other Judaism pages there is no mention of Women of the Wall? (Well, actually I just checked one, but the likelihood is 0%.) Can anyone care to explain why we have so much exposure about this group on this page only? Chesdovi (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it's the Haredim that pitch hissy-fits about it -- and there is then coverage in newspapers. (What sort of answer did you expect?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The violent reaction is what gave the media their field day and the women their original notability. Since then they have become the battle cry of the US Reform and Conservative movements where they have celebrity status. Don't tell me the WOW are solely the preserve of the Ultra's. Why do you choose to focus only on the Haredim? The Orthodox feel the women are just as provocative to them and their papers conversely give the women lots of negative coverage, so shall we allocate a whole paragraph to this group on the non-Orthodox Judaism pages too? The truth is they don't belong on any Judaism page. They simply don't warrant it. A group of 30 women being pelted by a group of 30 Orthodox youngsters. Give me a break. Would we add to Religious Zionism the fact that some hardline zionists cause disturbances when attempting to pray on the mount? Chesdovi (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Consenus: Military

JB added a whole list of OR remarks with no citation whatsoever:

- Most Israelis who are not Haredim are obligated to enlist by law, for either 3 years (men) or 2 years (women).

- Most of those Israelis who enlist consider their service to be a shared national obligation, in which the Haredim refuse to part.

- The Haredim can work on those 2–3 years of their lives in which they do not serve in the IDF, while most soldiers at the IDF are usually payed anywhere between 80-250$ a month. All the while, the Haredi Yeshiva Students receive significant monthly funds and payments for their religious studies.

- The Haredim, if they so choose, can study in the Academia at that time, while most soldiers are not allowed to.

- From a legal constitutional perspective, this situation reflects a violation of the Democratic principles of both Equality and Human Dignity (this is one of the main issues studied in Constitutional Law courses in all Israeli Academia).

 While a few dozen Haredim did still enlist in the IDF every year in recent decades, the Haredim usually reject those criticisms. Depending on which Haredi is asked, one might argue that:

- A Yeshiva student is equally or more important than a soldier in the IDF, because he keeps Jewish tradition alive and prays for the people of Israel.

- The IDF is not forthcoming towards Haredim, as the food is not Kosher enough for their taste, and there is too much immodest exposure to women.

- As an IDF soldier, a Haredi would not be given enough time to practice his religion properly.

- While the Haredi Yeshiva students can work during the time they don't serve, and most of them do, the current law does not allow them to work legally (as they already receive state-funds), so those who do work are considered felons (even though there is no regulation of the matter by the state and people are not trialed for such offenses).

- The more extremist Haredim, such as Neturei Karta, are anti-Zionist by self-definition and have the agenda of non-cooperation with the state of Israel. Other Haredim, however, do not refrain from service because of such anti-Zionist motivations.

This must be removed and a more concise, cited text provided. Remember, this page is not about Haredim and the Israeli army or the like. It is to provide an overview of this sector. Chesdovi (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Added a few dozen references for your pleasure, covering and supporting everything I've written above. This is a short overview already. You just wish it would go away. It won't. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not short enough. This list does not belong on this page. Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course. You'd rather eliminate this sort of information altogether because it doesn't suit your agendas. Won't happen. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. This matter is important, obviously, but the text you added is written in too much detail and in an unencyclopedic tone. The problem is I do not have the time to start producing suitable text. So instead I will tag this section, and if it is not fixed in the near future, your material will be removed. Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus: Modesty and violence

JB's text:

Haredi society is generally intolerant of physical exposure of the female bodies - especially in public, and more so in areas in which Haredim live. The entrances to the city of Bnei Brak, for instance, include signs which ask those who enter to 'Respect the Haredi lifestyle' (which is universally understood by all Israeli as a demand for people to dress 'modestly' in that city and avoid things like driving a car within it on the Sabbath).[64] Haredim who live among secular citizens usually either ignore the way the latter are dressed, or in the case of Haredi men, even go as far as looking the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female. Sometimes verbal or even physical violence are used against immodestly dressed women.[65][66] This usually occurs within Haredi neighbourhoods, various religious sites, or when the woman involved is religious herself. Neither verbal nor physical violence is encouraged in such cases by more mainstream rabbis of the Haredi society,[citation needed] but the phenomenon had become more common in Israel over the last two decades.

• "Intolerant" is a word which has a negative connotation.

— Preceding comment was added by Chesdovi 00:05, 31/July/13

There are some 20 references overall already, right next to the relevant texts, showing that Haredim are generally intolerant of this (and I've added more with the last edit). Do you need me to add another 20 references to make my point clearer? I don't think you actually read any of the references to begin with. You're playing dumb again, pretending to not know that Haredi rabbis are often hostile towards expressions of 'immodesty' among women. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Haredi rabbis are opposed to immodest dress. "Intolerant" is a pejorative term and is not conducive to provide NPOV here. I have seen many a Haredi rabbi who tolerate the existence of semi-naked women on the street, in the synagogue and under the chupa. All rabbis are "hostile" against any infraction of Jewish law, whatever they may be. But using that word here in out context is inappropriate. Chesdovi (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Within my last edit, at your request, I added sources pointing out to some of the origins of Haredi intolerance of 'immodesty' among women. This was added next to where I claimed Haredi men prefer to look away from 'immodest' women. But when we speak of 'immodest' in modern times, in the eyes of Haredim, a woman doesn't have to be naked - pretty much anyone who dresses in a fashion not compatible to Haredi view is 'immodest'. Check out all of the references I added that speak of Haredi men who attacked women. Sometimes, it also happens that a Haredi man will use verbal or even physical violence towards a woman he considers to be "not modestly dressed".. What's common among all the attacks is: 1. They were without any serious provocation (the most serious provocations had been refusals to sit in the back of buses because the attacked subjects were women). 2. None of them were provocatively dressed, and some were even Orthodox Jewish women. | In fact, it is far less common that Haredim attack women who are dressed very provocatively, for the following reasons: 1. Haredim are not commonly found where women dress provocatively. 2. Most Haredim would rather avoid a woman dressed provocatively altogether. 3. Women who are provocatively dressed avoid getting into Haredi neighbourhoods, because they know they would not be tolerated, and likely be attacked. | Actor Sacha Baron Cohen was aware of that fact, since he is Jewish and spent a year in Israel. In his mockumentary film, Brüno, there's a short scene which which portrays him walking the streets of Jerusalem saying hello to Haredim, while wearing immodest mock Haredi dress. The scene was filmed in real time with real people, and showed how Haredi Jews began to chase after him and stone him because of the way he was dressed. Surely, he was being provocative. However, would that justify stoning and other physical violence? I don't think so. It seems that among the Jews in Israel in Israel, only the Haredim allow themselves the privilege of being violent because of the way other people are dressed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your response goes no way in explaining why we should use loaded terms here. (Your typically secular assertion that it is only the Hardeim who revert to violence due the way people are dressed is nonsense and simply untrue. Let me remind you about the actions of those upstanding citizens of southern Tel Aviv who found it fitting to verbally abuse and physically attack other people merely by dint of their skin colour, and of the mini riot staged by anti-Arab youths in Safed and of the attacks on Haredi children by those who don't want them anywhere on the same bus.) It seems violence is not solely the preserve of the ultra-orthodox. Chesdovi (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And then there's just the plain discrimination: Orthodox man in Israel discrimination row.

Anti-Semitism is rearing its head in Tel Aviv - "Most were pushed out of formerly mixed neighborhoods in Tel Aviv" - "Hatred of Haredim is in the consensus".

Rubel, 2010: "Israel is a bastion of a classic sort of anti-Semitism, aimed not against all Jews, but against the ultra-Orthodox"... Chesdovi (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your sources:

Source one - opinion essay spreading lies. "An Israeli soldier has complained that he was refused entry to a club because he was wearing a kippah." - I actually live in the Tel Aviv Metropolitan area - this thing has never happened. People wearing Kippa are mainstream Israelis. People who don't get into clubs for other reasons make such excuses to vent out their anger and attack the clubs. It's common that people claim they weren't allowed in cause they were 'tall/short/black/religious/intimidating/etc'. Every Israeli knows that's a bluff. Clubs are private enterprises and in Tel Aviv most clubs have certain age groups and other such regulations and many people don't get in for different reasons. Being religious is never one of them. The report said that this was reported on Ynet.co.il (which is the website I used for many references). Yet - no link to the original article?? hmmmm... Also not mentioned: soldier's name, name of the person he spoke to, name of the club, where the club is at, what the soldier had been told, what his response at the moment had been, were he alone of with others, was this club for his age group to begin with?, was he carrying an army weapon? (could be a problem), etc... This is intentional. The whole article is fishy, to say the least. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Source two - complete and utter nonsense, in terms of how it portrayed the situation. There has long been a Haredi attempt to take over the entire neighborhood of Ramat Aviv, by buying tons of real-estate and trying to convest youngsters to Haredi Judaism. How do I know? Cause I live 15 minutes from there and have many friends there, that's fucking how. I was there countless times seeing the Haredim at the shopping mall next to Tel Aviv University trying to seduce countless adolescents with free offers and missionary activities. I was there in protests against the Haredi takeover. I know the story. You don't. You've probably never been to Ramat Aviv in your entire life. I can reference this issue with countless sources, but there's no point since you: 1. Can't read them. 2. Won't read them. | The Haredim have brought this hatred upon themselves. Can you imagine an Evangelist Christian cult taking over a neighborhood in NYC? What do you think the response would've been like? Or how about the notion of Seculars getting into Haredi neighbourhoods, opening businesses on the Sabbath and walking half-naked in the street all the time? Think the Haredim would like that and respond kindly? Hell no. Your bullshit is getting on my nerves. You have no clue what's up in Israel. I could've taken picture of 'em Haredim doing their missionary activities at the mall myself - it's that close. Here's a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4_s1WXqk9Y . There are many other such videos and reports for those really interested (unlike yourself). Perhaps you should learn some more Hebrew so you could actually read and understand them. The video, by the way, was filmed on Einstein street. Have any clue where it is or how to get there? Of course you don't. I bet you've never even seen a photo of Ramat Aviv before, for crying out loud. My ex-girlfriend lives a 5 minute walk from where this was filmed, in the student dormitories of the university, and one of my best friends lives right across the street, and here comes this anonymous user on Wikipedia lecturing me about stuff from my reality, my life and my country he hasn't a clue about. You go do your research and come back with valid results. You have no idea of the social and political situation in Israel... I live on Havakook 3 street, Ramat Gan. Check where it is on the map, so you can get some perspective. My identity is known (even left my phone number on this page), but you keep yours a secret because of obvious reasons. Your knowledge of the subject matter is seriously lacking and heavily biased. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole notion of "Israeli Anti-Semitism" is moronic, and shows that neither you nor whoever wrote these articles know what antisemitism even means. Jews ARE Semites. They cannot, by definition, be ANTI-semites, because that'd mean THEY ARE ANTI-THEMSELVES. Only the extreme Haredim call any bias they feel exists towards them 'antisemitism', because they consider themselves to be the only true Jews. That by itself alone reveals your personal strong bias and the inherent stupidity of the articles you brought forth here, whose only agenda is to portray non-Haredi Israeli Jews in a bad light. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Haredim who live among secular citizens usually either ignore the way the latter are dressed, or in the case of Haredi men, even go as far as looking the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female." This is not cited.

— Preceding comment was added by Chesdovi 00:05, 31/July/13

This is mentioned in many of the other references regarding Haredi clashes with 'immodest' women. You don't actually read the references. I can't recall a single event on this entire huge talk page in which you quoted lengthy text from one of the sources I've added and analyzed it. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, provide me one here which backs up that Haredi men "look the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact." Chesdovi (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, you asked for it. You'll get it. First, here's the Hebrew wikipedia entry covering this subject. Here you go with citations and references (I have also added these to the article now). Seems like not only that you're not versed in what's up in Israel and Israeli Haredi society, you're also not so versed in the what the Bible says or in the Talmud. So much for someone who tries to argue his knows more than I of the Haredim and constantly tries to claim I make things up. I told you before - you end up making a fool out of yourself by asking for so many references. There isn't a single thing I've written of in this article which cannot be referenced well. Many of my references are directly from Jewish Halacha, which makes matters even worse for your arguments. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any intention on adhering to editing policy? You are wrong if you think you can keep on adding primary sources and keep using other Wikipedia pages to cite text. Adding references directly from Jewish Halacha is the worst type of referencing you can add here (besides from citing photographs of commercial adverts). I don't recall asking you to provide a plethora of references to support your text. Yet you have accused me of doing so consistently. And providing good references is only the first step. There are many other facets of editing here and I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with them first before you cause more collateral damage here. Chesdovi (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you really that stupid? The Jewish Halacha IS the law which all Haredim abide by. It's what they study all day long. It's the ruleset for their entire lives. It's what they value the most in the world. It's the source for all of their conflicts with other streams of Judaism. It is why they do whatever they do. So knowing that, you're trying to claim that Jewish Halacha is not a valid source? How come exactly?... You just wanna delete it, like everything else, because it does not serve your biased interests and because you cannot read it yourself, and hence have trouble dealing with it. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Neither verbal nor physical violence is encouraged in such cases by more mainstream rabbis of the Haredi society." This is not cited. It also insinuates some rabbis do condone attacks, in which case a RS is needed.

— Preceding comment was added by Chesdovi 00:05, 31/July/13

Here you go [10], [11]. I put this next to the text in the article. Most rabbis just remain silent about the issue (see second reference above), because otherwise conflict would arise within Haredi society, with the more extreme Haredim claiming the more moderate ones (the majority) to be siding with Orthodox and Seculars. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure Mr Deri's interview is sufficient (as it deals with one instance alone, etc). I would find better sources to add that some rabbis encourage the violence, that most Haredi rabbis are opposed to violence and that there are complaints/claims that the latter do not publicise their views openly or often enough. Chesdovi (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you go fetch more sources, instead of keeping yourself busy with just deleting everything other people put up. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• "the phenomenon had become more common in Israel over the last two decades" also need citation.

I am also not generally sure about how and where to include this information on this page. --/ Chesdovi (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made sure now to mention on most of the references from which year and month they had come from. Unlike yourself, I know this anyhow because I have lived here for the last two decades. You just read books and speculate about the subject of this article, while I live it in my everyday reality. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. Chesdovi (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't even point out to what you thought was a lie here. You're being intentionally vague all the time. My references speak for themselves. Jonathan.bluestein (talk)

That's because I did not mean to point out that anything was a lie (in this section). Please note: Use your mouse to roll-over WP:TRUTH and then press click. There you will see the following note: "This page in a nutshell: "Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true." I know you love to keep repeating it, but your living in Israel for 20 years does not mean anything here on Wikipedia! No one here gives two hoots that you live in Israel, speak Hebrew, talk to Haredim and attend protests in Bet Shemesh. The consistent blatant violations WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS among others, and your pompous attitude are becoming increasing frustrating. Chesdovi (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I told you already - I can reference anything I've added to this page. I have added several references to any text you've requested references for. If there's something specific you believe to not be covered well, you can ask for more references. Though it's kind of silly that after 70+ of my added references, you still keep asking for more, as though I lie all the time. There are things which are just common knowledge. Even on wikipedia, you never reference everything, because some things are well know. In your case, you pretend as though none of what I've written of is well known, which just isn't true for any of these issues. Many of the references I've used and that you've criticized as 'problematic sources' were taken directly from the Hebrew Wikipedia pages dealing with Haredim and Haredi-related issues. Many other subjects which I've added references to at your requested were far less referenced, if at all, on the Hebrew Wikipedia, because they're common knowledge in Israel, and no one cares to pretend they are not. The Haredi agendas towards 'immodest' women and women in general are almost as broadly known (in all of their aspects) in Israel as the name Benjamin Netanyahu. This stuff is in the newspapers every day, and the Haredim are part of the Jewish people and mingle with everyone else to a degree (well, at least most of them). It's a small country. People know what's up. Stop being so anal about Wikipedia regulation - you're going overboard with your demands. Just one edit ago you add a "Citation Overkill" tag to the article, after there were too many references added over time... at your request!! Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You have provided suitable references for some things, but use other sources which do not support the text in the article. Again, you are happy to ignore the rule not to source text to other Wikipedia pages and are relying too heavily on primary sources. You seem to be adding more and more sources but do not fix the problems with the original ones by removing them and replacing them with ones which actually adhere to what is required. And then you also dismiss the need to cite text to reliable sources by claiming such things are "common knowledge." It is "common knowledge" that Women of the Wall are a Reform orientated group, yet this fact was contested by other editors so I found reliable sources to back up that claim. What you know to be true needs to be verified in RS and not necessarily by picking random newspaper articles which report on individual incidents of violence. We should be attempting to portray this issue in a broader more general sense, so we need to have a RS which states this, not one incident here and one incident there to make an assertion. Then you have to make sure that due weight is given and that it is presented in in a neutral manner. This page is about the culture and lifestyle of over 1 million people. Yet the way you would have it is to emphasis the violent actions of around 100, 200 maybe 500 individuals in Israel, what I feel are an insignificant minority (0.0005%). (It is just like the Haaretz report on one of the recent protests at the Wailing Wall: 10,000 Haredim protested and 3 people were actually arrested. Yet the paper chose to ignore the vast majority of peaceful demonstrators in its headline, which read: "Protesters hurl rocks in clashes over Women of the Wall." So we have the actions of 0.00003% making the headlines and the other 0.9997% ignored). I personally do not have hours and hours available to gather material on specific matters and write them up in a neutral fashion. So are we to be left with this hodgepodge of unbalanced, unencyclopedic text? The fact that such reports feature in the newspapers "every day" just goes to show how the secular anti-religious majority media delight in targeting the Hardeim for delegitimisation. Do the papers ever report on a continual basis the altercations in secular schools, the occurrence of such violence in Israel being statistically among the highest in the world? Or is it just the spitting and verbal insults which concern your enlightened secular society? You removed tags while these issues have still not been addressed. I will now go through the article and remove all primary sources and citations to other Wikipedia pages, in accordance with the guidelines you have failed to comprehend. Chesdovi (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being excessively anal about your editing demands, for obvious reasons which were already explained here many times before, and have nothing to do with making Wikipedia articles better. You cannot read most of my sources, pretend to not be able to read the rest, and then claim them to be invalid and inappropriate. There weren't any problems with my original sources - the only problem with this article is You. There were about 3-4 sources, out of over 70 I added, which required changes or replacement, and I have obliged to do so at your request (these things were covered on this talk page). You say "We should be attempting to portray this issue in a broader more general sense", but it is how it's currently portrayed - it's just you wishing to delete any criticism of the Haredim. There were two Israelis on this page already who agreed with me on this (Dannyorbach and talk), but you've ruled out their opinions as well. You said: "not one incident here and one incident there to make an assertion" - well, that's why there are dozens of references which I've added for your pleasure, but which you haven't thoroughly read. "(It is just like the Haaretz report on one of the recent protests at the Wailing Wall: 10,000 Haredim protested and 3 people were actually arrested" - here again, your total ignorance of things in Israel. There are never protests in Israel of that size by any sort of crowed in which the police arrests more than 1-10 people. The Israeli police force is unlike the American police, and rarely makes mass-arrests. It doesn't mean that a protest was peaceful. How do I know? Because unlike yourself, I have both served 3 years at the Israeli police force, and been to countless mass-protests in Israel (yeah, reality just clashed in your face again). "The fact that such reports feature in the newspapers "every day" just goes to show how the secular anti-religious majority media delight in targeting the Hardeim for delegitimisation" - OR, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, it might suggest that the Haredi public tends to make more 'trouble' compared to other groups in Israeli society (yep, no conspiracies here, sorry). "Do the papers ever report on a continual basis the altercations in secular schools, the occurrence of such violence in Israel being statistically among the highest in the world?" - Yes, this is being reported. However, violence in Hardi schools is worse, and Haredi teachers commonly beat up children. How do I know again? Cause Haredim told me about it, many times. Also, I'm a martial artist. Many a time Haredim come to be at the park and ask questions and wanna feel some fighting applications. Many of them prove to know how to fight, at least on the basic level, cause they learned it in school, fighting a lot every day. That doesn't happen often with Seculars... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus: Mehadrin bus lines

There was much public controversy in Israel during 2010-2012 surrounding the issue of 'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines that serve mostly Haredi public, that segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back. Tania Rozenblit, a secular Israeli who refused to sit in the back of such a bus in 2011, ignited a heated public debate, and rushed a ruling of the Israeli supreme court against the forcing of women to sit in the back of buses.[69][70][71] The cause for the existence of 'Mehadrin' buses was, to begin with, the wishes of many Haredi communities to further set men and women physically apart, for the same reasons and rational that called for 'modest' female display in public.

JB has added too much about Mehadrin bus lines. Besides having its own page, the issue has space devoted to it at Religion in Israel, Religious relations in Israel and Women in Israel. It should feature here much as it does at Gender separation in Judaism. Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Mehadrin bus lines are to Israeli women (and especially Haredi women) the equivalent of what the segregated buses for African Americans were back in the day. We're talking about a severe violation of basic human rights, which had been at the core of a massive public debate in Israel, which involved politicians, national social organization, the media, religious institutes, the supreme court, the general public... basically almost everyone were in on this debate. It was and still is a major issue in Israeli society, and is entirely a Haredi phenomenon.

The paragraph which I've included on this subject is but a tiny summary of this issue. It is appropriately and proportionally represented on this page, under the right context. It is a part of a very broad social agenda by Haredi communities with regard to enforcing 'religious modesty' in public in Israel, and is another important example for this agenda within the segment in the article dealing with this Haredi approach.

The Mehadrin bus lines are also important to mention because they represent a modern trend of growing extremism among large parts of the Haredi public over the last 20 years. There are therefore not only related to inter-communal cultural relations between Haredim and other Israelis, but are also linked to a historical internal socio-religious processes within Haredi society.

This is another good example of a social phenomenon which Chesdovi does not understand well, because he doesn't live in Israel. The public uproar that the Mehadrin buses caused was not missed by any Israeli - Haredi, Conservative, Reform or Secular. I have myself attended a debate on these buses in the Israeli parliament (Knesset) a while back, in which Tania Rozenblit, "the woman who refused to sit in the back" several times, testified in front of parliament members of the phenomenon. I have also been to many protests on this issue. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What you have written above is good reason for this to warrant its own stand-alone article, not for it to feature so prominently on this page.

I am thinking that only issues solely related to Israeli Hardeim be place under the Israel section. As gender-separate busses also exist/ed in NY, this will be merged into an above section? Chesdovi (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you playing dumb again? Do you not understand the severity of a social condition in which a group of people such as the Haredim decides that Women should only sit in the back of buses and Men only in the front, and then goes to commonly enforce this hideous idea with violence? Have you seriously not studied anything of human rights in your lifetime? Do you not understand how the fact that the Israeli Haredim invented and enforced this idea is relevant to the description of their lives in Israel? Can't you see how this is relevant for the rest of Israeli society? Have you not the slightest clue that this went to the Israeli supreme court (see references), and that there were mass protests all over the country because of this?... I refuse to believe you're so ignorant. You're simply playing dumb to confuse editors who'd read your comments. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem you understand the severity of a Jew violating the biblical command which forbids a man from lusting after his eyes, the result of which can be the death penalty and the guarantee of a sordid forsaken place for his soul to languish in an eternal, agonising purgatory. (How many women have you oogled today?) But this page is not the place for this discussion…. What I want to know is why you saw fit to first add a duplication of this (don’t worry, I assume you were unaware you were doing so) and secondly, what is so superior about retaining your text over mine, which provides a nice concise summary of the issue, rather than providing red links of people whose actions are amply covered in the main article page? Chesdovi (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My latest undoing of Chesdovi's mass-deletions (31st of July, 2013)

Chesdovi has been very manipulative in his actions. He makes false arguments and claims of the countless references which I constantly care to add, so he'd have excuses to delete any material I have added. What Chesdovi also likes doing with his false claims, is taking advantage of people's unfamiliarity with the subject material, and saying the most absurd things of what's common knowledge among Jews of Haredim and their culture, presenting my writings as lies, provocations, "conspiracies" and such. He knows that most people reading here are not Hebrew speakers, so he allows himself to play dumb and pretend that the references I have attached are not relevant to the subject material. Furthermore, whenever he makes a deletion, his makes sure to delete every single sentence I have ever added, while only criticizing a tiny fraction of that material. That way, he makes it appear so that when I undo his deletions, I am supposedly adding a lot of material, while this is not the case - I merely undo his destruction.

I have now taken the time to, again for the millionth time, answered all of Chesdovi's claims and arguments on this page (as well as prior when explaining my edit on the edit-history page), and added many references at his request. Following that, I have restored the materials and references he has been serially deleting. Moreover, I have made sure to elaborate in greater length within some of the references on details related to them, as he had requested. Unlike himself, I have not deleted his latest additions to the article (which he, of course, did not prior discuss on the talk page, as he demands that I do with anything I add).

I sincerely hope that soon, a few moderators would be kind enough to join this discussion and prevent Chesdovi from continuing his obsessive deletion frenzy. Chesdovi, I suggest you give up on this nonesense. I don't write things which I make up out of my imagination, like you do. I can reference everything I put on this article. Over time, I shall add hundreds of additional references if necessary. Every time I undo one of your mass-deletion, I only add more content and references, and my case gets stronger. Unlike you, I am a positive contributor. You are busy deleting, while I am busy creating and donating. You cannot stop the truth from coming out. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If I can add my own two pennies to the debate here - as an Israeli who is well-exposed to the media discourse on this matter, including Haredi media, the additions by JB seems to me appropriate and fair - I strongly believe they belong in this article, as they are an essential part of Israeli Haredi culture. They are also well referenced. In my opinion, it would be well if some experienced moderators will come and settle this debate. --Dannyorbach (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hello. Where did you pop up from?! Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a case of inappropriate canvassing would it? ---(Jonathan.bluestein and Dannyorbach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) interacting on a blog on July 29th.) Chesdovi (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I came to know Mr. Orbach through his martial arts blog lately. I sent him my Wikipedia use page because it has a list of my martial arts articles. On the same page, are also specified the pages which I heavily edited on Wikipedia. This page is one of them. He probably saw it and decided to have a look. But your are always inclined towards conspiracies, so it's no wonder you suggested this is Canvassing - especially when it doesn't match your opinion. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"He probably". What's the probabilty of that? Chesdovi (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with jonathans additions, but feel that it needs to be more succinct & neutral. Chesdovi makes some good points above on the sourcing and I think it is very pointy with the wp:citation overkill of 17 refs for the 'not modestly dressed' statement! rgds 188.222.98.201 (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And who are you in real-wiki? Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Mr. Orbach, I don't know who this user is. However, it is ironic and hypocritical that you blame this person for 'not revealing who they are'. Unlike Mr. Orbach and myself, you do not reveal your identity. You also fail to reveal here the facts that: 1. You don't live in Israel. 2. You can't actually read Hebrew. - again, things which Mr. Orbach and I are as Israelis, and something that anonymous user probably is as well. You are simply feeling very uncomfortable knowing that you criticize people and sources which are in a language you cannot read, and come from a country that you don't live in. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't know who this user is, but you claim he is Israeli: [12] ? Chesdovi (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

True, my bad. I assumed he was because he identified the Shas channel and had happened to write in close conjunction to the Israeli fellow. Tracing his IP address, it seems he's likely from London (but I have only traced it now, only a week later, so who knows). Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there is a very specific technical reason for having included so many references. Over the last week, whenever I added new material, Chesdovi criticized, and then deleted all of the material I have deleted prior. Every time I undid Chesdovi's deletions, I improve the phrasing of the text and added references. Because this happened several times, the number of references grew significantly in order to please Chesdovi's demands. There is though, another very important reason for having the "17 references in a row" you were writing of. These were not attached to any arbitrary claim, but were associated with the claim that there are cases in which Haredim attack immodest women. I have argued that this happens every day in Israel. Chesdovi referred to it as "anti-Haredi propaganda" and "state-funded news conspiracies". To prove my point, I have included references to 17 different news reports, from many different websites, dealing with such Haredi attack. This was in light of Chesdovi pretending that this is not happening at all, or at the least is very rare. I don't think 17 references are a lot, considering that such reports are made in Israel almost every day (and most attacks go unreported). The real appropriate number should have been in the hundreds, since this phenomenon has been going on for decades. Additionally, the reports deal with various type of violent actions, in different cities, under different circumstances, and of actions performed by Haredim of different sects. As mentioned earlier, the reports were also made by several different agencies, and their plurality is meant to counter Chesdovi's claims of some of these agencies being state-funded and having an anti-Haredi agenda. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Chesdovi's claims on sourcing - I'd like to request that if someone wishes to intervene in the disagreements between Chesdovi and myself on the content within the sources themselves, let it be someone who can both speak and read Hebrew. Chesdovi's chief claims had been that my references aren't relevant to the subject material, and that I have even fabricated lies on such correlations. I argue that any fluent Hebrew speaker and reader, and especially other Israelis, would immediately see that all my sources are relevant. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don’t mistake the need for quality references for the quantity of references. The only reason I added 9 references to the claim that Women of the Wall are seen as a Reform group was because it was contested. It is not so much that I contest your material – it is the way it’s written, the weight it’s given and the major issues with verifiable referencing that’s the problem. Fix it. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The quality of the references is decent-really good. Much of them are news reports from Israel's most respectable newspapers and news agencies. Almost all of the references include pictures from the events or subjects they describe, and a few also include videos. You cannot judge the quality of the references because you do not speak the language, and you cannot judge whether they describe Israeli reality well because you do not live in my country. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is now riddled with breaches of editing policy. Let’s take one example. To support the text that

"It is also impossible for anyone to enter many Haredi neighbourhoods with a vehicle during the Sabbath",

you have linked the following article: חודשה מחאת החרדים בי-ם נגד חניון קרתא. This article is about a protest against the opening of a parking lot. The parking lot is not located inside a Haredi neighbourhood. Nowhere in the article does it say it is impossible for a vehicle to enter many Haredi neighbourhoods. JB "knows" that many Haredi areas are closed to vehicular traffic on Saturdays but is using a source which does not substantiate this. He thinks a report about how Haredim have consecutively protested against a parking lot being open and the allegation of Haredim throwing rocks at passing cars is sufficient, when it is not. A whole article could be written on the subject of roads on the Sabbath alone, and there is plenty of academically sourced material to do so. Here it should be summed up briefly using any one of the available sources, like so:

"To honour the Jewish Sabbath, state run buses do not run on Saturdays. There have also been demands by Haredi Jews for roads in their neighborhoods to be closed on Saturdays, vehicular traffic being viewed as an "intolerable provocation" upon their religious lifestyle. Haredi pressure has been applied on a municipal level and also through demonstrations, some of them including fierce clashes between Haredim and secular counter demonstrators and violence against police and motorists.

Once this type of referencing and style occurs, such material can feature. --/ Chesdovi (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My latest undoing of Chesdovi's mass-deletions (2nd of August, 2013)

Chesdovi's inability to read Hebrew, and its consequences for this article

This wikipedia article deals with Haredim. Most of the Haredim live in Israel. Much of the article relates to Haredim and their lives in Israel. Information about Haredim in Israel is primarily in Hebrew - in books, articles, videos, research, etc. The user Chesdovi cannot speak Hebrew, and neither does he live in Israel. For over a week now, he has been deleting materials off this article whenever they did not suit his own conservative Haredi agenda. Even though I have added over 70 references to such materials already, answered all of his questions in depth, and improved the phrasing of the text, he keeps deleting my material again and again, making any excuse possible to justify his biased actions. Following his last deletion, he came up with a new, innovative excuse - putting on a sign at the top of the article, asking that "there would only be references in English, or a translation of the Hebrew sources be available". This is absurd. It stems directly from his own personal frustration of not being able to read the references. He himself had admitted it earlier on the talk page, when he wrote that he had to use Google Translate to figure out the contents of one of the articles. I do not accept, then, his suggestion. Would Chinese sources be ruled out for an entry on the Chinese Communist Party? Would French sources be ruled out for an article on the French Revolution? Would Arabic sources be eliminated for an English wikipedia page on Arab immigrants to America?... No. This is unsound and unacceptable. Especially with regards to local news reports, which make a large bulk of the references in this particular article. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Chesdovi's excessive adding of inappropriate tags

Though Chesdovi presents himself as a veteran of Wikiedia, often attempting to show his supposedly superior understanding of editing rules, it did not occur to him to add any tags to the text over the last week, in which he had been deleting and modifying materials every day. However, he has since become desperate as he's running out of excuses to delete materials. Therefore, he added the following tags to large chunks of the text:

"The neutrality of this article is disputed." - It appears that over 30 local references at that section (and over 40 others) did not satisfy Chesdovi's thirst for neutrality. This was to be expected, however. The references are from a wide variety of sources and websites, but Chesdovi could not possibly know that, since he does not know Hebrew and is using Google Translate to check them out. The suggested 'lack of neutrality', then, is merely Chesdovi's dislike of the opinions presented there.

"may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text." - A tag put by a person who cannot read the language of the sources, and is purely speculating.

"contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information" - Nothing is vague, and it's only unverifiable if you cannot read or speak the language. Chesdovi has time and time again showed in his claims before on this talk page, that he could not even grasp the subject of many of the articles I've referenced to. One reference is to a video of Haredim speaking of the subject of lack of Bible studies in the Yeshivas for mainstream Israeli news. Chesdovi could not understand how this reference was related to the subject because he cannot understand what was said in that video.

"may be slanted towards recent events." - Again - had Chesdovi been able to read any of the MANY sources, he'd see that the language of the text is neutral.

"lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters" - This has been discussed extensively earlier in this talk page. Chesdovi has been serially claiming that any subject I've written of can be reduced to 1-2 sentences, and belongs in a different page on Wikipedia. I have earlier taken the time to explain on the talk page, for each subject covered, why there's a need to include it on this page, and why what's on this page is merely a short summary of much bigger issues. Chesdovi, wishing to eliminate those claims altogether, responded that those summaries "weren't short enough".

"focuses too much on specific examples" - this is far from being true - the language of the text deals with extremely broad issues, while the references provide particular examples.

I removed all these tags. I kept the tags on the part relating to "History: A Jewish subculture and debate with more liberal movements", which rightly requested more references/citations and suggested the phrasing could be improved. I am not educated enough on the history and subculture of Jews in America, and I hope someone would come and improve on that section. I do however think it should be kept in the meanwhile, and not deleted (Chesdovi deleted it earlier, and only opted to keep it after I have restored it and asked to keep it on the talk page).

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Final conclusion

I have taken care to answer all of Chesdovi's outrageous claims above in this talk page. I have made sure to add even more references and explanations where he requested. I have therefore later undid again his mass deletions. I made an effort (!!) to keep most of his latest additions, as well as those made by other users since his last mass-deletion.

It should be noted that Chesodvi represents an extreme Haredi agenda (either intentionally, or because he has not been exposed to decent sources). In his bias, he will continue to delete anything that shows Haredim in a bad light (in his opinion). On my user talk page, he even defended Haredi attacks on little girls in Beit Shemesh. We are dealing with a radical man who, apparently and sadly, cannot be rationally dealt with. I sincerely hope some moderators would soon intervene and stop his actions for good. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Outright deceit and manipulation by Chesodvi to support POV claims

My original additions and edits did not contain the phrase:

"...and scantily dressed women may suffer harassment..."

It just wasn't there. I never wrote this.

However, after Chesdovi's usual deletions, this sentence magically appeared! Then, user Nomoskedasticity deleted it, explaining: "(→‎Lifestyle and family: "scantily dressed"?? hardly -- that's a reeking piece of editor POV if ever I saw one...)"

He was then thanked by Chesdovi for his "treatment of the editor POV", who used this as another excuse for further alterations and embedding his own biased views.

How convenient!! Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It was fantastic that User:Nomoskedasticity spotted and fixed my pov error which slipped in as I tried to avoid plagiarising the text. All editors are automatically biased. Let’s help each other make this page NPOV. That’s what editing is about. Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"scantily dressed"?

Hi Nomoskedasticity: Re: [13]. Where have you come across this? I remember seeing this article. Have things evolved since then? Chesdovi (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013)

The article has long since been under an Edit War between myself and the user Chesdovi. The causes and actions taken in that Edit War have been well documented on this talk page. To summarize shortly - the user Chesdovi has been serially deleting any content added which did not suit his pro-Haredi agendas. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally, what would happen is that I would add materials and references, and Chesdovi would promptly delete everything. Most of the references and sources I used are in Hebrew (as they relate to Haredi issues in Israel), and Chesdovi has been keen on coming up with lies with regard to the validity of these sources, as he knows most Wikipedia editors cannot read Hebrew. Ironically, unlike myself, Chesdovi does not read Hebrew and does not live in Israel. Even the intervention of two Israelis prior on this talk page, supporting my references and arguments, did not stop or prevent this man from his continued destruction. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Over the last week or so, Chesdovi has taken advantage of my absence from editing, and again (for the millionth time) deleted most of the materials I have so painstakingly collected, edited and added. I have returned most of the materials he has deleted, and kept most of his own additions. Cunning as usual, Chesdovi made an effort to make his deletions through countless edits, so they would prove difficult to follow. Here is a short list of examples from his many absurd deletions:

Deleted: A news report (August 2013). Two Haredim, one man and one woman, tried to force another woman to sit in the back of the bus. They were later arrested. In response to the arrest, 4 other Haredi men attacked another bus with hammers, smashing its windows. Chesdovi says: "She was not forced, but asked politely - unlike some others who have no respect for religious sensibilities", and hurried to delete the reference. Since he cannot read Hebrew he missed the part were after she was asked, the bus was attacked by Haredim with hammers because she refused to move to the back (Chesdovi actually probably knows that, but ignored this altogether because of his agendas). Also, Chesdovi here justifies the moving of women to the back of buses BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, again revealing his super-extremist Haredi agenda. May I remind the people reading this when last people were forced to sit in the back of buses because they were different... 1960s segregated U.S. and Nazi Germany. — Preceding comment was added by Jonathan.bluestein 03:49, 13/Aug/13

Let's analyse this source.

It simply does not support the text which states that physical violence is used against women who are immodestly dressed. The source is a news story about one incident in which a Haredi couple asked a lady to move to the back of a bus. I did not read the Hebrew version, because I had already read two articles about this incident on the English Ha’aretz website. Mr Bluestein says that the couple "forced" her to move, yet the Ha’aretz article states she "voluntarily moved to back of the bus", clarifying what actually transpired after initial media claims that she had been forced were found to be false, (surprise surprise). The woman explained that she was accustomed to living alongside a Haredi population and taking their sensibilities into account: "I think it’s very important to respect other people’s religions and beliefs...I’m not Haredi but, I’m religious and I respect what they do on buses, though I wouldn’t have done such a thing myself." Subsequently another bus was attacked in protest of the arrest of the couple involved. There was no physical attack on the women herself. So why is he using this source which does not support the text? I am not going to waste any more of my time dealing with Mr Bluestein's edits. Enough is enough. No more of this disruptive behaviour by Mr Bluestein! If you re-add these sources once more, I will ask that you be blocked indefinitely. Chesdovi (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted: A news report (March 2013) of how one female drummer and one female singer were forced to cancel their participation in a municipal music festival in Jerusalem because of Haredi demands. Chesdovi Writes: "what has this article have to do with the exposure of female limbs? nothing...". Then deletes the link. Chesdovi is taking advantage of the fact that it is not directly specified in the article that the women were not allowed to participate in the festival because: 1. Of their female voice. 2. Of their female body... It's merely stated that: "they weren't allowed to go on stage", and "were not allowed to sing". This is because EVERY ISRAELI ON PLANET EARTH knows that Haredim do not agree to watch women perform like that, and that Jewish Halacha forbids the listening to a woman's voice singing. Also, the article includes discussion of 'Hadarat Nashim', which is the Hebrew term for: "Exiling women from public venues for religious reasons". This too is well known to Israelis, and the article was written in the context of this whole Haredi anti-women trend that has been going on for decades now in Israel.

Deleted: A news report (May 2011) of a Haredi man who attacked a woman on a bus because she had marks of prayer apparatus that belonged to men only in Haredi culture. Chedovi justifies himself: " was this because of bare flesh or flesh markings? I think the latter…". This is another case in which a woman was attacked because of a form of immodesty. However, Chesdovi dislikes the publication of such things, so he finds an excuse in that this immodesty was supposedly not related to bodily exposure - even though it did. Promptly deleted the reference...

Deleted: A news report (March 2010) of a Haredi man who attacked his sister physically and threatened to spill acid over her because he believed she was dating men (considered immodest in Haredi society). Chedovi defends deletion: "was this to do with "immodest dress" or immodest dating? I think the latter". He sneakingly ignores the fact that a major part of why the dating issue was problematic for the violent Haredi to begin with was the notion of his sister being 'immodest' and dressing 'immodestly' in public.

Deleted: Report of a Beit Shemesh girl who was harassed and spit on because she "wasn't dressed modestly enough". Chesdovi tries to explain: " No, this was to do with the school, the Haredi takeover (of Beit Shemesh), remember…". These are two related but separate issues featured in this news report. One is the Haredi takeover of the city of Beit Shemesh. The other is that extremist Haredim who were part of that takeover spat on a girl and attacked her because she was dressed 'immodestly'. The title of the news report itself is: "Spitting on the 'immodestly dressed' 3rd grader". Chesdovi ignores the title... How unsurprising.

Deleted: A news report (January 2012) of Haredim who attacked and stoned a woman and her car near a synagogue for hanging 'immodest' signs. Chesdovi tries to justify: "actually this young lady was modestly dressed – the provocation were the offensive gambling signs she was hanging". Firstly and most importantly, in his view it appears completely legitimate to stone a woman for hanging street signs which you don't like - which in turn justifies his deletion. Secondly - the signs were for Mifal HaPayis - the state-sanctioned lottery, which is broadly accepted by the Israeli public and is the only legal form of gambling/lottery in the country, as it is controlled by the state and heavily supervised (Israel does not have Casinos). The money made by this company is donated for public projects, often for the building of community centers in poor neighbourhoods. But Chesdovi is not aware of that, because he does not speak/read Hebrew and does not live in Israel. Thirdly - the Haredi who attacked the woman called her 'Shikse' (whore) several times - a name used by extremist Haredim only when they attack women which they consider immodestly dressed (this is further highlighted by the fact that Haredim try to avoid cursing at all in their daily life - so this is a special case). This is another thing which you need to live in Israel to know.

Deleted: A news report (July 2013) of Haredi soldiers who had prevented a fellow female infantrywoman from entering a joint dining hall because she is a woman. Chedovi is playing naive, writing: "no "verbal or even physical violence" in this one, nor any immodesty, unless she was wearing an army swimsuit or the like". However, the very reasons she was denied access to the joint dining hall were: 1. She was a woman (more devote Haredim in Israel do not dine in the company of secular women, and usually not even women outside of their families). 2. A woman wearing an army uniform is by definition immodest to any Haredi. The wearing pants by a woman is by itself 'immodest', and the uniform are often also tight/loose, etc. It's a well known issue in the IDF, but Chesdovi, who unlike myself have not served in the IDF, does not know that.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is important to mention that these sources and materials which Chesdovi has deleted were already thoroughly discussed on this talk page!! See above. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Other things which I've undeleted:

- The proper list of 'See Also', full of highly relevant pages, which Chesodvi likes to delete time after time.

- The "Use of Weasel words" tag (which was directly pointed at my writings). Chesdovi is the only weasel around here.

- The "lends undue weight to recent events" tag. My references span reports from many years' time in Israel. These references point to important issues regarding Haredi society today, and its interactions with the rest of society, especially in Israel. Two Israelis have on this very talk page expressed support in my references and their relevance.

- Re-added stuff Chesdovi deleted from the first paragraph.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've started going through your changes. I find your additions to the lead paragraph problematic. You're taking a relatively straightforward statement of fact - 11 words - "Haredim view themselves as the most religiously authentic group of Jews", and adding as citations two quotes that argue or imply that this view is false. This strikes me as unnecessarily polemical. References should substantiate a claim. In this case they should substantiate the fact that Haredim have a particular viewpoint. References should not be used to make a case for why Haredim are wrong. You can add some balanced text to the article about Haredi authenticity, but citations to the lead of the article are not the appropriate location for this material. GabrielF (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gabriel. Thanks for taking the time for going through the materials. I have not added that statement which you mentioned: "Haredim view themselves as the most religiously authentic group of Jews". It is a statement which had existed in the article long before I started editing it. I added the word "religiously" in a previous edit to make it more accurate (as Haredim usually don't view themselves to be more genetically Jewish, only following Jewish religion and law more strictly than others). I am fully willing to delete the statement altogether, even though I personally believe it to be correct that Haredim think of themselves as the most religiously authentic group of Jews. The sources for that statement, too, were not originally added by myself. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, the article states: To Haredi men, the show of exposed arms and legs is considered "not modest". On this, the following reference appears: A news report (March 2013) of how one female drummer and one female singer were forced to cancel their participation in a municipal music festival in Jerusalem because of Haredi demands. Please do not add references unrelated to the issue at hand. -- -- -- 01:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Another footnote begins: "This long reference includes links to a wide variety of reports of Haredi violence against 'immodest' women" and then goes on listing reports on 'separation' of the genders (A news report (September 2007) of Haredi men who attacked a woman, and also a soldier who tried to help her, because the woman refused to sit in the back of a bus | A news report (September 2007) telling of how Yoel Krois, a prominent leader in Haredi society, allegedly attacked a woman with tear gas for walking around in a Haredi 'Men Only' street — nothing in the report about the woman being immodest | A news report (December 2011) of a Haredi men who attacked a female soldier because she refused to sit in the back of a bus — nothing in the report about the woman being immodest | A news report (July 2013) of Haredi soldiers who had prevented a fellow female infantrywoman from entering a joint dining hall. — nothing in the report about the woman being immodest | A news report (August 2013). Two Haredim, one man and one woman, tried to force another woman to sit in the back of the bus. — nothing in the report about the woman being immodest), a woman with marks of Tefillin (A news report (May 2011) of a Haredi man who attacked a woman on a bus because she had marks of prayer apparatus that belonged to men only in Haredi culture — apparently a personal page or blog?), a modestly dressed woman hanging 'immodest' posters (A news report of 3 Haredi men from Beit Shemesh who surrounded and woman's car, stoned her and shouted "prostitute" at her | A news report (January 2012) of Haredim who attacked and stoned a woman and her car near a synagogue for hanging 'immodest' signs), and a woman firefighter (A news report (October 2012) of Haredim who attacked and injured a woman firefighter while she was trying to put out a fire in a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem — nothing in the report about the woman being immodest), but not about 'immodest' women. Perhaps links to some of these reports might be appropriate somewhere else in the article (or in a different article); but lumping them all together under the banner of "'immodest' women" only makes a mess out of the article. In the meantime, they should all be removed (and parked here in this paragraph on the talkpage), until someone finds the time to insert each report (if appropriate) to its proper location. -- -- -- 04:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti Haredism

This article is full of sneaked in anti-Haredi sentiments. Shame on those who hate Haredim. Shame on the Zionist Israel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete rewriting of this article (September 2013)

There are clearly a high number of issues with the article as it is currently written. I am considering putting this article under cleanup-rewrite and would require a complete review.

Some of the main issues with this article:

• As a highly contentious issue, there are a significant number of biased and unsourced content reflecting the editor's personal views on Haredi Jews.
• This issues is compounded by the fact that the actual sources are highly varied. There are disputes between media sources, academic literature, and the use of data for the Haredi population. It is possible to find a source for almost any claim made on Haredim and Wiki editors have been using sources either to promote of vilify the Haredi population.
• Most of the article is written in an essay-like format, with personal analysis, original research, unduly long and lacking sources.

Proposals:

• Article to be rewritten using Wiki editorial guidelines, with actuate and well sourced information.
• Agreement has be made on how sources are used. The article should reflect a range of sources rather than selective sources.
• Article should be temporarily partially protected, and those repeatedly vandalizing the article to be blocked.
• Issues should be balanced. For example, the current introduction section asserts that "Their numbers have also been boosted by a significant number of secular Jews adopting a Haredi lifestyle". To be balanced, such a statement also needs to be countered with a statement on those leaving the Haredi lifestyle.

Please add your comments and views on my proposals. Thank you!

--Openedknowledge (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed

Also, there is a lot of conflation with Orthodox and Hasidic Jewry, particularly in the history section. There are separate Wiki articles for those, and should be discussed there.

Halma10 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Openedknowledge, you added unsourced text ([14], [15]) contrarty to your first proposal, namely that this page should be "rewritten using Wiki editorial guidelines, with acurate and well sourced information." Please do not add any unsourced material here. It is no use adding in the edit summary "Further work and sources required" - find RS first, then add the text! Also, please explain why you think the term "ultra-Orthodox" has been addressed disproportionately in the Terminology section. Also, if you want to change the page name to Haredi Jews, please discuss it here first. I have removed the ethnicity infobox, as Haredi Jews are not an ethnicity. Chesdovi (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Openedknowledge, see above sections 4, 13, 14 and 17. The user Chesdovi has a history of disputes with all other editors and was previously blocked from editing. As a Baal teshuva (someone who became Haredi later in life), he is very keen to provide his own views. Real Haredim care very little about what a wiki article says, and they don't even use the word Haredi to describe themselves. It is mainly used by the secular media or ba'alei teshuva who seek to form a sense of identity and belonging.

Chesdovi, in case you did not see that Openedknowledge clearly wrote "Further work and sources required" and was in the middle of what look like a really good revamp of this page. I apologize if you are a blind user, but 90% of this article is not sourced. You comment suggests that you believe that this is an amazingly sourced page, which was ruined by Openknowledge. To be consistent, please delete all unsourced material of this page. To help you out, I have removed the diagram I provided in the page, as it was not sourced and I do not want to give any more credibility to this page than it deserve.

I would actually urge Openedknowledge to give up on improving this page in any way. At least now, when a reader sees this page they will quickly move on. The revamp started to make it look like a more credible Wiki page, so I think it is better to give up until Chesdovi is blocked again. Halma10 (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Halma10, as with Jonathan.bluestein, presumptions regarding my religious affiliation is of no consequence here and your petty stereotyping and the airing of your personal suspicions viz-a-viz my motives on Wikipedia are nothing short of a personal attack. Further, your spiteful comment insinuating I am vision impaired is not very pleasant. Carry on and you will be swiftly blocked, (indefinitely if your turn out to be a sock-puppet of Openedknowledge). Chesdovi (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)