Talk:Neturei Karta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article is not NPOV right now

"Radicals under the guidance of Rabbi Moshe Hirsch..." Radicals is a pov epithet. It is also unsourced that this is what happened. ALso the part about them changing after AMram BLau's death needs to be sourced, as it implies he would dissaprove. There is no source given for sucha contention.

I don't think "radical" is an epithet at all, it describes the groups status as at an extreme end of the total whole. Can you suggest a better term? Since Neturei Karta is about as far away from "main-line" Judaism ( whatever that is ), "radical" seems a fair descriptive term. Jake b 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Religious-Zionists and modern Orthodox have argued that by transgressing (3), the gentiles broke their part of the pact. Others argue that the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Partition Plan awarding a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel constitute the gentiles' permission to immigrate en masse to the Land of Israel and therefore waives their part of the pact." Why is this in there. IMHO, it belongs in the article about those groups, as it would just degenerate the article into a Talmudic debate, where someone else will want to point out why they are wrong, and on and on. Everybody knows religious ZIonists do not agree with Neturei Karta. Also it needs a source. Which Religious ZIonists and Modern Orthodox say this? Who? Do they all agree?

"Furthermore, many note the Talmudic principle that Halachik laws are not derived from Aggadah.[citation needed]" Which Talmudic principle is this? Who brings it down. This is bizarre since one of the main laws of Kashrus is derived from the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel, Noachide laws are derived from Aggadata in the begginning of Genesis, and Moshe Feinstein paskened the height of a mekitzah from a story about how the Temple was prepared for festivals. I suppose there could be somebody who holds this way, but it really needs to be sourced quickly, couched in aphrasing that makes it clear not everyone holds this is a Talmudic principle, and the Weazel wording should be removed and replaced with a name.

"With their help, Neturei Karta was able to withstand paying taxes to the state that they did not recognize," THis needs a rather strongly reliable citation, as it is impossable for them to get around paying taxes in Israel. How would they get around VAT? Will they tell us how?

"They will not approach the Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem, feeling it has been befouled by secular interests and those professing Zionism, which they see as an abomination." Also needs a citation, because it's confusing NK with Satmer again. Yerushalmi do visit the Koisel. This is not a POV problem, it's just incorrect.

" Rabbi Moshe Hirsch, Neturei Karta's self-proclaimed 'Foreign Minister'" Self-proclaimed implies he is insane or self-aggrendizing. Is there a source that says other Yershalmi NK do not recognize him as such?

"In the UK, Rabbi Yosef Goldstein testified on behalf of Abu Hamza al-Masri of the Finsbury Park Mosque, who in recordings has called for the murder of Jews and infidels. Rabbi Goldstein testified that he and Abu Hamza had a 'friendly and cordial relationship.'" This might be true, but it needs sited. It should also be worded less angrily perhaps. A testified for B, saying BLank. This group of people was offended because B was recorded saying Blank.

In the Iranian section it reads, "however the suggestion that it was key to the prisoners' release several years later cannot be verified." Why is this there? The claim of Arutz Sheva, a politically biased radio station, of an unsigned condemnation by a New YOrk Heradi/Modern Orthodox umbrella organization that breaks all barriers and does not appear in the NY phone book, does not have a similar sentance. EIther one should be added, or this one should be removed. I think that neither can be verified is worth pointing out in less inflamatory words. Maybe with ARutz Sheva it could be pointed out the umbrella organization does not seem to exist, and here it could be pointed out that the release took place several years later and no reason was given by the Iranian government.

"several of the others' "confessions" were suspected to have been coerced." This is weasel wording. Who said they were coerced? You and I would suspect it, but it should probably be inserted that it was the defence lawyer of the others on trial who said this, as per the story in the link. Shia1 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Very perceptive remarks, in my opinion. What a shame they haven't been fully implemented. --Philopedia 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on that. Changes should be made although it could be difficult as sometimes big edit wars pop up around controversial Jewish topics. --Feer 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly POV against Neturei Karta. The big problem is that there are a lot of sections whose entire point is just to denounce the NK, such as "Palestinian money" "condemnations" etc. There should be only one major sections entitled Controversy, where all the problems should go. Also there should be a section (or two) that presents in detail their viewpoints from 'NK POV' --Doom777 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Condemnation section

Is it necessary to have a laundry list of groups and individuals that have issued statements against NK? I'm inclined to remove it. aliceinlampyland 14:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

I think it's instructive to have it there, particularly since many of the names on the list are from haredi groups, thereby helping people who may not be familiar with the haredi world (or NK) learn that all the black hats don't mean they think alike. Similarly, some on the list (such as Satmar) have (rightly or wrongly) long been associated with NK, and this, again, helps people both know where the boundaries are (these haredim say X, NK says Y), as well as reinforcing the fact that there are differences of opinion among them.

That said, if you think the long list is cumbersome/unecessary, one compromise might be to only pick out the few biggest names (major Hasidic sects, yeshivas, etc), and then have a short note saying the complete list is available following the link. ShalomShlomo 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe the Condemnation section has had names falsly added. Satmar on principle (b'shitah in their words) does not sign its name to documents co-signed by either Modern Orthodox or Zionists, such as Anshei Sfard or Young Israel. Also, Bobov has a principle of not making public stands against other groups. Has anyone bothered to contact the Satmer or Bobov Beis Din for confirmation? Also, Chasidic groups aren't bussinesses or governments. They can't sign the group name to a document. THe signer would have to be either the Rebbi, or the Beis Din. The condemnation of NK never made it onto the pages of Der Yid, Satmer's Newspaper, while the forbidden nature of bicycles did. This makes me doubt the ADMOR or the Beis DIn signed such a condemnation. It smells of an attempt at propaganda done improperly. 88.152.205.196 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Shia88.152.205.196 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. It could very well be that the condemnation is a fabrication, a lie, by Arutz Sheva which I think was the first to publish it. The same thing also surprised me. HOW could Lubavitch and Satmar, Bobov and Young Israel etc ever sign on to the same thing -- WITHOUT this being a MAJOR story all around? I don't buy it. I might go out to investigate this. --Daniel575 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Condemnation section should be removed, as it is clearly false, and if not false is so unbelievable it needs more verification than Arutz Sheva, a Khakh radio station banned from the State of Israel because it broadcasts incitement. The list of names listed as signers are so diverse and hostile to each other, that the claim they signed the same piece of paper is nearly equivalent to claiming all the nations of the world have signed a nuclear disarmament treaty. It would need substantial and overwhelming proof to be believed. As I mentioned, Der Yid, the official Satmer voice for such statements never had such a pronouncement in it.

This following bit should be erased from the article as well. "The people who operate under the Neturei Karta name, guided by Rabbi Hirsch, have been excommunicated by other anti-Zionist Haredim. In fact, they will not be counted in a quorum of ten men required to say certain prayers in a synagogue. Hirsch is considered to be a "wicked" person by many in the Haredi Jewish community. Despite their extreme views on Zionism, the great majority of Haredi Jews, including the Satmar movement, have never aligned themselves with Israel's enemies."

This is a clear unsourced fabrication. No Heradi group has put NK in Cherem. Also, Rav Shakh, head of Degel HaTOrah (a non-Hasidic Israeli religious political party),and Rosh Yeshivah of Ponevich, the most respected Yeshivah in B'nei Brak, said the only difference in his and Neturei Karta's outlook is strategy.

(Which is brought down in a English language book published by Feldheim, COnversations With Rav SHach.)

The quote also, incidently, is misleading as to the results of a Cherem - Jewish excomunication. "In fact" is dead wood, as the result of a Cherem always is not being able to be counted in a minyan. Anyone who has visited Meoh Sharim or Ramat Beit Shemesh Beit knows known Neturei Karta'niks who are not only counted in minyanim, but are respected members of the community. Further, groups don't decide someone is in Cherem and then they are. There is a meating of a Beis Din and the signing of documents. If Neturei Karta is in cherem by a certain Heradi Beis Din, there should be ample evidence as to which Dayanim (judges) signed, where it was done, and what publicizing was done to make the community aware. The fact there is no source shows this was probably not done.

Further, even when witnesses are called to Beis Din in Heradi communities in the State of Israel, large black and white signs are printed and paisted over the walls of the neighborhood. There should be ample photographic evidence if such a thing was done.

Also, puting human beings (as opposed to books, or restraunts) in Cherem is illegal in the State of Israel by Israeli law under the Basic Laws of the Knesset (the human dignity and freedom law) which act as the Israeli constitution.

Also the labeling of Heradi as "extreme" is biased language suited for a e-mail group, but not an encyclopedia.

Further, the contention that no other Heradi group condones meeting with enemies of the State of Israel is simply false. Rav Yossef Chaim Sonnenfeld met with the Kings of Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in an attempt to secure Heradi protection in Jerusalem, where he was the Rav of the Eida Cheraidis, under their rule rather than live under Zionist control. He did this under the official banner of both the Eidah HaCheraidis and Agudas Yisroel. His secretary Yakoov Yisroel DeHaan was assasinated by the Hagannah for his participation in these meatings.

To those who edit these articles, I would beg them to please be honest with their portrayel of this group for the sake of the prestige of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Wikepedia is supposed to be an online information source, and when people haphazardly insert libelous accusations against groups they have political problems with, it lowers the accuracy and makes the articles into propaganda rather than information. If one believes NK is a bad group, then others will naturally come to that conclusion after reading accurate information.

Politics should not come before honesty. There are controversies around Neturei Karta, but they do not face the level of opposition that is being portrayed here. 88.152.205.196 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Shia88.152.205.196 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I've added a "TotallyDisputed" tag for the condemnation section, per the previous request. I've also removed some contentious "information" that has never struck me as appropriate for this article. Please don't return it without a good reason. CJCurrie 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Anyone who has visited Meoh Sharim or Ramat Beit Shemesh Beit knows known Neturei Karta'niks who are not only counted in minyanim, but are respected members of the community.

• • Please clarify: do the communities here referenced include any of Hirsch's followers, or do they consist exclusively of his opponents within Neturei Karta? CJCurrie 04:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A follower of Hirsh serves as Shliakh Tzibor (prayer leader) in the central Meoh Sharim Shtiebel next to Torah V'Yirah, known to the English speakers as "The Minyan Factory" due to its large size and constant services under way. The NK flew Palestinian flags in Ramat Beit Shemesh Beit on Yom HaAtzmaut,and not only were they not condemned by the community, but were cheered on by their neighbors. When Religious Zionists in Ramat Beit Shemesh Aleph, the more American suburb, complained about the display in the Beit Shemesh monthly magazine Connections, some Heradim in Ramat Beit Shemesh Aleph came to the defence of the NKniks in letters to the editor, and complained about the display of Israeli flags on the day. Ramat Beit Shemesh Beit has thousands of residents and, except for the Gur and Belz, all NK sympathizers. I've never really heard Yerushalmi NK ever denounce Moshe Hirsch, and in Batei Ungarin their are signs everywhere that say, The Jewish People against the Zionist Occupation of Palestine," and in Meah Sharim all over there's spray painted grafitti, "Palestinian Territory." The contention that there are a large number of anti-Hirsch Neturei Karta is simply unfounded. The people who say they are anti-Hirsch Neturei Karta or Neturei Karta who don't condone meating Arab leaders are usually newly religious people who are drawn to the extreme religious expression of Yerushalmim, but who, when asked, don't share anti-Zionist ideas at all, except that they are not comfortable with the anti-religious stance of the government. They, however, take money and vote. THe anti-Hirsch Neturei Karta or Mainstream Neturei Karta, as some like to call them, are a myth or a small minority. I've never met one in my life.

THere are people who disagree with Hirsch on minor issues like who to visit and when ; or on other Neturei Karta pet peaves, like elaborite school buildings or certain types of celebrations at weddings, but nobody is against the meatings with Arabs. Its a policy they have based on Eikah Rabbah in the Midrash Rabbah where, seeing that the destruction of Jerusalem was imminent, R' Yochanan Ben Zakkai, the leading rabbi of the time, snuck outside the walls and greeted the ROman General, "Hail Emperor," and continued to befriend and advise him until he agreed to leave the Western gate open for anyone who wanted to escape. I'm actually not sure why this story doesn't appear in the article as the basis for Neturei Karta's policy of meating with Arab leaders, since it is the second most important text in arriving at their policy and theology besides the one from Eichah Rabbah from which they derive their name. (Which also does not appear in the article.)

• Per your comments, I've removed the disputed passage again (at least for the time being). CJCurrie 05:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually have met several Yerushalmim who consider Rav Hirsch to be an extremist. However, I must note that they themselves do not primarily identify with NK, rather with Toldos Aharon or Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok. That's not entirely the same thing. I guess it depends on who you call an NKnik. Also, just as a sidenote: the Edah HaChareidis currently also maintains contacts with foreign (Middle Eastern) governments, including Hamas and Iran. --Daniel575 11:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideology Edit War: The Revenge

Daniel575, I'm confused about your latest edit to the line about Ahmadinejad's comments. What is your proof that Ahmadinejad has been "mistranslated"? Calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map does not sound like "dismantling" to me, it sounds like support for a violent removal- destruction seems an apt term. That Neturei Karta has not used this term in agreeing with and supporting Ahmadinejad does not change the fact that THIS is what Ahmadinejad has said- hence my change to "NK supported Ahmadinejad's comments of X, while themselves saying Y". Instead of addressing the substance of the issue, you have bypassed and ignored it entirely by implying that Ahmadinejad and NK said the same thing, and that the inconsistency between the two positions is the fault of prejudiced translators.ShalomShlomo 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly and explained the difference between Iran's call for 'destruction' and NK's call for 'dismantlement'. I hope you can agree with this. --Daniel575 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's slightly wordier than would be to my liking, but I think the overall concept behind the new phrasing is quite good. If I think of a better way to phrase it, I'll run it by you. Thanks. ShalomShlomo 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. It is quite a bit longer now, but I think it portrays everyone's point equally. Signed, the NPOV-expert.

What do you think of my newest attempt? I tried to maintain the points you made while making it a little more concise.ShalomShlomo 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, thanks. --Daniel575 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

removed a link in the end... too many of them and unrelated.

More link stuff

Any reason for the latest link removal?ShalomShlomo 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I left User:Ian Pitchford a message on his talk page to request an explanation, and reverted the page to your last version. --Daniel575 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta is not shown for what it really is

The movement is now markedly different from the way Rav Blau started it. I would add that they "pose as charedi Jews" for a number of reasons:

1) Not one charedi group agrees with their actions 2)Most significantly--and I believe this MUST be mentioned--Neturei Karta shows up to terrorist parades on shabbos. They carry large placards on Shabbos even though there is not eiruv. Because they are michallel shabbos in public, they can harldy be regarded as practicing charedi jews. 3) The fact is that many of them present themselves as Rabbis and Talmudic Scholars. Anyone who met one--and I have--can attest to the FACT that these men cannot read a blatt gemara. Questions relating to their actual scholarship and Jewish practices should be inserted so as to demonstrate their actual breaches from the Jewish community at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)

People do not necessarily act like them, but there are definitely those who agree with what they do.

Your 'terrorist' usage already indicates your POV. The rest is loshon hora (slander). I know that on shabbos they do NOT carry anything and also do not use microphones. They are NOT mechalel shabbos. If you are speaking about those in NY I do not know, because I have never been to the US and do not have any connections there. I am speaking about Jerusalem.

Your third point is just plain loshen hora without any factual basis. --Daniel575 18:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by terrorist. I did not use that term. My point of view is principled and balanced in truth, your pov, however, shows that you clearly allign yourself with their actions. And that is unfortunate.

They used placards just two weeks ago in Manhattan. On Shabbos. That is chillul shabbos b'farhesyah.

The third point is correct. As someone who met more than one Neturei Karta member, I can guaranty they are not talmidei chachomim. This must be added because they call themselves distinguished talmudic(al) scholars on television. The world has to know the truth. This is l'toeles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.254.200 (talk • contribs)

You did not use the term 'terrorist'? I quote: "Neturei Karta shows up to terrorist parades on shabbos." You are not balanced. Please bring a source for their chillul shabbos. Next, NK in New York is as I understood very small. In Jerusalem they have thousands of members and supporters and are very accepted. It is you who has been violating WP:POV since you came here. Please take a closer look at the rules. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for mentioning terorist as opposed to pro hezbollah rallies. Its the same thing, everyone knows it, but becauseI respect Wikipedia's rules, I will be more careful. I appreciate your views in this regard.

My view toward Neturei Karta is true and balanced. The problem is there are two NKs. One is the Jerusalem version which continues in Rav Blau's tradition, and the other does not. My views are limited to the latter group. My remarks regarding them are true. The fact they desecrated the Shabbos has been mentioned in several blogs. The one I clearly remember is the blog, Dov Bear. If you search for Neturei Karta, I believe you will find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)

Oh my goodness! Why do people have to politicize an article! Why not just talk about people as they are and let others be informed. Of course Nkniks can learn. That's rediculous. Most of them go to yeshivah from 3 to 18, and in Israel indefinitely to avoid army service. It's just something you Want to be true. It's a rediculous accusation that can not possibly be true given their lifestyle. They're Yerushalmi Graniks for the most part.

Also, stop using justifications from Jewish law for things, like l'toeles or loshon hara. This is not a Jewish website dedicated to criticizing Neturei Karta. Its an encyclopedia to inform people about a group objectively. If you dnt like NK, and you want to criticize them, why not make your own blog somewhere. Or, if a person is pro-NK and wants to make the article a glurge, also make your own blog. This is supposed to be an academic informed article.

Most of the criticisms are coming from religious Zionists sources, but are said in the name of Heradi. If you want to post that Satmer criticized NK, quote Der YId, not Arutz SHeva. If you want to say Agudah did, quote Yateed Neman, not INNews. Otherwise, it's an accusation and should be listed as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shia1 (talk • contribs)

My friend, Neturei Karta draws much of their authority by pretending to be a valid Orthodox group. Masterhomer 00:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Beit Din Remark

The remark that the condemnation has not been confirmed by any B'tei Din is silly. Chassidic sects don't necessarily speak through their B'tei Din. So the statement is misleading, making it seem as if legitimate condemnations were in fact illegitimate. I am removing the statement. Daniel is in danger of violating the 3 Revert Rule. --Meshulam 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A cherem can only be made by a beis din. Not in any other way. If no beis din has confirmed that such a cherem actually exists, it does not exist. Are you going to trust Arutz Sheva when it comes to a cherem placed by Satmar, Vizhnitz and Munkatz on Neturei Karta? Come on, that's ridiculous. There is no source for this supposed 'cherem' other than Arutz Sheva, and no chassidic beis din has confirmed anything. Thus, the simple conclusion is that it is a hoax and does not exist. I ask you: who, aside from a beis din, can put a person/group into cherem? Next, I don't understand your 'making it seem as if legitimate condemnations were in fact illegitimate' remark. Are you implying that the cherem is legitimate and that I am calling it illegitimate? If so, that is severe POV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I placed the Beis Din comment because 1) Chasidic groups either speak through the Beis Din or the ADMOR 2) Cherem can only be done by a Beis Din and with signers. I'm puting it back, because, plainly, Arutz Sheva clearly fabricated the story. I have no proof, so I did not put, The article was fabricated," but only that it could not be verified, which is indisputable.

Why do you keep trying to sabotage this article. Im not NK, but they are an interesting group people would like to know about. With prodka silliness being added to the article all the time, there's no way to learn about them as they exist. Theres no mention of their ideologies development, the source of their name, their other stances besides anti-Zionism, the endorcements by the Steipler GOan and Rav Shakh or any other positive or informative information. The article is just a Zionist propaganda piece. The article is supposed to be about NK as the ARE, not how Zionists would like them to be viewed by others. Why is it somehow offensive to people for their to be a balanced informative article about a group of religious Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shia1 (talk • contribs)

The statement isn't a cherem. If you read it, you'll see that it never claims to be a cherem. So it doesn't have to be issued by a Beis Din. It also doesn't have to be issued by a newspaper. It was issued by the United Orthodox Communities of New York, an organization that represents a wide number of congregations in the NY area including all of those organizations mentioned. You can bet that the condemnation was referenced in a number of Chareidi publications, including Chabad publications. I don't know that Daniel or Shia have read all of the Der Yids from that time in order to determine if they published the condemnation. But pretending that it is illigitimate by mentioning irrelevant things like which newspapers or Batei Din joined the press release is silly. I corrected the statement for accuracy, and eliminated all of the POV insinuations.--Meshulam 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Meshulam. Check http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22United+Orthodox+Communities+of+New+York%22 . The only source seems to be Arutz Sheva and a few blogs that copied it from Arutz Sheva. I am still not seeing any other sources. I ask you to bring a point by point commentary of exactly which parts of my version you view as not being true. I will add some of your version to my version. Discuss here. (Don't expect me to respond soon.) Oh and if that UOC is such a big organization, why is it that I cannot even find a single mentioning of it on Google? Except for this Arutz Sheva article? I have not seen anything that would indicate the existence of such an organization. --Daniel575 | (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Even http://www.google.com/search?q=%22United+Orthodox+Communities%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N this (search for "United Orthodox Communities") only brings that same letter again, with no other sources. Still no source other than A7 and blogs that copied it from there. --Daniel575 | (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That should take care of it. I left in that no other media sources have published the statement (though I don't know if that's true). --Meshulam 03:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing a whole or half page advert in the Jewish Tribune or Hamodia Newspaper of London at the time. So it wasn't just published on Arutz 7. --chesdovi 14:55, 18 August 2006

I prupose the Arutz 7 article be ereased as an obvious forgery, and the denunciation be removed from the funeral section, and a new section Charedi Response be added. That section should have the criticisms from Yateed Neeman and Hamodia as they appeared in those papers (THere have been some), and the endorsements by Charedi leaders like the Steipler Goan, Rav Shach, and Aaron Kotler also be included. The section should be well balanced, as that provides for a more informative article. This Arutz 7 piece is a fairly obvious propagaganda piece by anyone familiar with the Charadi world and its politics. Those groups have no umbrella organization, nor could they as 2 are Aggudist, one has a policy of not denouncing other groups, and one has a policy of not joining umbrella organizations. Certain groups on the list can literally not appear in the same room without punches being thrown.

BTW, "excomunication" and banning from synagogues is the language of Cherem. Excomunication is cherem. 88.155.93.43Shia188.155.93.43

I don't see why its an "obvious forgery." Unless you can demonstrate that claim's veracity, it should be ignored. The Steipler Gaon and Shach never endorsed making a prayer vigil for Arafat in 2004... that wouldn't make sense for obvious reasons. The truth is well-balanced: Many Chareidi groups condemned NK for their associatons with terrorists and Jew-haters.

And if you read the thing carefully, you'll see that it isn't a cherem. It says that the group has been put in cherem previously, and that the existing cherem should be made known. As far as I know, there have been cherem's made against NK by various b'tei din.--Meshulam 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see it as an obvious forgery it shows a lack of knowledge of the Heradi world. Ger and Satmar are in a feud, Belz is in a feud with Satmar, Satmar is in a feud with Lubavitch, Belz and Ger; and Lubavitch and all the others are in a feud. Vishnitz, Munkatch, and Satmer would not sign a letter signed by Anshei Sfard or Young Israel as they account them idol worshipers. And there is no umbrella organization encompassing all those groups, particularly as Satmar has a shitoh not to join umbrella organizations. Satmar does not put out statements. The Central Rabbinical COngress, the kashrus and PR wing of the Beis din puts out statement through Der Yid or adds in the NY times, not Arutz 7. Further, you are alledging a forceful denunciation who's language is markedly diferent from the average denunciation. There are no biblical quotes or sitations from rabbinical literature, and the phrase "We do not forgive," is inconsistent, as the point of a cherem or denunciation is to force the errant group to repent and be forgiven. It's also forbidden to say by the Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah as it is, "the way of idolaters to say, but not the way of Jews." The language does however match key settler phrases used on their posters, which is suspisciously coincidental given the fact that its only source, or root source, is Arutz 7, a pro-settler radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.155.1.56 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments! That's all very interesting original research. But in order to make an allegation like that, you need to bring some proof other than original research WP:NOR. --Meshulam 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To what are you referring? A person cannot prove a negative. There is now way to prove that the umbrella organization does not exist other than to show it appears nowhere else outside the Arutz 7 article. There is no way to prove a cherem does not exist other than to show no Beis DIn of these communities issued one. It is the responsablitiy of the person alledging the denunciation to prove it exists, not the responsability of others to prove it does not. May I put in the article that an umbrella organization of Marsian terrorists endorsed Neturei Karta and challenge you to prove Marsian terrorists do not exist.88.155.1.56 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The condemnation is verified inasmuch as it was published on a media outlet. Daniel has insisted that the language used to refer to the condemnation is as equivocal as possible ("Arutz Sheva claimed..."). All of that is true: Arutz Sheva reported the condemnation, and the text is quoted rather than paraphrased. If you want to claim that it is a forgery, then you must base that claim on something other than original research. Convenient logical leaps are not helpful under Wikipedia policy. If R' Aharon Teitelbaum said "that condemnation is a fake," then you may write that (provided it is verifiable). But you may not say "according to my understanding, it doesn't make sense..." Read the rule, and then respond to me rather than mouthing-off about disproving a negative. WP:NOR. Among the things excluded under WP:NOR is any statement that "introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Your cute little paragraph fits that category to the letter. --Meshulam 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be true, but Arutz7 is not a legitimate media outlet. It is a propaganda service for the Kakh movement and was expelled from the state of Israel for incitement. If it is cited, the burden of proof lies on the citer to prove what they are saying is true. It has been shown that the umbrella organization they sited as the source does not exist.There is no record of it. That is sufficient proof. They made a quote in the name of a non-existing organization. It is also demonstratable (Al HaGaulah V'al haTmurah pg1) that Satmar does not join with religious zionists in any endeavor and regards them as idol worshipers. Therefore, the fact that it is listed as a co-signer with Anshei Sfard and Young Israel is falacious. It is also demonstrable (Dor HaAcharon pg352) that Satmar does not join confederations or umbrella organizations as per policy.88.155.1.56 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, while all of that vaguely resembles a coherent and logical argument, it is all original research. It is your theory, which you wish to express on wikipedia. That's not allowed under WP:NOR. As well, given the fact that Daniel has insisted on using equivocal language to frame the condemnation, the burden of proof is met just by citing the Arutz Sheva statement: All the articles says is that A7 issued a statement claiming to be on behalf of a number of organizations etc. I have argued that this language is sort of stupid, and unnecssary. But, rather than actually discuss the issue, Daniel merely reverts again and again and again. Given that his wording has remained, the demonstrable existence of a statement published over (numerous news outlets including) A7 meets the burden easily. Since it appears you are merely going to recycle old arguments, and have no interest in actually reading and responding to Wikipedia policy, I beleive our discussion is concluded. --Meshulam 04:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody been able to confirm this umbrella group exists yet? I was just in Uman for ROsh Hashahnah, and davvened at the Satmer Kloiz. The Shliach Tzibor for Mussaf on the first day was Moshe Braun, the second to the top after Moshe Ber Beck in NY Neturei Karta. He gave a three hour lecture on Motzei Rosh Hashana and was introduced as, "One of our greatest speakers," by the Gabbai. To my humble knowledge, it's not normative practice for people in Cherem to be chosen as shliach tzibor for Mussaf Rosh Hashanah. 88.155.104.53 05:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

See the above conversation, and others. The issue is verifiability.--Meshulam 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now that its been verified that the B'datz referred to members of this "miniscule gang" who were actually engaged in gang violence, as "The pure hearted of Jerusalem;" rather than excommunicates, and now that it's been verified that rather than a decades old ban barring them from synagogues their Rabbis are actually featured speakers in Satmar, can we remove the Arutz 7 forgery. 88.155.104.53 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

American vs. E. Israel NK

I think there should be a clearer distinction in the article of the difference between NK Jerusalem / Beis Shemesh and NK New York. Many of the recent disputes could be resolved if we would make it clear that there is a difference. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Majority of Orthodox Jews

Despite having reverted the article 4 times, you have yet to verify that allegation you make that the bulk of Orthodox Jews were anti-Zionist between 1945 and 1948 (or any other time, for that matter). You must provide a source for this! --Meshulam 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Halacha v. Aggada

I personally am not interested in what I consider the weak argument that the 3 oaths are Aggada, and therefore not Halacha. However, apparently another writer here is either convinced by that argument, or at least considers it notable. I don't see why I can block him from writing that sentence just because I don't like it. Nonetheless, the statement needs a citation that I cannot provide. Furthermore, Daniel's revert did not just revert the halacha/aggada remark, but also a series of edits. That's not right. I'm reverting it back, and am willing to discuss this on the talk page.--Meshulam 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Satmar Rav Quote

I removed the quote from the Satmar Rav because it was doctored before it went up. I would please ask the vandal who keeps reinserting it to either translate the entire quote, or not to put the edited version in the article. The part edited out explains who the Satmar Rav is speaking of, which is a rather big piece of information to edit out. This is similar to refering to "Thou shalt ... kill" in the article on the Ten Commandments, giving a little bit of a different sense. Shia1 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody added it back again without adding the words that are edited out by the (...) which go on to explain the people who he is speaking of are the Agudah, who he then calls "Relgious Zionists in disguise". Please do not add the quote again, unless you add the ENTIRE quote. Editing out important pieces of information is disingenuous, and puting it back in an article without discussing over and over is vandalism. The (...) edits out four lines of information. 88.152.11.86 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then please translate the parts indicated by the elipses. My understanding, based on my reading of the original, is that the translation adequately portrays the Satmar Rav's view of NK, not of Agudah (which is addressed separately). The statement specifically refers to those who have the destructive opinion that Israel should be overrun by the Arabs. That is NKs position, and not Agudah's. If you wish to include the whole translation, then by all means translate it. However, unilaterally erasing a statement that legitimately comes from the Satmar Rav, and is entirely germaine is inappropriate. We should seek a consensus, and go from there. --Meshulam 02:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Yiddish again. It is clear that the first part is talking about NK. It is not clear who the second part is referring to. I will reinsert the first part, and not the second. The second will be discussed here, and we will hopefully reach a consensus. --Meshulam 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could maybe look at the first part again starting at the top of the page, I thin k you will see this particular page isn't speaking of Neturei Karta at all for good or bad. It's in Southern Yiddish, so you have to keep in mind that some of the yuds would be vavs in "standard" Yiddish (which to my knowledge nobody speaks, but it does make reading easier). He is, as far as I can tell, speaking of the Zionists throughout the whole section. In his estimation, it is they who are the "enemy from within" who "rules over us" who cause trouble, in his opinion, by defaming the Jews. Shia1 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that the statement specifically complains about those who argue that the Arabs should come and destroy the state, and later refers to NK by name. --Meshulam 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, If I could help a little. He doesn't really mention NK by name, he mentions the name of NK, which is initials in the text, and he is speaking of people who wear their clothes to confuse real anti-zionists into being zionists. As far as,"the Arab's should come," (I didn't see the "destroy" part, but I read fast)is more, "Bring on the Arabs!!!" like a hawkish person might say. My best translation of the 1st paragraph, with my own explanations in parenthesis (due to laziness in writing everything)is:

They, the Zionists, are demonic destroyers of the soul and the bodies. [Talk of people praying for "it"!!!]. This is not what to consider. People still put hope in it. Because of this, Jews wager something more will come of it, still a miracle to be achieved. This is false! They speak nonsense and pitiful nonsense, words about "The Arabs should come!" There's nothing to say to them. They are fouling. They are corrupting. I have said the verse "He shall rule over you," is about them. Rashi expains: "From you, and over you" as meaning "those who hate you". Apply this to the sect of Zionists. Then you can take the Mizrachi (he's talking about Religious Zionists, not Sephardim) because they (can't make out word) the Torah. And afterwords the Agudah. That's still not enough to seduce. There are those that go with them dressed like Neturei Karta. They spot Kana'im who are strong and corrupt them. For G-d's sake, you should not (associate with them, in short.)

I don't think anyone's going to find the Satmar Rav criticizing NK, because when he was alive, anyone who was associated with the Eidah Charedis (hundreds of thousands)was called NK. Today people call them, "the Kena'im" and the people who protest and do meetings, a few dozen to a hundred, NK. In my experience though, most Kena'im support the others, they just dont want trouble. The change in use of NK is going to make writing this article harder, though. Yoel23 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I agree. Shkoyach for the great translation. I completely agree that this is the most likely translation. And I agree with your closing comments. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put the translation in the article without some polishing, but it seems accurate. I think it shows the translation doesn't belong in the article anyway, so it doesn't matter in the end. Do you think translating mazikin as "demonic destroyers" was a bit harsh? I suppose since the word can mean either demons or destructive influences it could be justified. Also, L'maan HaShem as, "For G_d's sake," might be controversial. Shia1 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Milchama la'shem B'amalek, and Location

Why was the information from Milchama La'Shem removed? It was extremely pertinent as it overturned the Aruz 7 claim of a decades-old ban. It also comes from a publication from the Jerusalem Bookstore, Satmar's publishing house, so it's a good source on Satmar things.

Also, can we change Beit Shemesh to Ramat Beit Shemesh. Beit Shemesh is a mostly modern town made up of tens of thousands of Morrocan Sephardim and Russian & Ethiopian immigrants. Ramat Beit Shemesh are the two suburbs, Beit being made up almost exclusively of thousands of NK families, with Belz and Gur in their neighborhoods; and Aleph being split north-south between Chasidim and Anglo-Misnagdim towards Beit, and Religious Zionists and Chiloni up the hill.

In the community shopping center shared by the whole Ramat, the stores have signs in the windows that say women have to dress modestly, and they hand out skirts and shawls on entering; and the lamposts have, "F#$% the Haredim" sprayed on them. Over the grocary store somebody has draped a 3x2 meter sign saying, "This is Charedi territory, dress appropriately."

On the walls in Beit there are signs that read, "The Gush and the State uprooted by the hand of G_d," and, "It is an aveirah to vote in the elections." Then the Aggudists put signs next to them, "This sign pasted on a wall the Agudah voted should be built." To which another sign responds, "Take your wall with you back to Berlin. They just lost one. We don't need your honey, and we don't want your sting." In Beit Shemesh, though, a man can go with his boyfriend to pick up pork in the store beneath the Government clinic. Different places. It should be noted. I might change it myself and if anyone has a problem, they can discuss. 88.155.104.53

Fixing Article

Right now the article is sort of disorganized because of all the edit wars. It also has some problems, like repeatedly referring to members of Neturei karta. NK is not an organization and there are no members. There's also a lot of unsourced material.

Also the pattern is that any statement made about the group is followed right away by an objection to it. If I go to the religious zionist article, it probably will not say, "Religious Zionists believe the SOI is the flowering of redemption. This has led to them being criticied as heretics. (VaYoel Moshe). Religious ionists point to Rav Kook as a source. Others point out the Talmudic principle that the HOly One does not accomplish through sinners." I think it is out of place for every time a piece of ideology is mentioned, the objection follows. OTOh the objections have their place and should be included in their own section.

Can I suggest the article go something like this:

1. Ideology (which will explain their anti-zionist ideology without the comment and refutation pattern, which will be saved for later)

2. History as Part of the Aggudah (the old yishuv period, when Amram BLau was part of the Aggudah and Bdatz)

3. Split between Aggudah and Eda Charedis and origins of name NK (after the split and the reasons for the split, also the story of how they got to be called Neturei Karta)

3.1 Differentiation between Edah Charedis and NK (This will be difficult and need a lot of talk to get just right because NKniks see themselves as part of the Edah community, and the Edqah doesn't deny this, but obviously there is some difference since not every Bdatz devotee is a NK)

4) History Since (with leaders and such)

5) Protests (with all their protests.)

6) Meetings

6.5 Ideology behinf meetings

6.6 Meetings

6.7 After each meeting the result

6.8 The reaction from various groups.

7) Israeli government Reaction to NK (this will need discussion, obviously, before being included. But it deserves mention since there are several videos on the web of them being beaten in schull by Israeli police, and tazored in the face and such. Also, the SOI has said they are the biggest threat to the State's continued existence. And in Ramat Beit SHemesh the Police have a liason officer who meets with their rabbis to keep incidents to a minimum, which is fairly interesting I think.)

8) Heradi Reaction

8.1 The Aggudah reaction

8.1.1 Positive Reaction (Like from Rav Shach and the Steipler Goan or any others)

8.1.2 Negative Reactions (Like from Yateed and all the others, maybe talk about the street violence between them)

8.1.3 Neutral (Like Aaron Kotler)

8.2 Reaction from other ANti-Zionists

8.2.1 Positive

8.2.2 Negative

8) Religious ZIonist reaction (obviously this will need to be eddited to a reasonable length)

IMHO this would allow the NK to be presented neutraly, and also allow all the editors to put in the material they desire that denounces them without the very odd pattern in the article. ANybody care to discuss?

I would be happy to help with some of this, though others would have to help with dredging up a lot of the sources. I have a few haredi sociology texts in English that mention NK, but I don't know how detailed the information is, or how authoritative.ShalomShlomo 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Be bold and do it --130.245.235.109 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

The name is נטורי קרטא and not as writen

I know, someone vandalized it. I already reverted it. You can do that yourself too, the same way you made this talk page edit. Just go ahead! --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Neturei Karta do not have a membership base. Not one for a fee, not one for free. They are not a 'sect'. Neturei Karta is a creed upheld by individuals in different communities, though yes most of them are from Jerusalem.

In order to be classed as a sect they would idealy need one of the following three denominations.

• A founder
• A Rabbanite
• A Membership (Kehilla)

This and other points need to be clarified. There is to much wishwash about the details. This is not an informative approach. --Chavatshimshon 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm nearly laughing myself to death. A rabbanite? I think you are talking about a Rebbe. Which is a Chassidic thing. If you take a look at the article, the exact same thing you just mentioned *is* mentioned in the article. I wrote it myself. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor photo

The second photo (accompanied by the caption: A girl walking in front of the Neturei Karta synagogue) is too dark, so that it is next to impossible to make out anything. My suggestion would be to remove this photo. Comments?

--Philopedia 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, comment. Photo will not be removed. It is indeed quite unclear from up close. What would you expect, in the dark and with moving objects on it? The quality is good enough, certainly with the size with which you see it on the page. It gives an accurate description of the neighborhood where NK people live, a photo of an actual NK synagogue. It provides something other photos don't provide. --89.139.19.119 17:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo is a horrible mess. It's a black mass with a window and something that looks vaguely like a person in smudged blue. It provides absolutely no information or insight into anything, except for the photographer's poor understanding of exposure. Roman Levin 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

United Orthodox Communities of New York

Well, I've been doing some research (CHAS V'SHALOM, I know, but I'm not posting it in the article, just the talk page :p). And it's certainly clear that arutz sheva, and others, have latched onto this statement, so it wasn't just made up and put on wikipedia but some crazy zionist, let's have that totally clear. And, if true, this is certainly important enough to deserve being in the article. Now, I can't seem to find much else on either this edict or on the "United Orthodox Communities of New York." Actually nothing that doesn't refer to this doccument. So I want to ask now, in clear terms, at the risk of opening this can of worms again, does anyone have any seperate evidence for OR against this doccument? Please do NOT reply with lashon haro against NK or Tzionim. Just answer the dang question. Since I seem to be about the only one here with the guts to both use my username AND admit to being a chassid, I want to address the "obvious forgery" issue. YES Chabad and Satmar are at odds, and YES these organizations do have issues with each other, and so it DOES send up a red flag that they would all sign the same thing. BUT such tensions do not preclude any and all cooperation. It is possible to find many seforim, for example, with haskomos from rebbes of sects at odds (see tnu kavod l'Torah, for example). Second, these doccuments are not signed (in theory) by aamei ha'aretz, but rather by the Rebbeim and batei din, who are generally less involved in these petty sectarian arguments and far more likely to work together than their chaddisim. Lastly, and most importantly, this is a very important issue, and that brings people together in a way they might not otherwise. If the Satmar rebbe really were afraid of people in black hats being associated with praying for a terrorist (and it's easy to understand why he would be in this situation), don't you suppose he might be willing to sign something with Young Israel? So, where does that leave us? As far as I can see, we have a somewhat suprising, but not necessarily imporobable statment by an organization which doesn't seem to exist outside of this (and similar) articles about the statment in question. Now, as Meshulam points out very well, Wikipedia policy is to require a major, reliable newssource, which arutz sheva is (bias does not equal unreliable, der yid, the NY Times, even Wikipedia, have biases, but they're roughly reliable). So, normal Wikipedia rules would seem to say this is totally kosher. All that being said, I think we, as complirers of an encyclopedia, would be remiss in ignoring the fact that all our citations are secondhand (at best, normally more via arutz sheva). I'm not saying remove it, but doesn't it bother anyone else not to be able to definitively verify this controversial statment? I mean, the arugments above about its not beiing mentioned in Der Yid seem pretty strong, perhaps as strong as its appearing in arutz sheva. So I want to ask now, in clear terms, at the risk of opening this can of worms again, does anyone have any seperate evidence for OR against this doccument? Please do NOT reply with lashon haro against NK or Tzionim. Just answer the dang question. Now, I read all your posts before writing this, so please read mine BEFORE attacing me for being a zionist, and anti-zionist, pro-NK, anti-NK, Breslov, Gerer, Skver, or whatever else you may have inferred from this comment. Todah! Avraham 08:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Also, if you attack me, don't attack any of the other people who posted on this talk page. That's just mean and makes you look stupid. Thanks! Avraham 08:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have evidence it is a forgery. The Arutz7 piece attests a decades old ban from Satmer synagogues, but I have a Malchama BAmalek magazine from October 2006 with an advert for 3 Neturei Karta speakers speaking at the Satmer ROdney St. shull. I posted this in the article, but it was ereased with no reason why. 82.81.103.16 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

first sentence grammar

In the first sentence of the Ideology section it says "Adherents of Neturei Karta stress those portions in rabbinic literature which state that the Jewish people were first sent into exile from the land of Israel for their sins."

Is that grammatically correct? It sounds like it is cut short...

It sounds like it needs to say what should be happening...

eg: Adherents of Neturei Karta stress those portions in rabbinic literature which state that the Jewish people were first sent into exile from the land of Israel for their sins should/shouldn't <insert action here>

might just be me... I am just reading this article because I got sidetracked so I have no idea, and am not going to edit it without knowing... Tmov81 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Aramit

Oh, yes, the name is definitely aramaic. The תא ending is immensely characteristic. Hebrew has a similar wor ending in heh (or taf in smichut); think "kiryat arba/shaul/etc." and not "karta d'arba." Where have you seen that in hebrew?! And if oyu want more prof that it's super aramaic, take a look at the akadamut, which has TA over and over and over. Avraham 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a text in Aramaic containing "neturei karta" (נטורי קרתא): the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Hagiga, chapter 1, gemara 7, on pages 6a and 6b [1]. I can't translate, but you could find the translation in volume 20 of The Talmud of the Land of Israel. --Hoziron 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the citation! My Western Aramaic is a bit rusty but the relevant part is that the distribution and propgation of torah study defent the land. The phrase there means, as said on the article page, defenders of the city, in this context, the city (Jerusalem) represents the land of israel as a whole. Thanks! Avraham 07:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New Developments

There are new developments which clearly show that there is a finge element in the Neturei Karta which has been publicly shunned by all religious groups. This important inofrmation ought to be incorporated into this article because they also call themselves Neturei Karta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Correct. These people are not mainstream NK, they are outcasts and idiots. Mainstream NK do not wish to separate themselves from the (anti-Zionist Chareidi) mainstream, ie from Satmar / the Edah etc, in this way. These guys represent no-one but themselves. --217.132.24.152 11:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Silverburg's 'rv anon'

Dear Silverburg. It doesn't matter what any newspaper article says, when you have the original source here. The original source, which was linked to in the history and which you simply ignored:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/satmaragainstnk.jpg

It speaks only of those guys who went to Iran. It does not speak of anything, anyone else. NK is a movement with at least 1000 adherents. The condemnation mentions only 7 of them.
Also, Zionist newspapers (particularly Arutz Sheva) are not neutral sources in this regard. The guys at Arutz Sheva are licking their tongues when they can report that Satmar condemned NK, can't you understand that? How in the world can you consider IsraelNN.com (Arutz Sheva) to be a neutral and reliable source for this, when you have the original condemnation right in front of you and its text does not synchronize with the summarization given by Zionist news channels? Not to mention ynetnews.com, jpost.com and haaretz.com . They are all great sites and I read all four of them many times every day, but believe me, when it comes to NK, they are not neutral sources. --217.132.24.152 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Talmud study

I think the other POV is acceptable as a Satamar one and should be presented in the Article.Shrike 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• the other interpretations of ketuvoth can go in the articles on those who espouse those interpretations, once sourced. it is quite explicit that what is stated here is their interpretation & is not followed by everyone.
• TShilo12 could you please source the claim about orthodox jews. there is some equivocation/confusion there as it stands, in either of our versions. & in fact the best rs for condemnation from some hasidic groups (ie satmar or sections thereof) is only nk individuals
• i think above 2 points justify my latest rvs. have kept some phrasings which were better, & of course spelling corections
• did some 'npoving' obviously this will be disputed, at the very least it is fair to ask that 'ideology' (a loaded term) be kept as more neutral 'beliefs'
• even if we can't find better sources to deal with the undue weight given to criticism, can at least get discussion under way regarding a more 'npov' treatment of what we already have?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bsnowball, first off, the NK consist of only a few individuals, who, as the Satmars said in their condemnation "don't even speak for their own wives". It's not just the Satmars who have condemned the NK whackos tho, it's just that the Satmars have finally had enough of people associating the NK weirdos with Satmar chasidim, simply on the basis of their similar style of dress. As for the rest of Orthodoxy, they have long since repudiated NK, even from the very outset of the group. The only reason I can fathom for your having removed the clarification I put into the text is that you are trying to make it seem that there are some Jews out there, religious or otherwise, who actually support NK, which is not the case. The burden of proof of such an assertion, however, rightfully rests with you. If it's true that other Jews support them, then it should be much easier to find evidence of these other Jews...much easier than to find a survey of all Jews in the world that concludes that the reason you can't find other Jews out there supporting NK is in fact, as I've said, because there are exactly zero of them. Meanwhile, here's some light reading for your enjoyment.[2][3][4][5] Cheers, Tomer^talk 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Chassidish/Litvish

I changed sockpuppet Daniel's edit back to the way it was. To say that NK is litvish and not charedi is funny. All one has to do is take a look at the pictures. Yossiea 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They are the descendants of the Talmidei HaGra. The Vilna Gaon. He was not Hassidic. And you show your total ignorance. Let me give you a Haredi Judaism 101, with a few selected examples of sub-movements for both main groups.

Haredi Judaism

Hasidic Haredi Judaism

Satmar

Belz

Bobov

Klausenberg

Litvish Haredi Judaism (more broadly: non-Hasidic Haredi Judaism)

Yeshivishe world (Mir, Ponevitch)

Brisk

Yekkishe world (Washington Heights; rav Samson Raphael Hirsch)

Talmidei HaGra: Neturei Karta

Get it? Litvish and Hasidic Judaism are both subgroups of Haredi Judaism. Your claim that "they are not Hasidic but rather Haredi" is total nonsense. They immigrated from Lithuania, the Talmidei HaGra, they daven nusach Ashkenaz, and you deny that they are Litvish?

Your edits here are more like a personal war against somebody, without caring for the edits, rather just out to attack a single person and revert his edits, even if his edit was proper and correcting wrong information in an article. This shows your objectives: not producing serious, accurate and factual articles, but rather fighting personal wars.

I suggest you find a new obsession in life other than stalking people on Wikipedia and vandalizing articles. --169.132.18.248 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that they claim to be descendants of the GRA, they're chassidish. They claim to be following the rulings of Satmar, not the GRA. Your a sockpuppet so I don't have to explain myself to you. Yossiea 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are a lying Zionist heretic, so I don't have to explain myself to you. Yet I will do so anyway. You are a total ignorant fool. They are (the descendants of) the Talmidei HaGra, who put chassidim in cherem. They daven nusach Ashkenaz, more specifically, nusach HaGra. They do not wear chassidic clothing either. What exactly is your basis for saying "they're chassidish"? Furthermore, "they claim to be following the rulings of Satmar" does not have any relevance here. I know Litvishe rabbonim who learned at Ponevezh who quote from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav. Does that make Rav Shach a Lubavitcher? According to your logic, it would. I repeat one more time; they are Litvish, not Chassidish. Please stop your vandalism here. This is not POV-pushing or anything like that - it is simple pure vandalism, vandalizing an article with obviously incorrect information, with lies. --217.132.24.152 16:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And regarding your "they are not Haredi but Hasidic": this is like writing, "they are Catholic but do not believe in Jesus", or "he is an American citizen because he holds a Chinese passport". It is a huge contradiction. It is impossible. Hasidim *ARE* Haredim. A person by definition cannot be Hasidic but not Haredi. This does not exist. --217.132.24.152 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply remove this article

This article refers to Arutz 7[6] as a “media outlet,” has infoisrael.net (a.k.a. Israel Hasbara Committee) pass as a “reference” (this [7] is infoisrael's top entry on the peace process), links to the Jewish Virtual Library’s entry on NK as a neutral link, when the Jewish Virtual Library’s entry on NK clearly states that it “uses material from the Wikipedia article "Neturei Karta",” and last but not least, people who point out errors on the talk page are labeled “sockpuppet,” et cetera.

To put it mildly: it seems to me that this entry is not only lacking in objectivity. If the objective is to have an encyclopædic article on NK, the present entry should simply be removed in its entirety. Or is Wikipedia sinkink lower and lower every day? --Hadan 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Yossiea has simply been vandalizing this article. My explanation above is very clear and concise and any schoolchild should be able to understand now that all Hasidim are by definition Haredim. That alone is enough to understand that Yossiea's edit is nonsense. --217.132.24.152 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree- plus, these people are not "Jews". --DandanxD 11:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a Hasidic but rather a Litvish movement

I don't get it. Are they really Litvish? Never heard that. Smokizzy 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. See Perushim. They are the descendants of the Talmidei HaGra (the Vilna Gaon). The clothing they wear is Yerushalmi dress, not Chassidic. Many people (in fact, everyone with the exception of chareidim who know what they're talking about) think they are chassidim because of their dress. They're not. They daven nusach Ashkenaz, nusach haGra, actually.--Chussid 10:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, after all, they claim to be followers of the Satmar Rebbe. I think they left the fold of litvishkeit years ago. Yossiea 14:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

can we just change it to indicate that they're mainly non-hasidic haredim? also what 1st confused me (why i tried to change it) is i thought they were mainly hungarian origin. can we clarify this?  ⇒ bsnowball  14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yossiea - the fact that you don't think so doesn't mean that it isn't true. Satmar in fact is also not quite so very chassidic. Meaning, as far as I know, the focus on chassidus is much smaller in Satmar than in other chassidic groups (definitely when you compare them to Chabad for example).

And they are Litvish. You can like it or not like it. Actually Litvish is not the proper term, since they are also Hungarian. See Perushim. Now, understand: there are some people of chassidic background who identify with the name NK. This includes numerous well-known figures in New York, London, Manchester etc. These, however, are not affiliated with or descended from the old, real NK. There is a big difference between the 'real' big NK in Jerusalem and Ramat Bet Shemesh, and the little groups in New York etc. It seems that I am mainly talking about the former, while Yossiea is primarily talking about the latter. Friedman, for example, is not Litvish; he is chassidic from background (Satmar). So is Yisroel Dovid Weiss, I think. But they are small individuals. The real NK which has many hundreds of members is not them, and they do not represent that community. If you want to know more about the real NK (who, by the way, don't go with Jew-murderers), you have to see their places in Meah Shearim, such as yeshivas Toreh veYiroh and beis medresh Ohel Soroh. There you will see that the nusach is Ashkenaz, nusach haGra - the most Litvishe nusach in the entire world. --Chussid 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Weiss' curriculum vitae is found at [[8]]

So why not get rid of the whole sentence entirely? I don't think it adds much to the article. The history of NK is already outlined in the article itself. Also, if NK is not the loonies, we might want to get different pictures on the NK page. Yossiea 15:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The real NK are descendants of the Perushim, Talmidei Hagra whose roots are very deep in Yerushalayim and the Yishuv Hayoshon. The self defined NK ie the Teheran Six and their ilk (some of whom, like Friedman, do not even use the name NK) are just plain "oisvorfen." Hirsch is indeed a Litvak who learned in Chaim Berlin and/or Lakewood. Weiss is an oisvorf who tried the yeshivish world, Satmar and another chassidus before doing his own thing, and Friedman is the black sheep of a respectable Satmar family in Williamsburgh. I don't know if he is in official cherem within Satmar; my contacts, including his distant relatives, describe him as insane and the laughingstock of the neighborhood. Weberman, who is an NK fellow traveler, is a leftover from the old Malochim. Beck's brother is the rov of Adass in Australia (remember, Yaakov Avinu had an oisvorf of a brother as well); I'm not 100% sure but I would say the family is Chassidish. Cohen from the UK may be senile or ill; he is 83 and was at one time a respected member of the Manchester community. Chaim Fryman, another oisvorf, studied at Yeshiva University; he is at odds with Weiss and is another loose cannon. In any case, not one of the self defined NK members has any roots in the old NK of Reb Amram Bloy ZYA.

Anyone who's reading this wondering what an "oisvorf" (pl. "oisvorfen") is, my best guess is that it means an "outcast" or "reject". Whoëver wrote the above care to confirm or deny? Tomer^talk 19:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct - oisvorf is literally an outcast or a reject, but it is also equivalent in connotation to "lowlife". 71.247.49.37 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, goodenough. In English, when referring to people, that's what a "reject" is too. Sadly, NK fits the bill in any language. Tomer^talk 05:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't meen to disrupt anyone's way of thinking, because referring to Nk as Litvishik is more accurate than saying they are Hassidish; but the absolute truth is they are neither. Nk is an ideology. A person can be Nk and be either Litvishik or Hasidish. There are lots of Breslover and Toldos Aaron/Toldos Avraham-Yitzokh hasidim in Meoh Sharim who are NK. But for the most part, most of the adherants are Litvishik Yerushalmim. (The yerushalmi part is why there is confusion. People see the peyos and think hasidish.) Because the main bulk of people are Granik, the davening in Ohel Soroh and TOrah V'yirah is according to the Gra. The Siddur Vilna, written by Moshe Hirsh's son, goes according to Mishnah Berurah. It's a fantastic siddur, and is used in shulls all over the world, though I doubt many know the NK connection. Also, Rav Weiss is an Uberlander Ungarin, a non-Hasidic Hungarian, as is Rabbi Moshe Ber Beck. 88.154.27.69 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

too many links

There are too many links in this article. Do we really need to link to every guy who writes an online attack against Neturei Karta?--Meshulam 04:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Different streams of NK

Someone on a forum wrote:

1. Avrohom and Reuven Katzenellenbogen: Regular Jerusalemite zealots.

2. Moshe Hirsch et al: Thirty families in total, has now split up in two over the Irangate affaire.

3. Domb in London: Although he sells crucifixes for a living, he has a Jewish heart. That's why he came out against the Iran boys.

4. Beck in Monsey: Meshugener with a bunch of Meshugaim.

Sounds about right to me. I'm not very familiar with the sociological structure of NK. All I know is that they are divided into at least 4 different groups, in Jerusalem alone already I know of 2 groups: the Hirsch group and the Katzenellenbogen group. I don't know about chu"l. Fact is that the Hirsch family represents the most extreme group, as well as the smallest group (the same group which in the US is represent by Beck and Weiss, in the UK by Cohen and Feldman and in Austria by Friedman), ie the guys who went to Iran. The other group, led by the Katzenellenbogens, is regular: they would not go to Iran (well, they might go there, but not to do what the Hirsch group did), and they are MUCH bigger. I'm estimating 100 families worldwide for Hirsch et al and 1000 families for the Katzenellenbogens. Now we should get more information on this and incorporate this into the article. If I remember correctly there is one internet source which gives a description of these intra-NK wars... I will try to find it. My shul has a few people with a slight connection to NK, I might also be able to ask them some time.
Update: Found the article. It was already in the links section. See here. --Chussid 00:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Beck and Weiss seem to use the name Neturei Karta as do the UK group (see their sites nkusa.org and the UK mirror site). Friedman has some organization of his own which he set up to attempt to gain recognition from the Austrian Government. Your numbers look correct if you count everyone who demonstrates at pro-Arab rallies with Weiss and Beck in the US or Grohman and Goldstein in the UK as indeed being a Hirsch type. That would give you Weberman, the Hochhauser brothers in the UK, 1 more generation of Becks in London, Cohen in Manchester, a couple more names in the UK, Weberman in the US, and there is also a Hirsch follower in Yerushalayim whose name escapes me and who is supposedly in a never enforced cherem. A quote regarding this gentleman:"So and so is not even important enough to be in cherem."

I'm not sure if Friedman has any followers in Vienna besides John Gudenus and Ewald something or other, 2 neo-Nazis from the Austrian Freedom Party who attended his son's bar mitzvah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.49.37 (talk • contribs).

Thanks! --Chussid 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

for the moment, can this be dealt with by clarifying that we are not talking about an organisation but, roughly, a set of beliefs about zionism & ways to counteract it? granted we need to point out that the websites ('nk international') don't represent everyone who claims to be nk. but we need reliable sources to document these various 'tendencies', which is obviously a problem, as most of the english language sources are either very biased or not very well informed. (ie we will need a lot of stuff translated from yiddish if we are to do this properly). also the history sections have major problems 1) it seems to imply they split from agudath in '48, but this occurred in (i think?) 1938. 2) undue weight for some of the later history, can we just get rid of the a7 stuff or reduce it to a couple of sentences about a7 & other zionist extremists inventing previous denuciations?

also, re friedman, he doesn't appear to be involved even with 'nk internationl'. they claim they sent six people to tehran, & satmarer, apparently, denounced 7 people which i assume is r. weiss's group & friedman?  ⇒ bsnowball  14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This should qualify as a reliable source. And indeed we need to get rid of the A7 stuff. I can translate some from Yiddish if needed. Have to go now, back in a few hours. --Chussid 15:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also confused about the number of people who went. So far the best picture I have seen shows six delegates.http://eviljews.blogspot.com/ - scroll down to about the middle. Most every other picture out there shows five. If there were six, then it is possible that Moshe Ber Beck, the aging leader of the Monsey group, was lumped in with the six who actually did go to Iran.

oops, my mistake, i thought their web-site said 6, now (?) i find it only specifies 3 three people by name (rs feldman, cohen & weiss). can someone check that the denunciation actually says 7? (#Silverburg's 'rv_anon')  ⇒ bsnowball  19:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything is very murky when it comes to this group. It is clearly not a well defined organization. This unofficial NK (lehavdil) reminds me of some Chassidim today who don't really have a Rebbe and/or visit multiple Rebbes, but are still very Chassidish in their minhagim and social patterns. It is as if NK = general Chassidus (chas vesholom) and each self defined NK'er chooses his "Rebbe" (Purim Rebbe perhaps) or chooses to become a rebbe'le as he sees fit. Monsey (Beck, Weiss, Feldmans) seems to be the most organized of the NK groups; they do apparently have a shul and some sort of beis medrash. London also seems organized. Cohen has nothing of his own in Manchester and seems to be a daas yachid (my chavrusa is from Manchester and knows him; he claims Cohen used to be quite mainstream and went off on a tangent at some time). Friedman has no Jewish followers and is a loose cannon. As far as I know, there are 3 Hirsch followers in EY not counting the ailing Moshe Hirsch - Yisroel Hirsch, one other whose name I missed and who is described as "not important enough to put in cherem", and Daoud Salah who spoke in Arabic on behalf of the NK. I do not know a thing about this Rosenberg who supposedly was among the Iran group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.49.37 (talk • contribs).

They remind me more of the Creedmooorer Rebbe than the Purim Rebbe. And Bsnowball - which denunciation? The one of Satmar-NY or the one of the Edah HaChareidis of Jerusalem? I have the Satmar one here (it is also online), IIRC it does not mention how many people it concerns. It does obviously only condemn those who went to Iran. It does not condemn the (normal) rest of NK. --Chussid 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

) The Creedmoorer Rebbe (Admou"r meCreedmoor) is a fictitious character based originally upon various rants posted to Usenet by a supporter of the Hirsch-Weiss NK! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.49.37 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

According to a posting on the talkback for [9] "Daud Salah" is actually an Israeli Jew named Chaim Slach.

Are those online anywhere? Please do sign your talkpage posts with 4 tildes: "~~~~ producing a result like this: --Chussid 08:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

satmarer dununciation (the poster is linked above) but here again [10] and the notice frm der yid [11] i'm monolingual, apparently one of these refers to 7 people, or not? (note: the weblog/comment page these are actually displayed on is mostly a lot of ranting from zionist fanatics, can't be bothered finding it again)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding this article to "Category:Anti-Semitic people"

OK, so there is this certain group that, according to all the rules of 'diagnosing' someone and/or a group as anti-Semitic, shows all of the 'symptoms' -- it is VIRULENTLY anti-Israel and anti-Zionist -- it stages anti-Israel and anti-Zionism rallies where it routinely burns the flag of Israel to prove a point (the flag which of course contains the semi-sacred Star of David). This group also creates and distributes large amounts of anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist material/propaganda (mostly in the USA and the UK, but elsewhere too). It also hosts talks and meetings where it consistently denigrates the state of Israel and denies its right to exist, calling for the "annulment" of Zionism; furthermore, it is VERY pro-Palestinian, even radically so.

Most recently this group also participated in Iran's so-called "Holocaust denial" conference (the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust), a conference that many saw as rife with anti-Semitism, hatred of Israel, and trying to completely 'overhaul' the accepted history of the Holocaust, among other things. So who is this group that, according to the above listed traits, are by all accounts considered anti-Semitic? Is it some group of fringe Neo-Nazis found in St. Petersburg, Russia? How about the violent fanatics of an Arab and/or Muslim terror organization that murderously hate all things Jewish and Israel? Maybe it's the founder/owner of jewwatch.com (Frank Weltner) and a group that he has put together? Or is it the notorious David Irving and a bunch of his cronies that have formed an anti-Semitic organzation and are doing these things?

NOPE -- all of those are entirely incorrect. Believe it or not, the people perpetrating this acts that are widely deemed anti-Semitic are not Gentiles...they are Jews. They are the Neturei Karta, the group of Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews who reject ALL forms of Zionism and actively oppose the existence of the State of Israel and display all of the 'symptoms' or factors of anti-Semitism that I listed above. Now, if this happened to be a group of Gentiles that engaged in these acts they would be immediately branded as anti-Semites. In fact, Gentile groups espousing THESE EXACT SAME VIEWS are considered to be highly anti-Semitic, yet the Neturei Karta somehow are not. What's happening here?

Since it is a Jewish group, they are merely called "anti-Zionists" and/or "self-hating Jews" by the Jewish mainstream, or they are accused of "identifying and working with the enemy." So, in light of this blatantly ridiculous (even laughable) contradiction in terms of judging Gentile anti-Semitic behavior vs. Jewish anti-Semitic behavior, I'm going to go ahead and add this article to "Category:Anti-Semitic people." This will probably be swiftly reverted, but it's my attempt to prove or point out that Gentiles and Jews are hypocritically held to vastly different standards as far as the label of "anti-Semitic" is concerned, even if they are doing the exact same things that most if not all members of the mainstream Jewish community and media consider to be anti-Semitic. Therefore, I think that the "Category:Anti-Semitic people" is right at home in this article given that this category is strictly applied to Gentile groups espousing the EXACT SAME VIEWS as the Neturei Karta group. --172.166.155.11 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been warned on your talk page. Stop this behavior now, please. Your behavior constitutes vandalism. Have a nice day. --Chussid 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? Is seeking to expose hypocritical labels by providing the facts considered vandalism? --172.165.245.164 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

True, Holocaust denial, anti-Zionism and attempts to destroy Israel are typical anti-semitic behavior, but motive is key. I am sure the Neturei Karta do not harbor hatred towards Jews as Jews. Rather they are vehemently opposed to secular Jews, probably to the same extent that we would call racism if it were directed against an ethnic group. However, since they do not have the motives and thought-patterns of racial prejudice, they cannot be antisemitic. Antisemitism is by definition a form of race-based hatred. --Eliyak T·C 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is disingenuous at best, outright whitewash at worst. NK are not even remotely orthodox Jews. They carry betzibur on Shabath—in fact, they not only handle megaphones on Shabath, which is muqtza, even worse, betzibur, but they also use their megaphones to spew their hatred for all Jews who do not agree with their warped worldview. They encourage Amaleq with their words and actions, and deserve to be treated as redafim whereëver they go, since if that's not exactly what they are, they are their agents. NK is only important in Jewish discourse because the Jewish community is so pacifistic that we don't take care of our own traitors who encourage our enemies to kill us...and they make our pacifism painfully obvious to our enemies. NK is only important in antisemitic discourse because they provide further fodder and encouragement for our enemies. NK is only important in the eyes of the media because "crap is king". NK is only important in their own eyes, because they're so twisted and attention-hungry, that they'll gladly accept negative attention, as long as someone's paying attention to them. Short and sweet: they're sick and twisted, and it's a sick and twisted world that pays them any heed. As for the statement that "antisemitism is by definition a form of race-based hatred", that's pure and simple poppycock. Worse is that a Jew is the one putting it forward here. Antisemitism, by definition, is "Jew hatred". Nothing more, nothing less. Outside the minds of the Turner elites, the nazis, and apparently, given the above statement, ppl who haven't figured out they're not in the shtetl anymore, Jews are not, and never have been, a "race". Tomer^talk 06:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily; there are different forms of anti-Semitism, from race based hatred (racial antisemitism), to religious based hatred (anti-Judaism, anti-Talmudism), to Jewish "conspiracy theories" like Jews wanting to control the world or U.S. economy and that they were behind 9/11, the belief that ALL Jews are wicked communists a la Jewish Bolshevism, etc.

I simply wanted to point out the hypocritical fact that if the Neturei Karta happened to be a group of Gentiles as opposed to a group of Jews, they would be DEFINITELY considered "Anti-Semitic people" and would thus belong in "Category:Anti-Semitic people" even if they had nothing against Jews as an ethnic/racial group. In fact, I'm certain that many Gentile groups expressing the exact same views as the Neturei Karta are indeed constantly watched and investigated by the ADL and other Jewish groups because they are considered anti-Semitic. --172.165.245.164 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon, that is because their motivations are quite different. Those Gentile groups hate Zionism because they hate Jews. These people (including me) hate Zionism because it is a heretical anti-Semetic ideology. I would prefer that you add the Category:Antisemitism to the article on Zionism. They, the Zionists, are the biggest enemies of the entire human race. --Chussid 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that the Zionists are the biggest enemy of the human race? Many people espousing anti-Semitic rhetoric believe that the problem with the Jews is that they have no true homeland, that they are a forever wandering, homeless, and therefore parasitic group of people and that this why they have so many problems. Zionism TRIES to fix this, as many of the most fervent Zionists were originally secular Jews (like most modern Israelis) and not religious fanatics. Israel gives Jews a place to go live if they don't want to wander anymore, thus stemming anti-Semitism in the place(s) where they were formerly. The problem is that this Jewish homeland was (dumbly) founded in a very controversial place by a bunch of Europeans, many of which had only converted to Judaism in the 8th-9th Centuries (Khazars) and thus had no definitive historical links to the ancestral Jewish homeland because they weren't the original "Children of Israel" as were/are the Sephardic Jews and the Mizrahi Jews; if an Ashkenazi (European) Jewish homeland had been founded in Alaska there would be no controversy. But since it was the Holy Land (and the land was stolen from the native Arabs and has been brutally occupied) of course now many people hate Israel and wish it dissolved. BTW: you seem to be looking at this and editing this article through a religious point a view, a view that is obviously not compatible with the NPOV policy here on Wikipedia. I hope that you do not somehow unconsciously inject your own religious POV in to this article and others. Thank you for your time. --172.165.245.164 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are accusing me of POV. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. The only place where I make POV remarks reflecting my true feelings, is on talk pages. I do not insert my POV into articles, as you do, by adding religious Jews to the category 'Antisemitic people'. My opinion is for talk pages only. In articles, please stick to the accepted facts. --Chussid 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the "race-based" hatred statement. Anti-Semitism is a hatred of Jews because they are Jewish. There are other problems with the above that were not mentioned. A.) NK emphatically stated that the holocaust happened, but stated that it was being abused and exploited by Zionists for their own ideological benefit. B.) Anti-Israel behavior and sentiment is not necessarily Anti-Semitic per se. Finally, labeling these folks with any unfavorable label seems patently against Wikipedia's policy of merely imparting information without coming to conclusions. It is enough to say that these 6 folks claiming to be NK went to Iran, and let readers draw their own conclusions. I'll also add that the user who posted the above comment and offending vandalism on the article himself is up to some questionable behavior in other parts of Wikipedia. See his contributions. --Meshulam 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is trolling. The Khazar claim is the giveaway. 71.247.10.131 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)