Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"significant number of secular Jews"

I'm a little curious about the line:

"Their numbers have also been boosted by a significant number of secular Jews adopting a Haredi lifestyle" The cited sources are from the 90's early 00's. As such, I think its about time for an update.

From one of the sources used in this article (which is old): "The number of baalei teshuvah, "penitents" from secular backgrounds who become Ultraorthodox Jews, amounts to a few thousand, mainly between the years 1975-87, and is modest compared with the natural growth of the haredim; but the phenomenon has generated great interest in Israel."

In regards to the term: "boosted by a significant number," what does it actually mean? The previous source stated a number of thousand. However, out of 1.3-1.5 million, even 10 thousand is less than .7-.8% of the population. Also keep in mind that the particular source stated the period was mainly 75-87... a span of 12 years! So the average growth rate during those years was actually very very small.

As such, I believe "boasted by a significant number" is misleading. I did a quick search and didn't find any specific statistics on this topic from 2008-2013, likely in part due to it being so hard to define and measure. Even if the number today is many times that rate, it likely pales in comparison to the natural growth rate of the community.

I suggest changing the sentence to something like "Their numbers have also increased by a modest, yet notable, number of secular Jews adopting a Haredi lifestyle." If I don't hear of any nay sayers, I'm going to make the change sometime next week. If someone has a better sentence than mine with regards to this issue, feel free to through it out there. I'd also like to see some good sources, particularly if we can get some good statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T59Man (talk • contribs) 12/Nov/13

Requested move 24 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Debate about which term is actually more common and also sourced concerns that the proposed title is derogatory, although I should note there was also some debate about that. Clearly, however, there is not a consensus to move this article at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Haredi Judaism → Ultra-Orthodox Judaism – We need the assistance of an Administrator in order to move this page's history. Talk page was already successfully moved. The explicit reason: Haredi Judaism sounds like a 4th Judaism stream along with Orthodox+Conservative+Reform, which it isn't. Bostonnine (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think by "we" you only mean "you", and that there may be in fact consensus for keeping the name "Haredi Judaism". In fact, you made an incorrect copy-and-paste move which I reverted but which you reverted back immediately. LjL (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"We" stands for us Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Please step back because according to your 500 last edits you have never read anything about Judaism whatsoever. Bostonnine (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's consensus process calls for a consensus among all interested editors. No editor is disqualified from participating in a discussion matter because of experience with the subject or lack thereof; however, editors may want to refrain from directly editing articles when they have a conflict of interest with a subject. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to decide how the group you belong to is called on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I do get to tell you that violating copyright within Wikipedia is not okay, and neither is going against established WP:Consensus without any discussion (have you checked the templates on top of this talk page?). Please desist from doing either thing. LjL (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just math. Google these terms "Ultra-Orthodox" over 600,000 thousands results, while "Haredi" makes barely 400k. Bostonnine (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That hardly seems like an even remotely meaningful difference, nevermind that the "Google test" is flawed in many aspects. On Google Books, both terms have a nearly identical amount of results (with a slight advantage for "Haredi", 85k vs 84k). Anyway I'm not even sure why I'm debating against this level of arrogance... LjL (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. I'm not sure how the above user reached their Google Books results, but my search came up with 137,000 for Ultra-Orthodox and 85,000 for Haredi. News organisations largely use ultra-orthodox, for example, the BBC has 1,940 hits for ultra-orthodox and 166 for Haredi ; CNN has 900 for ultra-orthodox and 108 for Haredi. Even some Israeli English language news sources prefer ultra-orthodox (Haaretz by 31,500 to 9,200; Times of Israel by 30,000 to 7,081). Number 57 11:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please try searching for the terms inside quotes, which is what one should always do when searching terms composed of multiple words to assess the number of hits. LjL (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, quoted from the lead of this article - "Its members are often referred to as strictly Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox in English. The term "ultra-Orthodox," however, is considered a derogatory slur by some in the community" and from terminology section - "The word Haredi is increasingly being used in the Jewish diaspora in place of the term "ultra-Orthodox", which some view as inaccurate or offensive,[19][20] it being seen as a derogatory term suggesting extremism; English-language alternatives that have been proposed include "fervently Orthodox"[21] and "strictly Orthodox"", is this relevant to this discussion? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope nobody will propose "fervently Orthodox Judaism" as an article title (per WP:NEO among other things). LjL (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose. This is absolutely not good. "Ultra-Orthodox" is indeed considered by many if not most to be a derogatory term, insinuating there is something "ultra" - extremist, negative - about keeping your faith according to classical tradition. I am a former Haredi Jew myself. This proposed move is absolutely wrong and must be stopped at all cost. Very strongly oppose this. I must note that whilst I am currently not so active on Wikipedia, I was very active in the past and contributed greatly to many related articles. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I am also a Haredi Jew and I concur that "ultra-Orthodox", while used by most commentators, is a pejorative term, implying that Haredim are somehow more extreme than "regular" Orthodox. This is not true; please see the definitions and overlapping philosophies in the Orthodox Judaism article. (The BBC and Haaretz, by the way, are displaying anti-Haredi bias by insisting on calling them "ultra-Orthodox". Try looking up non-leftist sites instead.) It sounds like it's time to rewrite the lead of this article, rather than change the title. For your information, Bostonnine, there are more than 3 "streams" of Judaism: there are Haredi, Hasidic, Modern Orthodox, Open Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanistic, and probably more than I don't know about. Wikipedia has correctly named this page after years of consensus, and it should not be moved. Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Haredi and Ultra-Orthodox are different concepts. Many commentators would refer to the more right-wing part of National Religious Judaism as "Ultra-Orthodox", and NR would not self-identify as Haredi. This was debated in extenso a good while ago and I don't think the parameters for the current naming have changed since then. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: the editor who initiated this RM is now blocked indefinitely. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now we need to fix this.... I can't undo it, who can? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this should be closed as disruptive —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from the pejorative issue that Yoninah mentions, "ultra-Orthodox" is vague: how do you define who's ultra, how does someone else, etc? The concept of Haredi(m) is well defined, but the concept of ultra-Orthodox isn't. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm perfectly happy with "haredi" in the title, as long as "ultra-orthodox" is present as a redirect. However I'd like to note that the idea that "ultra-orthodox" is a pejorative expression is a modern American idea that is far from universally accepted. I'd be interested if anyone can find such a claim from before the 1990s. The intent of the phrase is merely that haredim are especially stringent in their observance of halacha, which is exactly what they think about themselves. Here is an example of a major haredi news outlet that uses "ultra-orthodox" extensively. Zero^talk 00:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't like either, or the article as it's currently written. I've been trying to find where in the article it discusses when the term came in vogue, at least in the US and I can't find it. There were no Charedim in the US when I was growing up, they were just frum or super frum or whatever you want to call it, and when they moved to Israel, they found out they weren't considered charedim. In Israel, things are more black and white and you "need" to identify yourself with a stream, but American Orthodoxy is more "normal" or was until most recently. There's a whole history section, but it's a history of the Agudah, not of Haredi Judaism Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• That being said, I Oppose the move. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge in Criticism of Haredi Judaism

I propose that Criticism of Haredi Judaism be merged into Haredi Judaism. The "Criticism" article is extremely short. I understand that it was intended to be a parallel article to other "Criticism of..." articles. However with so little content there's really no reason to have a separate article. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C515:DD5D:34C0:3164 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Separate criticism sections are inherently unable to be WP:NPOV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support I also think this can safely be merged with Haredi Judaism. The article is very small, and can be a section there. In addition, Haredi is a denomination in Judaism, and I noticed in Category:Criticism of religion that we don't have article on denominations, just the religions themselves. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Better to discuss criticism in context rather than putting this in subarticles. JFW | T@lk 11:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't add

Do not add that article to Haredi Judaism , it does not belong there it is a separate topic , Haredi Judaism (the Wiki article)as it stands ,is about Haredi Judaism not the bad things people do , it is common sense that things happen within groups and one should be cautious but to add it takes away from what the subject is meant to convey. 98.25.15.164 (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Glenn

What are you talking about? Debresser (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Leaders or Leadership

I propose to merge the "Past rabbinical leaders" and "Present leadership and organisations" sections into one section called "Prominent rabbis and organizations". Due to its plurality there is no leader or leadership of the Haredi world, just prominent rabbis, some of which are uncrowned leaders of a certain group/faction. If necessary, that section could be divided into past and present parts with a ";". Debresser (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Need to clarify the relationship of Haredi to Hasidism in the lede

In my opinion the lede of the article needs to make very clear what the relationship between Hasidism and Haredi is. I say this for two reasons: (1) I find that most non-Jewish Westerners are somewhat familiar with, or have at least probably heard of, the Hasids, but I do not personally think or find that non-Jewish Westerners know the term or concept of "Haredi". (2) The bottom of the article talks a lot about Hasidism, without clearly or adequately explaining what the connection is (particularly not sufficiently early in the article). For both of those reasons, I feel this needs to be mentioned both in the lede, and the first time Hasidic culture is mentioned in the body text. (My guess from looking at the wiki article on Hasidic Judaism is that the Hasidim are a subset of Haredi Jews, but one would never know that from reading this wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

one would never know from reading this wiki article. That's because this article isn't about Hasidic Judaism. The MOS:LEAD (not the lede) is meant to be a summary of the article body. Discussing a specific subset of Haredim in the lead paragraph is probably WP:UNDUE per MOS:BEGIN. If this paragraph were broadened into a discussion of different streams of Haredic Judaism, I would support adding a clarifying statement in the lead—at that point, the subject of the distinction between the two groups would be a major part of the body.

Haredi Judaism is not an institutionally cohesive or homogeneous group, but comprises a diversity of spiritual and cultural orientations, generally divided into a broad range of Hasidic sects, Lithuanian-Yeshivish streams from Eastern Europe, and Oriental Sephardic Haredim. These groups often differ significantly from one another in their specific ideologies and lifestyles, as well as the degree of stringency in religious practice, rigidity of religious philosophy and isolation from the general culture that they maintain.

However, right now, it looks like the article already puts undue emphasis on Hasidic Judaism without considering other subsets of Haredi Judaism or commonalities in depth. If I had enough knowledge of the subject, I would fix it, but I don't. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, Hasidic Judaism is a main part of Haredi Judaism, and an easily recognizable part at that. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender and AlexEng I don't really see the issue you are referring to. Could you please point out some examples where you think Hassidic Judaism is stressed overly much? Debresser (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 December 2016

There appears to be a typo in the caption of the image of women in the Military section. It apparently should say "praying", not "pryaing". Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse My typo. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Done sorry you had to wait three days for a typo fix — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 December 2016

Please remove the drive-by tag at the top added without discussion by an editor with only 370 edits to their name. There's no consensus that there are too many images in the article, and an article on a unique culture certainly needs a number of images to help inform the reader. Softlavender (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from using WP:MOREX to summarily dismiss the concerns of other editors. This was not a "drive-by-tag," but a good faith attempt to compromise on the content dispute by getting a WP:3O; the Template:Too many photos template automatically lists the page on Category:Pages with too many photos. If you had read the discussion on this page, you would know that. Besides that, the issue of the page becoming overburdened with images was brought up here, with implied agreement by another editor here. A third editor mentioned that although the number of images in itself is not excessive, the clumping in the article is—which is what I said in my edit summary. Yours is the first and only disagreement to register. The correct way to address this is to discuss it and establish consensus, not to ask for a legitimate concern to be unilaterally removed based on the number of edits associated with my username. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree, I've seen both shorter and longer articles with many more images than is present here. I'm happy to list a few examples; Julius Caesar a C-class with about 16 images, Winter War a GA of size 123k bytes and more than 30 images, and a similarly sized FA-class Sinking of the RMS Titanic with 20 images, a table and a sound clip to boot. The "too many images for an aritcle of this size" argument does not hold up against the evidence. The bigger problem is that these images are being poorly placed and thus negatively impact on the flow of the article. If the images were spaced out across the entire article this issue would not exist. Look at the second half of the article which has only one image, by compasion further up the page there are three sections that are cramped with five of the twelve images. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm happy to discuss the issue rather than my edit count. I agree with what you said in my linked diff of your comment: the number of images is not the problem, but the placement is. In each of the articles you gave as examples, the images were well-placed (particularly in Sinking of the RMS Titanic) and relevant to the surrounding text. In this article, however, it seems that the photos are randomly placed and not necessarily relevant to the context of their associated sections. One section in particular is at fault. MOS:IM leads me to believe that context is important and that the placement of images should be deliberate. If you know of a better template that deals specifically with the use of the images and not their quantity, I would be happy to agree to a substitution. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I can take a browse of the templates, but, none that is more appropriate to actual issue comes to mind immediately. I fully agree with you about image context for that matter. I don't personally take arguments from experience alone, however, I think that perhaps SL's greater concern might be that any reader of this article will see the template first and there's nothing we can do about it for a whole week. The page is fully protected, per my request at RFPP, and so no changes can be made to the article without admin privileges. Generally templates are placed for issues that we can't immediately fix, but, that another might be willing to do so. In this case, unless one of our fine admins decides to unilaterally change all of the images and their locations, that template is a little bit moot. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern. It's bad timing that the page was protected a few hours after I put that (apparently controversial) template up. I was hoping people who patrol categories would be attracted to the page and provide a clear consensus without the need for any further dispute resolution. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, {{Cleanup images}} seems more appropriate -> This article's images may require adjustment of image placement, formatting, and size. Please see the picture tutorial and the image placement policy for further information. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That one looks good to me. @Softlavender: do you agree? AlexEng^(TALK) 18:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article needs any tags at all. People are in the middle of discussing images; if after the protection is removed someone wants to move the two school-class images to another section they could do that (the other two images in that section illustrate dress and should stay), but there's no reason at all to tag an article that isn't violating any image-placement policies or guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly violating MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. At the very least, the image placement should be re-considered. Regardless, your proposed change is neither uncontroversial nor supported by consensus. So either you or the reviewing administrator should close it and change this to a discussion topic. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Replace I agree with Mr rnddude that {{Cleanup images}} is more appropriate. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Replace Agreed, {{Cleanup images}} seems more appropriate to me as well. Relishcolouredhat (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Replace To be clear, I support replacement with {{Cleanup images}}. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for change in lead image

Dislodging the current image

It seems that dislodging the current image maybe the best place to start.

I propose, without immediately specifying a replacement, that the lead image should not be entirely males.

Any support to remove the current image of old men as a place to start? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- of course. The topic of "Haredi Judaism" comprises a broad range of people and should not be represented via a lead photo that includes a very narrow type of people. An image of a family would be much more appropriate. Probably better to show a family with a healthy number of children -- I think the Borough Park photo is a good option for that purpose. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose For two main reasons. 1. I oppose any proposal that is based exclusively or predominantly on gender considerations. Such considerations do not have any basis in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and are especially not appropriate in the subject area of this article. In the Haredi lifestyle, the role of men is more public, and there is no reason this article shouldn't reflect this, including in its lead picture. Moreover, all Wikipedia policies and guidelines indicate that to the contrary: that the article must reflect that fact. (The hypocrisy is shocking. When I was accused of preferring pictures with men, an unproven and incorrect accusation I may add, I was accused of misogyny. When a picture of women is proposed for the opposite reason, that is considered the deed of a hero, a crusader for equality.) 2. Those old Jews are for most people the embodiment of what a Haredi Jew looks like, so are the most proper way to start illustrating this article. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment We should strive to put the best picture as the lead picture. Putting in a picture just because it has women in it doesn't do anyone any good. As was pointed out lots of times, it's the nature of the beast that you will have more and better pictures of Haredi men than women. I found some pictures of women and put them in, even though one was taken out because it didn't seem to "fit in." 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 01:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Sir Joseph. How about the lead image being two, side-by-side pics? The old men and beside that the family? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And please understand that my main goal is to get the pointless fighting to stop. I don't care that much. In fact, I'd add a lead image of an over-ripe banana if I thought there wouldn't be a fight over the banana's type and amount of ripeness. Anyhow, I just thought a more balanced image would be something we could all agree on. I've never seen such a quarrel over somethign so small. I mean it's just an image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I think it was you who proposed to change the lead picture. So if you don't care, I say, let the consensus version stay. Debresser (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The replacement image

A

B

C

D

Please feel free to add others. If and when there is support to remove the current image, we can !vote on a new one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose replacement. In the case that there should be consensus to replace the present picture, against common sense and good editing practices, then the couple picture. Pending a better proposal. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the above "If and when..."? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did. Why do you suppose I didn't? Just because I decided to stress my opposition once more, doesn't mean I didn't read and understand your post. Perhaps it is time for you to understand, that I don't have to conform to the type of reply you would like me to give. I am at liberty to add to my reply and to elaborate according to what I deem necessary or appropriate or simply feel like. Please don't be so narrow-minded here. The level of prejudice and fitting people into preconceived opinions here on this talkpage is chocking as it is. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I think RfC is probably best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't be pushy and forum-shop. You opened a discussion, let it play out. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Let's just shoot for removing the old men pic and then take it from there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes lets remove the only indisputably relevant image we currently have from the lede. No, even better lets just remove all men from the article, theyre overrepresented elsewhere anyway. Lets actually stop for a minute before we go through another pointless discussion. There is little if any chance thay the old men picture will be replaced with a better image. Photomontages arent popular, but, theyre a more likely solution than outright replacement. Alternatively two images in the lede. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Replace image with infobox

Since there is no obvious consensus between either the current picture or any of the proposed replacements, allow me to suggest an alternative. We replace the lead image with the infobox {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}}. This is one of only a couple of articles listed under the denominations section of the sidebar which is missing the sidebar and instead has a lead image. I don't see why we need to have an image in the lead if there's so much disagreement over representation. Added bonus: we would conform Haredi Judaism more to other articles in the same series. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I thought about this solution as well and am happy to support in lieu of a better solution. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Good thinking, AlexEng! So, User:Debresser , will you support this? Probably best if you get off on this stop. This train is headed toward a giant lead image of the Feinstein Quintuplets: Dianne, Martha, Sophie, Vida, and Rachel. They're just lovely! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support this article should be the similar layout as the other denominations within Judaism. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- this would be an improvement over the current situation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - most articles should have an infobox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Obviously no problem with an infobox. I do think the image should be kept, right below the infobox. As Mr rnddude said above, it is about the only picture that is indisputably fitting for the subject of this article. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is to "...replace the lead image with the infobox...". How about putting the rabbi pic somewhere further down? I just previewed and it looks odd directly under the infobox. Try it in your sandbox and see. Personally, it's not a big deal either way. What do others think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That was my thought as well. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it be satifactory to put the "old men" image in the "Terminology" section where it is still prominent, but, not at the very top? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Good plan. Terminology section is fine with me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well then, that's pretty well everbody accounted for; Debresser, Nomoskedacity, Sir Joseph, Anna Frodesiak, AlexEng, and myself. Since PP is still in effect are we wanting to wait for it to expire or should somebody make an edit request? Mr rnddude (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine and dandy. There is broad support and I have made a request here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Maile66. You're a dear. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI about a discussion elsewhere

This: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#gender guidelines?

Considering that post was made about this current dispute, here's my two cents if anyone cares:

Debresser says the public face is mostly men. That carries weight. Others say the community is 50-50 women and men. That carries weight. How much? Who can say? We have no choice but to ball-park it.

Right now, there are five images of only men and three of only women. Others are a mix. That doesn't sound too bad. If the old men pic gets extra weight because of where it is. If we can move it from the lead (or below infobox) position and land in a section, that would wrap this up as far as I'm concerned. Too much time has been wasted splitting hairs on this one. Compromise and move one, I say. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering support here, I would even now suggest an even gender balance for images. If there is easy, broad support with only Debresser arguing, then we can do it. If the community is iffy, then let's drop the matter. Please support, oppose, or close this tab out of sheer exhaustion and head to the fridge for some sort of snack. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Officially:

Should we bring the ratio of male and female images to around 1:1?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Sure, why not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons described here. I would like to see a different approach than simply forcing an equal number of photos of men and women. I have a couple of ideas:
  • Resume hunt for photos Find more, better pictures of women to include in the article that are appropriate to the section in which they reside. This should apply to photos of both genders. If an image is not describing, showcasing, or improving the understanding of the proximate text, then it shouldn't be there. Unless...
  • Add a gallery to the page And put all "slice of life" type photos into it. I think that would be a completely appropriate use of a gallery, and it would showcase the lives of both men and women Haredim.
  • Reorganize women's info in the article to separate section There is a lot of information concerning women in the article already. We could reorganize it into a section called "Women in Haredi Judaism"^{or similar} and then all photos of women would be relevant by definition. This would also be a good place to showcase the impact that women specifically have had on Haredi Jewish culture, if we can find any information on that.
  • Throw hands up in defeat There comes a time when this is the only option left to any of us.

This sentence only exists to separate my text from other replies on the same indent level. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Throw hands up and wave goodbye Sure, one oppose does it for me. This is no defeat. The scale-tipping lead image of old men is no longer there, and the present ratio is acceptable. AlexEng's suggestions are great. Thank you all for getting this sorted out. It's been a pleasure. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• While I noted that Anna Frodesiak has already dropped the proposal I want to register my most vehement Oppose to such a measure. There is nothing wrong with trying to bring in and balance the presentation of men and women in articles like this and I do not oppose this proposal on those grounds. No, my oppose is for a plain simple reason. Wikipedia is meant to strive for quality, sourced and accurate information. We intend it to be used as a learning tool. Images provide detail and context, they are not there just to be looked at and thought "oh, look at the pretty picture". Because of this, the only images that should be in the article are those that are a) relevant to the subject matter, b) of good quality and of course c) that are legal for us to use. Chasing a 1:1 ratio for the sake of that ratio ultimately damages the prime function of images in articles. Wikipedia is not here to WP:RGW, or show the "truth" of it all. There is only one way - realistically - for this article to hit a 50/50 balance and still be of good quality. That's to go out and take the pictures yourself. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel this is approaching "righting great wrongs." We should strive to have relevant pictures. Just throwing in pictures of women to up the ratio doesn't do anyone, or the article, any good. I found a couple of relevant pictures with women, and I included it in this article. But we shouldn't just add pictures to up the count. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should approach this without preconceptions. We should view the available images and choose images based on our own inclinations whatever they may be. When telling others why we like an image or don't like an image we can bring to bear our reasoning based on the gender of the people depicted in the image. But we should not start the process with a stated preference for one gender or another and then proceed to find images that fulfill our preconceived gender requirements. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per AlexEng. Throwing pictures in for the sake of pictures may serve to reduce the quality of the article. Each picture—man, woman, or child—should be judged on its individual merits and how it enhances the article. -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Pictures should be rationed per two criteria only. 1. Availability of good pictures. 2. Pictures must be illustrative of their subject. Obviously, to give an example ad absurdum, on an article about a nuns' cloister there should not be pictures with men. That, I think, we all understand and agree with. Likewise regarding this article, since Haredi men are statistically much more publicly active than Haredi women, this article should reflect that. Just simple Wikipedia guidelines for relevancy and common sense. Any proposals to change the natural ratio of pictures should be opposed as they are per definition contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not the place to push gender equality, it is only the place to write about it. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"natural ratio of pictures" -- that's a pretty silly phrase... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

1. You were warned by independent admins to stop the personal attacks. 2. I think it is a perfectly good phrase in this context. 3. If anything is silly, it is an editor making pointed edits and then throwing a tantrum when it turns out other people don't share his ideas. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think that's a personal attack, then surely you'll want to get some sort of intervention? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No. I am perfectly content with you making yourself look bad. :) Debresser (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Image

I'm not sure the best image we have to illustrate Haredi Judaism would be the backs of three Haredi youths when we have so many others. Examples:

• Commons:File:Studying at the Wall.jpg
• Commons:File:Visit_to_Meah_She’arim_113.jpg
• Commons:File:Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok 2.JPG
• Commons:File:Lagbaomer.jpg
• Commons:File:PikiWiki Israel 16925 limud in the yeshiva.JPG

I feel like we could easily pick a more representative image. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The first is just one person, and very partial. The second would be better for an article about Haredi education. The third is not bad. The fourth is bad quality. The fifth is the same back, or even just hats. This picture is not bad, IMHO, and it is very typical. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, my main objection is that the only thing we can really deduce from the current image is the way Haredim usually dress. It's not a bad picture, certainly not, but it would be more informative to readers if it were to have more than just one defining aspect. A ceremony or other typically Haredi custom/event/tradition would be suitable for this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

And we see they travel a lot (one of the boys caries a suitcase), and read pashkevils. All this is very typical. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Image of woman

Debresser and others are invited to discuss the photo of the woman here, the one he has been removing. A key point is that it's the only picture of a woman in the article -- it needs to stay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I just see a woman and a white background. No Western Wall and no visible signs of reverence. Can't even say which direction she is moving in. All in all, the picture is not illustrative at all.

If editors here want a picture of a woman, it should be another picture. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Got another one? Happy to consider it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

How about this one? I think it used to be on the article. Works for me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No problems here, just a bit much of background perhaps? I am pretty sure the couple would be less than happy, though. Including with the fact that the picture was taken on Shabbat. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we can add that one. But in reality we should include both. Why should we have an article where all the pictures except one are of men?? Let's avoid the obvious tokenistic approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you say you don't see the Wall and no "reverence", and Gilabrand removed the caption saying "no evidence of walking". How do we know where it was taken and whether there was walking? Because I say so -- I took the picture. Okay, fine, you don't want to believe me. But then let's not worry about the other picture having been taken on Shabbat. How do we know it was taken on Shabbat? Because the photographer says so. But we don't believe him, do we? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If we use that picture the caption needs to change, it's not at the Western Wall, it's near the Western Wall. Also, I think if you are trying to get a token picture in, then it should be of someone/something famous/important, not just a woman for woman's sake. Perhaps Tziporah_Heller? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we can have someone famous -- but there are plenty of pictures of non-famous men, so a non-famous woman or two is fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Plus, who says Tziporah Heller is Haredi? Our article doesn't say that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

She writes for the Hamodia, which is a haredi newspaper. How do you know the person you took a picture of is a haredi? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I added her in as "a weekly columnist for Hamodia." 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Anyway, your question applies to any of the non-famous people whose pictures we're using. Do you really want to argue this one? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the term at all actually. Before the war, there were no haredim, and in general, haredim are in Israel, not in the US or elsewhere. I never heard the term applied to Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox Jews outside of Israel until fairly recently. On the contrary, it was always said that no matter how religious you are in the US, if you move to ISrael, you're not a haredi, you're still an American. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It is simply put a bad picture, not illustrating much. So no, we shouldn't have both, because we shouldn't have this bad picture. The picture you proposed here is definitely better. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Not illustrating much" -- your opinion. The picture is clearly relevant to the article. Removing it will require consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It was removed, so restoring it will require consensus. By the way, I notice that even you can't get the words "t is a good picture" over your lips. :) Debresser (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Now I see you *don't* actually want the other picture. Your misogyny is showing... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity Please strike that insulting comment. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, there is at least one picture of a woman on the article, which proves you wrong. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the reasons you've given for opposing the two photos under discussion are pathetic -- no. As best I can tell, you're not even pretending to give a reason for opposing the one of the couple. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Calling a bad picture good is pathetic. You are stonewalling and being disruptive. Trying to force Wikipedia into doing what you would like it to do, will not work. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

An article with pictures that represent the topic comprehensively is a good article. Your taste in photography isn't what matters here. And again you're not even pretending to give a reason to oppose the one by David Shankbone -- in fact you've said it's better, so why on earth are you deleting it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did mentioned that that picture also has a problem, but the main point is that we don't need that many pictures. This article already has a relatively large amount of them. If you could show consensus for yet more pictures, no problem, but I think we have (more than) enough already. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that all but one are of men has nothing to do with it? Fat fucking chance... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You should not edit Wikipedia to further your agenda. Your language gives away that you are much too invested in this "holy war" of your. Please take a break and come back in a few days, and you'll see that the article is fine, and those pictures are no good. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just read all of it and want that five minutes of my life back.

I stand by what I wrote: This is "a broad spectrum of groups within Orthodox Judaism and if the lead image is to be of people, that image should be broad spectrum too. Haredi Judaism is not a group of men. It is a group of people. Top right, the pic of the family with the stroller. Other images below can be debated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reboot: let's have pictures of Haredi women in this article

The article currently has 11 pictures featuring people. Of these, 8 show men. I think it's therefore incorrect to have only 1 that shows a woman, so I object to the efforts to delete 2 of the 3 that show women. Alleged "problems" of quality are decidedly secondary in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind though is that you will inherently find more pictures of men than women in the context of being Haredi. Just putting in a picture of a woman to add to the ratio does not make sense, it needs to be appropriate for the article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what "inherently" means here. There's no lack of pictures of women available at Wikimedia. And if your concern is that a proposed picture might not be "appropriate for the article" -- what would that mean in context here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Part of what I mean is that we shouldn't put a picture of a woman just to add a picture of a woman. The picture of Tzipoorah Heller is a good example, I put her in the section on media and it's appropriate. The picture of the couple on the bottom of the page is a nice picture but I'm not sure what it brings to the article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it because they're "non-famous"? But we have many non-famous men pictured in the article. What would be inappropriate here is to adopt a different approach to portrayal of men vs. portrayal of women. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not because they're non-famous, it's because it's just a couple. If you have a picture of Bais Yaakov students, that would be appropriate to add to the article, or a picture of a famous Haredi woman could be put in the appropriate section. What we shouldn't do is just put pictures in to add more women. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

But then we shouldn't have pictures of random men. If we shouldn't have pictures of random women, then we shouldn't have pictures of random men. In reality, it makes perfect sense to have pictures that illustrate -- for women as well as men -- styles of dress, family life, etc. "It's just a couple" isn't much of an argument. Doing this differently for men vs. women is the real problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says we must have an even amount of pictures of males and females. We have good pictures in this article, discussion closed. This is not the place to wag a "holy war" of equality. Certainly not without project-broad discussion.

I could add, that I think that haredi men look more different from non-haredi men that haredi women from non-haredi women, which makes it logical to have more pictures of men. Also, there are simply more pictures of haredi men available than of haredi women, because haredi traditionally women stay more at home than the men. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Discussion closed"? If you're checking out of the discussion, fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph Perhaps we don't need both Heller and Schenirer? Looks like a bit too many portraits of women here. Note that none of the pictures of the men are portraits. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since anyway both of those pictures are new here, I went ahead and removed one of them. She looked like a man anyway, if you ask me. :) Debresser (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And I put it back in. She was the founder of the BY movement which is the Haredi girls educational system. Tzipporah Heller is under the media section again where it is appropriate. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not happy about you doing that. I never said it was in the wrong section. I said we don't need pictures of every notable person.

This picture adds nothing to the article by way of illustration. Who cares what the person who founded a school system looked like in an article about a religious movement? She isn't even mentioned in the article.

I also noted we have two portraits of women here and none of men, so I find the "more pictures of men than of women" argument balanced by that. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your revert without addressing my concerns is not nice, but in view of the fact that there is already another editor here who is doing so, makes it really bad taste from your side. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You really need to back off with your attitude. You have a very antagonistic way of editing and it's not good at all. It does seem as if you don't want pictures of women in the article. I am trying to find pictures that are appropriate for the article, not just people in the street. Sara Shenirer meets that guideline, as the founder of the BY movement. What is your objection other than she is ugly? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed about the attitude. @Debresser:, I know it's frustrating, but this is way over the line of an edit war. I don't want to start any drama, but if you continue, somebody is going to end up reporting you. Please just relax and let's discuss this here and establish a consensus before anyone else mucks around with the photos. Perhaps a compromise would be apropos. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:, I think in this instance, Debresser is correct about the photo of Sara Shenirer. It really has no place in this article, as it does not help illustrate Haredi Judaism. I think if she were mentioned in the article it might be appropriate to include a photo of her, but it looks out of place as it is now. In my opinion, the article as it currently stands is overburdened with photos. We should not simply add more pictures to appease a perceived gender quota; images should be used when and only when they are appropriate and beneficial. In an attempt to get a third opinion on this matter, I'm going to add the too many photos template to the page. If you think it would be valuable, you could also start an RfC so we can discuss each picture one by one. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion has some undertones that might benefit from a reminder that the only acceptable way to conduct oneself on this medium is to be WP:CIVIL.Relishcolouredhat (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both last posts. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I just saw an AN/I post. Didn't read it. All the above? Didn't read it. Looked at the article? Saw it.

Personally, a lead image, top right, should be a family. Show how the men appear, the women, and the children. Common sense and balance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Or hey, why not one of those dandy composites? You know, a block of four images. That should please everyone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

One more thing. Right now, the lead image is a bunch of men with their backs to the camera. Surely, a family shot or something has to be better than that, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"All the above? Didn't read it." We noticed. This was discussed at the beginning of this section. I agree that perhaps one of the other pictures in this article should replace it. On the other hand, it is a very typical picture. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since this has been suggested a few times already, and the problem is obviously true, I removed this picture. Debresser (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just read all of it and still do not see why the lead image should not be of a family. Could you please point out where that was discussed.

For now, I stand by what I wrote: This is "a broad spectrum of groups within Orthodox Judaism and the lead image should be broad. It is not a group of men. It is a group of people. Top right, the pic of the family with the stroller. Other images below can be debated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Certainly an improvement over the current lead picture. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, Nomoskedasticity . Now, if a few others would give a bit of support, I can go ahead and put that image in. Any opposes, though? And if so, on what grounds? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, Would you please be a dear and consider putting your support under that subsection so folks assessing the matter later on don't miss it? Many thanks if that is okay. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to retain the equal number of images of Haredi women (compared to the number of images of exclusively men). Especially since there is a fair amount of text devoted to their appearance. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose We should decide which pictures to use only on basis of availability, quality and relevance. There is no reason to artificially add pictures of women, even if they were good and relevant. No such guideline exists in Wikipedia. In addition, as I have explained above, men are indeed the public face of Haredi Judaism, and not reflecting this in the article would be incorrect. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU DEBRESSER! You have finally come out and said what you really think -- i.e., that you don't want photographs of women on this article. I'm very grateful for your honesty (even if it was initially lacking). "Men are indeed the public face of Haredi Judaism" -- brilliant. Now, your mistake consists in believing that we ought to edit the article in ways consistent with the views of (male) Haredi Jews. We can certainly describe those views -- but we are by no means obligated to bow to them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please stop reading things into what I write that aren't there. I find your prejudice regarding me and my alleged points of view quite offensive. I am not against pictures of women at all, and never did I say or imply such a thing. I merely explained that in face of the fact that, in accordance with their lifestyle, men are the public face of Haredi Judaism far more than women, we can expect there to be more notable activities and coverage with and about Haredi men than Haredi women, and subsequently also more pictures with Haredi men than with Haredi women. Therefore, any article about Haredi Judaism, including an encyclopedical article like Wikipedia, would naturally be expected to contain more information, and consequently pictures, about Haredi men than women. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there more Haredi men than women statistically? From an encyclopedic standpoint, that seems like a much more appropriate measure of notability. Relishcolouredhat (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Relishcolouredhat. So, if we talk percentage of women/man images, what do you think? At the bottom of this talk page, I felt that 5 of men and 3 of women was acceptable. If you say 50-50, I would be fine supporting that too. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with your points below Anna Frodesiak; with the lead of the article changed it is not so striking, but when skimming the article it somehow seems worse than 5/3. While there is by no means a requirement for a tokenistic 1:1 ratio; as an outsider- I do believe women seem under-represented in this article, in both pictures and content. Relishcolouredhat (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Relishcolouredhat! You prompted me to post at the bottom to see if there is support. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Relishcolouredhat, you are wrong. An encyclopedia is about notable facts and its articles should reflect those notable facts. So should its pictures. If there are more notable activities with men, then an good encyclopedical article will have to write more about men than about women. And, by the same token, the article, if it's a good article of course, will contain more pictures with men than with women. That is the case here. Anything that goes against this, including unjustified agendas to push gender equality, is an injustice to the facts, and an encyclopedia can not engage in them. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this encyclopedia will be about notable facts; our disagreement is in that I believe notability is defined by consensus of the audience as opposed as to consensus of the subject. There is little information in this article about a large portion of the group we are speaking of. What face that group decides to put on outwardly is a very problematic measure of notability, and hardly sufficient for an article of suitable quality for encyclopedic purposes. Relishcolouredhat (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, we, the people, determine what is notable. But we must do that based on objective indications - the facts, not our opinions and political points of view. hat would make this a very bad encyclopedia very soon. Debresser (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability is required for an article, not for all content in the article. Pictures don't need to reflect notable content, but reliably sourced content. And if the content is skewed toward men, we as editors have to make sure that this is because the article is accurately reflecting the scholarship. If it isn't, then there's a bigger problem with the article than just a gender imbalance among the pictures. As the article stands now, most of the content is gender-neutral - in which case, the gender imbalance is a problem, and if there aren't adequate pictures in Commons, then better ones need to be found or created.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any guidance in policy for the question being addressed here and I don't think there should be any guidance in policy for the question being addressed here. Images are open to being defined by the viewer. Just as the cliche says that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so too is an image open to a wide degree of interpretation. We can talk about images that are already under consideration by all participating editors but we can't decide in the absence of images what it is we are looking for. This applies to gender. I don't think there is justification for looking for either male photographs or female photographs. There is justification only for looking for photographs of Haredi Jews. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure -- but what has been happening is deletion of photos of women, with some pretty absurd reasons, to such an extent that it's not hard to discern the real reasons. Gender imbalance is of course a problem. If we continue to see deletion of pictures of women, I'll delete pictures of men and give whatever reason seems fitting. If someone doesn't like it (not referring specifically to you, Bus-stop), they can try (again) at ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering that you first added those pictures, and then they were deleted as being either of poor quality, not illustrative of the article, or simply lacking consensus, I understand why you are not happy. But the real problem is that you have an agenda of adding pictures of women for the sake of adding pictures of women, so I think you alone are to blame for your frustration when it turns out other editors refuse to play along with your agenda. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: There is a major gender imbalance in general on Wikipedia, so I think there is a lot of cause to try and find pictures of women for a particular article, if there are not enough good-quality images. Considering that appx. 50% of Haredi' would be women, there should be a roughly 50/50 representation in images. Because of the patriarchal system, there might not be as many images of public activities, but there would probably be other opportunities for images.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi 3family6—I disagree that there should be "a roughly 50/50 representation in images". Images are evaluated on many factors besides the genders depicted. An individual editor is entitled to favor images based on gender considerations but I don't think we as a project should set out with an aim of achieving gender parity. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And why not? If Wikipedia is truly summarizing and representing a subject, it should reflect that subject. In this case, if you are talking about Haredi Judiasm, 50% of the population is female. So images, if they are truly showcasing that culture, would have a similar balance. Anything else is a bias. If we are trying to be neutral, men and women would be featured equally.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This argument was refuted already a few times, so I will simply refer you to look again at the discussion. It is incredibly stupid and shortsighted to say "Heh, aren't there just as many women as men?" As though anybody here wouldn't be aware of that simple statistic truth. Obviously that is not the issue, and that is not the argument. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not an image is free of the constraints that words are subject to. We don't have policy that addresses this question. And I hope we never do have policy addressing this question. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser - show me where it was agreed that the article should intentionally showcase men more than women? I've seen some editors saying that right now, there are more quality images of men, and so that is why currently, the article should have more images of men than of women. But they've also suggested that editors could take more. I don't buy the argument that women are less visible, as the current images testify otherwise. And, even if they are less visible, it still is important to highlight their function in Haredi culture. It just might take more effort than to showcase the function of Haredi men. Wikipedia is widely acknowledged to have a gender gap, and there are a lot of resources being put in to rectify that. Currently, there might not be enough good quality images in this article to do that, so it might take a lot of effort to improve it in this manner. If you, Debresser, and Bus stop, are resistant to that idea, then there is plenty of merit to the accusation of gender bias. If not, okay, great!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Right now, this whole discussion is moot, because the gender ratio is pretty much even, and a wide variety of Haredi life is depicted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

3family6—once other concerns become subservient to one promoted concern, the selection process for images is bound to suffer. It is preferable to keep all concerns in play at once. We have many aims. These aims can be competing aims. We don't want to push other concerns aside in a quest for equal gender representation in images. Bus stop (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Where have I said otherwise? I don't understand what you mean by competing aims, but I agree with everything else.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Supposing "focus" was an "aim". (I'm just supposing. I'm not arguing that sharpness of focus is always an aim.) Supposing "context" was an aim. By that I mean the setting in which we might find a person. And then supposing there is the aim that we want more pictures of females. Those are potentially "competing aims", are they not? (I'm just making up the terminology. If "competing aims" is not clear I apologize.) Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now, thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@3family6 "where it was agreed that the article should intentionally showcase men more than women" It wasn't. It happened naturally. And it should happen naturally on this article. Why do you ask? Debresser (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned the discussion to challenge my assertion that ideally, the article should focus on men and women equally. Where has the discussion supported your argument that the article should favor coverage of men over women?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

These arguments are besides the point because preferences for images are ultimately personal. One person can favor an image for one reason and another person can favor an image for a different reason. The mistake is thinking that policy or "rightness" or "wrongness" has bearing on personal choices concerning preferences in imagery. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Consensus and policy is what should inform content on Wikipedia over personal choices. Personal choice is involved, but can be overruled by the community. If that is what you are trying to say, then yes, I agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The point of view that this article, and others like it, can and should treat men and women differently has been supported by several editors here and elsewhere, and is actually not an issue. It is an obvious result of the nature of an encyclopedia. Any opposite point of view is untenable. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for lead image

Suggested lead image. It shows a family, appearances, different ages and genders. What's not to like?

There's been a lot of discussion over what images should be in the article. I suggest a good place to start that could make further discussions less contentious.

I suggest the family picture (shown) as the lead, top-right image. Other images further on in the article can be left to others. This would put a big part of the matter to rest and seems like a good picture to have. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support ...just to show how much I support this image and want to see this sorted out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, bordering on neutral, on the grounds that the photo seems to be only typical of New York Haredi Jews. I prefer the photo of the couple in Jerusalem, both because I think it's more representative of the largest community of Haredi Jews and also because of the nice bokeh effect. I would much prefer a photomontage of different Haredi people like we used to have on articles for ethnic groups, but sadly this RfC means that's no longer appropriate. With that in mind, maybe it would be best to choose a photo in which the subject is not a person (or a group of people). I've noticed that many of the pages which used to have such photomontages have replaced them with a flag, as in Sami people or a map indicating the range of the people, as in Han Chinese. Maybe something like that would be appropriate and less contentious? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- but equally I would support the photo of the couple in Jerusalem. I wouldn't be in favour of an image that isn't of people -- the article is about a group of people, and it shouldn't be hard to represent it that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The couple picture

• Comment I'm leaning toward the family pic. The couple pic does show how Jerusalem Haredi Jews appear, but the family pic's appearance is not enormously different, and it also conveys so much more. I must discount the bokeh effect because artistic features of an image ought not weigh heavily against what an image conveys. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I must discount the bokeh effect because artistic features of an image ought not weigh heavily against what an image conveys. Fair enough. If consensus leans toward the family photo, you needn't consider my oppose substantive and you should feel free to proceed with the change. My weak opposition is only in the hope of finding a better image that everyone can agree on. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• The family picture is a good picture in all regards. Although I think the present top picture is more of what people would associate with Haredi Judaism. Nevertheless, to show that I too am willing to lend a hand to compromise, I support this proposal. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose Since I am not the only one who thinks this is not a good picture for the lead section, and since the recent WP:ANI discussion suggested that we re-examine all pictures on this article, I shall present my opinion freely. I think the present picture is more representative of the subject than either of these two family/couple pictures. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Or the couple in Jerusalem, as decided by consensus. Either way, each photo should note where the photo is taken. This is all the more reason that this article needs plenty of images -- it's a unique culture that can also vary by location. Softlavender (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment again Sure, in the spirit of compromise, I could get on board with the couple image. It is a tad light in the women/child area, and quite male-dominated. After all, the man is the central figure as the woman is facing him, not the camera. And no kids. No kids? You've got to have kids! :) Plus, the family pic has the entire frame filled with people, as opposed to the couple pic with an easy two thirds non-people. Tough call. Still leaning toward the family pic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this is a satisfactory image to put in the lede. If there is significant concern about women representation and we want to push this forward then the best image in the article which prominently features women, in my opinion, is - despite the production flaw - this one where women are in protest against conscription;

Women praying in protest against conscription of yeshiva students

There are a couple key criteria for any image in the lede; a) subject relevance. The family photo fails this first criterion miserably. If it wasn't for the hat the man in the photo is wearing I'd have absolutely no clue what this article is about. The image conveys nothing useful to me. I'd have to double-take and make sure I'm at the right page with the proposed image as I'd be concerned that I'd somehow typed in Family instead. The current image gives me some useful context. The men in the current lede image are poring over the Torah, it doesn't get more culturally relevant than that and immediately identifies the subject matter - Judaism (incl. any subset of Judaism). I can't even use the caption of the image to help - and I don't mean the one above; Suggested lead image. It shows a family, appearances, different ages and genders. What's not to like? - I hope that's not the proposed caption. The actual image caption in the article is; Hasidic Family in Street - Borough Park. So uh? what's this article about? Haredic or Hasidic Judaism? Article title says Haredic, but, proposed lede image says Hasidic. Triple take required and familiarity with subject matter too - which I don't have, btw. b) The other criteria is "technically well-produced"; Unfortunately with the "protest" image, it's technically flawed and this is a very visible trait. So I'm not sure we'd do the reader any favours with it either. By comparison the proposed image is quite clean graphically, but, mucky. I can't instantly separate the background from the foreground. I can do this with the "couple's image" but again, it also fails criterion a). That said, the current lede image is somewhat grainy and very low pixel quality. So, in essence none of the images meet both criterion. I have to give preferrence to an image that meets criterion a but fails criterion b. This leaves just two images for me; the current lede photo or the protest photo. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Women praying in protest..." is inappropriate for many, many reasons, and I would oppose that.

Debresser My current concern with the protest image is that I don't entirely know how we know that this is a protest image. I do however need a little more context here. Is it the image itself you oppose, or, the caption? if image is it for the production quality or the actual content of the image? if caption, would you support keeping it in the article with a new caption? (I ask because as I recall this image was a point of contention in itself). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is the combination of image and caption. :) I really though I explained my reasons clearly.

I don't particularly like the picture (something a certain editor will surely find a fitting way to explain), but if it were called "Women in prayer" that would be one thing, but the current caption shows no indication of being related to the picture. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Final comment I give up. With Debresser's oppose, there is now no consensus for change and the current image is of a bunch of old men. Great. Consider wrapping the article around the image by moving it to Old men of Haredi Judaism. :) Kidding. I'm sure the article will find its way in terms of images in a few years. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I am truly sorry. You did your best. But frankly, the old picture is not that bad. Even though I think Haredi Judaism is not only for the old and feeble, the older generation is most representative of Haredi Judaism in the minds of most. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Anna Frodesiak: -- you realise that this is exactly what Debresser wants, right? The issue can be addressed via more input, not less -- Wikipedia editors in general understand the issue here. So I'd encourage you not to give up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give it another shot. Let's abandon this thread and give it a fresh try below. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity You make it sound as though "what Debresser wants" is something terrible and disgusting. Please stop your prejudice-based propaganda against my best opinion. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we hat this discussion. 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous

Nomoskedasticity made another pointy and disruptive edit,[1] adding yet another picture to this article which is already tagged for having too many pictures.[2] This time he added a picture of a few women in prayer to the "Military" section, and called it "Protest against conscription of yeshiva students". I think this picture is not at all representative of the subject, so tried to improve the caption and wrote "Women praying in protest against conscription of yeshiva students". In either case, I think this picture is still not representative of the subject, since nothing in the picture shows "protest" or seems to have any connection to "conscription of yeshiva students". I have, quite frankly, had it with edits from this editor, adding pictures of women for the sake of adding pictures of women, in blatant disregard of the pictures being of bad quality, or as in this case completely not fitting. I will copy this post to WP:ANI for further input, but I propose 1. to remove this picture 2. to remind Nomoskedasticity to refrain from pointy edits. 13:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing pointy about it. It's a picture that is (per the caption) entirely relevant to the section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As I just explained, this is not the case. The caption is relevant, the picture isn't. I move to remove this picture. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Vote

• Remove as per my argument: nothing in the picture shows "protest" or seems to have any connection to "conscription of yeshiva students". Debresser (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Inadequate picture

I move to remove the newly added picture of a small group of women standing at some indistinct location, partly leaning on the back of a car, and reading various printed materials. The caption reads "Women praying in protest against conscription of yeshiva students", which is apparently the reason to put this picture in this article, namely in the "Military" section of it. I have no reason to assume bad faith, but also have no proof or visual indication that the caption is correct. The reasons for removal are:

1. there is no proof or visual indication that the picture is what it claims to be;
2. as a logical consequence, there is nothing in the picture which inherently illustrates the subject;
3. surely there must be better pictures to illustrate haredi protest against army conscription than a small group of women at some random location;
4. this picture was added recently by an editor with an agenda, but no attempt was made to establish consensus that this picture is adequate and needed.

Debresser (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser's reasons for taking out that image. —PermStrump(talk) 19:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For this picture there's no "proof or visual indication that the picture is what it claims to be": "Haredim walk to the synagogue". It's not hard to speculate re why you haven't been concerned to point out this major deficiency... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

On that picture I see a group of haredi people, including children, walking in a relaxed way, obviously following some leader to the synagogue. I couldn't imagine any other way to explain that picture. This is what I see every few weeks on Saturday morning, and indeed those people I see are walking to a synagogue. So no deficiency on that picture, just an editor trying to make a desperate stand. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Obviously following some leader to a synagogue"? Where's the synagogue?? And how are we to know that it's actually in Rehovot? There's no proof or visual indication that the caption is correct. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The argument is lacking. See the Hasidic boys in Lodz? there's no visual indication that they are in Lodz. The person who took the picture however called the image "Hasidic boys in Poland" and the French caption states "Jeunes garçons juifs hassidiques en Pologne, à Łódź, dans les années 1910" or in my limited French capcity I can glean that it says something like "Young Hasidic boys in Lodz, Poland, around 1910". Whereas with the protest picture there is nothing to indicate what is actually going on there in the file title or description. In the synagogue image, guess what? the title and description of the image; "File:Haredim allant a la synagogue.jpg" and description "Israel, Rehovot - a group of Haredim going to synagogue to welcome shabbat on friday evening". Even the photographer from flickr states basically the same thing. So what's your case? The original photographer of the "protest" image is Zivya (who has no page on en.Wiki), I don't know that they are active at all though since their talk page on commons hasn't been edited since 2014. They are however the only person who could confirm what the image is about. Leave a comment here and ask them about the image. I hope they respond because somebody's case is going to go out the window. It either is as you state a protest picture, in which case Debresser's case is nullified (I'm not even going to address points 3 or 4 as they are of no consequence - as though Borough Park is any less "random"), or it's not, and your case is nullified (unless it's about something else just as relevant). I am aware that the image in question can also be found at Protest against conscription of yeshiva students by User:The Turtle Ninja who also appears to be inactive with no posts since late 2014. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity If it says Rehovot, that part is not essential, and I couldn't care if it were left out. Where the synagogue is? Why, you want to go there? What kind of question is that? Nomoskedasticity, you are obviously in the death spasms of your argument! Debresser (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude I agree with you that details like place and time/year are not self-evident from a picture. But it is not that type of exact details I am talking about. The subject the picture comes to illustrate should be somehow obviously illustrated by it. And the picture in case, with the small group of women reading various printed materials at some strange location standing behind a car is not self-evident of anything. Perhaps they are praying at a funeral? Perhaps it really is the entrance to some holy site and there is not enough place for them to enter? (Frankly speaking, that is what I think it really is.) In addition, surely there must be pictures that are a hundredfold better to illustrate Haredi protest! 22:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I Google searched for "mass demonstration against conscription of yeshiva bochurs" (in Hebrew). See [3]. As you can see, literally hundreds of pictures with men, and only one with women! Picking that one picture with women is so completely against all logic, that I strongly feel that we must say no to this attempt to influence normal and logical considerations of a strictly encyclopedical nature by people with some extraneous agenda of a political nature. By the way, I liked [4] and [5] as being especially illustrative. And then there is this picture. Very impressive!Debresser (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That last image is the best for the Military section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the picture per consensus here. I don't mind adding another picture, but also don't think the article really needs it. If anybody wants to add the panoramic picture, but keep it small, feel free. Other pictures, please discuss first. Debresser (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted this, naturally -- in part because there's evidently no consensus to remove it. I don't mind the new picture -- even though there's "no proof or visual indication that the caption is correct". How are we to know that this is a protest against conscription, as against a protest re some other grievance?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... how bout the file title and description? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

But then why aren't the caption and file description sufficient to establish that the photo of the protesting women is also a photo of people protesting against conscription? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Because the file description is non-existent. The image is titled Atzeret115.jpg and no description is provided along with the file whatsoever. Though Debresser's issue with the image extends beyond that, my own does not. That's why I recommended posting a note to Zivya's talk page (on commons, they don't have an .en Wiki page) and asking them about it. They haven't been active since 2014 so I don't know that this will achieve anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The file description is in Hebrew, over on the right hand side. The translation is: "demonstration against conscription". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it is. Well, while I can't read Hebrew I'm happy to AGF and say it is what you say it is. That said, like I said Debresser's issue with image is broader than my own. I have no opinion on the image itself, my only complaint is the obvious technical production flaw straight across the middle of the picture. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• The addition of the picture of "Women praying" is pointy in my opinion. It is not needed. There is a picture of a zillion charedim protesting and that is a great picture. We don't need to add more images just to add images of women. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ultra-Orthodoxy considered "pejorative"

Debresser reverted my edit changing the wording "the term "ultra-Orthodox", however, is considered pejorative by many" to "some." As best I can tell, while there are four sources (of questionable reliability) cited in the article that refer to the term as pejorative, none say that "many" consider it as such. Thus it seems to be a bit of WP:SYNTH going on, unless someone can share a source that characterizes it the same way. Instead, I've found a Washington Post article that says "Many of the Haredim do not care what others call them," so based on this, I've changed it back to "some." Open to hearing other sources of course. FuriouslySerene (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a big deal to me. If there are 4 sources, that sounds like more like "many" to me. In addition, there is no doubt in my mind, that the statement using "many" is actually true. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Some" seems fine to me, especially now that the alternative is now supported by source. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• None of the sources say either "some" or "many". Debresser (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about male clothing

Several photographs show men wearing coats with buttons on left side, when right is usual for men. Info on the background to this could be useful in the article. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sharp question. HarediHassidic men wear clothes right-over-left, what is nowadays considered female style. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

nope, only chassidim. Regular charedim wear normal buttons.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Didn't think this through. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Haredi Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302061255/http://www.jewishmediaresources.org/article/784/ to http://www.jewishmediaresources.org/article/784/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102130803/http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000881310 to http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000881310
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023142743/http://www.bod.org.uk/content/StrictlyOrthodox.pdf to http://www.bod.org.uk/content/StrictlyOrthodox.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60Mnkiz1A?url=http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/Synagogue%20membership.pdf to http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/Synagogue%20membership.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haredi Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140612174553/http://keren-kemach.org/en/ to http://keren-kemach.org/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212113800/http://news.ufl.edu/2006/11/27/hasidic-jews/ to http://news.ufl.edu/2006/11/27/hasidic-jews
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140612174553/http://keren-kemach.org/en/ to http://www.keren-kemach.org/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ultra Orthodox and the Internet

The intent of this talk it to answer the vagueness of the Haredi Judaism Wiki article, under the Practices and beliefs section, with regards to restrictions on technology within the Jewish Orthodox sects, and more specifically the Hasidic group. If there is enough information, a new section will be suggested called “Haredi and Technology” with the goal of elaborating on the presented topics below. This will be done through a factual point of view quoting reputable sources. Nathaniel Deutsch, in the Contemporary Jewry, wrote the article “The Forbidden Fork, the Cell Phone Holocaust, and Other Haredi Encounters with Technology”. In which he presents the idea that the strictness over the use of technology and specifically the internet put forth by the Orthodox governing body's is there to retain members. His belief is that the Elders feel the use of the internet can, “encourage individualism among users, while circumventing communal surveillance”. The fear of the internet drawing “large numbers of young people away from the Hasidic fold”, was particularly prevalent when in 2006, an “asifa of rabbis was held to discuss the dangers of the internet and to endorse a ban on its use outside of the workplace”. Deutsch counters this point with the example of the kosher cell phone, “Haredi users could simply purchase regular phones and manually disable the offending features, themselves, or they could simply ignore those features entirely. [...] Instead, however, the logic of the humra requires that a kosher cell phone be developed and, concomitantly, that non-kosher phones be ban”.

Alex567123 (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• Hi Alex567123, this looks like it would be a good section! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Haredi is artificial

I think you need to explain that Haredi isn't an official sanctioned denomination in Judaism. The Talmud, the Geonim, Rishonim and Aharonim do not discuss this. It is a modern concept. Furthermore, it should be noted that many say that Haredi is an outlook in which one fears Gd and follows the commandments meticulously, but doesn't necessarily reject modernity. Eha207 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If you could provide some reliable sources for these two statements, they could be a valuable contribution to this article. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

U’Bizchutan

I am having trouble setting up the hyperlink to connect the U’Bizchutan Wikipedia article to the entry I added for it in the list of political parties. Can someone assist? MourningSun42 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done the article is named U'Bizchutan rather than U’Bizchutan. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Demographics

It seems like reliable population estimates for this group are hard to find. If someone can find any those would be good to add to the article. The one I found, 6-10% of Israel's Jewish population in 2008 is on the low end. ImTheIP (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Were Jews forced to live in ghettos?

I saw a shameful revert by User:GizzyCatBella, who tried to argue that "Jewish self-segregation and anti-assimilationist trends endured over hundreds of years in Eastern Europe, mainly because of Jewish religious structure that was against interaction with the non-Jewish population." Be that as it may be, but the fact that Jews were obligated to live in a ghetto by local government is not related to the fact that Jews found it beneficial to live in the same area.

If sources are needed, then please read Jewish ghettos in Europe, and see In many cities, Jews were forced to live and work in specific areas., For centuries, Jews had faced persecution, and were often forced to live in designated areas called ghettos., In 1516 Venetian authorities forced all Jews to live in confinement in the "geti," which is where the modern-day term of "ghetto" is derived. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood what I intended to express in my editing comment and I'm not arguing that Jews were not ordered to live in the assigned areas in medieval Europe. I intended to say that the existence of Jewish ghetto was not always a consequence of a forced policy of a ruler. Jews shielded their way of life rigorously and sought as few interactions with the outside society as possible. There were two factors to the creation of Jewish areas or ghettos - the Jewish community way of life and European Kingdoms strict Jewish residency laws, so it can't be really said that they were only forced and otherwise they would be living among the Gentiles. Nahum Goldmann in his book "The Jewish Paradox" (page 66) illustrates the matter this way:

• "Moreover, it is worthwhile to stress that the ghetto is historically a Jewish invention. It is wrong to say that the goyim forced the Jews to separate themselves from other societies. When the Christians defined the ghetto limited, Jews lived there already’'" GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Firstly, Goldmann is not a historian. Secondly, his opinion is ludicrous. He's basically saying that because people basically live in homogeneous neighborhoods, that's basically a ghetto, so being forced to live in one and being walled off and locked in at night is no biggie. Come on. It's as if you're trying to cherry pick something for some reason. It's one source against WP:BLUE, which we obviously can't use. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please consider Robert Chazan then, "Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe". Chazan is a historian/scholar in the field of Jewish history and Christian-Jewish relations in the Middle Ages. He illustrates the matter in the chapter "A people dwelling apart" (page 196) GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella Maybe I really don't understand what you are trying to say, because I think I agree with Sir Joseph here. There is a big difference between living more or less in the same neighborhood on a voluntary basis, and living all in the same neighborhood enforced by authorities. If some historians would claim otherwise, that sounds pretty strange to me, or what we call on Wikipedia "fringe". But, as I said, I may not understand you correctly. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)