Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:48, 6 September 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1

Most Hareidim still don't support Zionism nor its state

I deleted all references that ger vizhnits or any other hareidi support Zionism because they join the Keneset, this is a false POV by very extreme elements who make this accusation unjustly on all those groups they are opposed to Zionism and its state, but they also vote to get money for the Torah institutions but not at all saying that the Zionists are good this is a lie. Please don't revert it without any source.--יודל 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefardim

We need to fix the sephardim section - add Yaakov Hillel (a famous Sefardi anti-Zionist), as well as lbcl"c the Baba Sali, and the Sephardi Eida Chareidis. Also, the school (something Yoel) - the sephardi school that doesn't take any money from the govmt. Why does the article say no sephardi opposition. Also, Ovadia Yosef used to be a big kanoi; maybe this should be mentioned? Lobbuss 10:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the word opposition means something more active or voicefull not just an opinion, i think they are not more opposing in this then vizhnits ger and all other hareidim unless u can find sources.--יודל 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The jpost blog article was simply false, as many of the responders to it said. The writer was totally ignorant and simply IGNORED the entire Sefardi opposition to Zionism. That's the Zionist way of handling criticism: simply deny that the criticism exists. You have vandalized my previous version. Please stop doing that. --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea: Hardal

They used to be plain Mizrachi guys with little kippot, shirts and sandals, and the girls wearing short sleeves and nude lower legs. That's pretty much the definition of Modern Orthodox. And are you really going to claim that they are no longer Religious Zionists?! They don't believe in Religious Zionism any more?! --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not MO's. MO's is mostly an American thing. In Israel, the RZ are not neccesarily MO's. In addition, the fact that they are Chardalim show that they're not MO, but Charedi in hashkafah. I would venture to say that they are primarily from the RZ camp, but also from the growing camp of American olim who don't fit into the pure Charedi mold. Yossiea 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I am saying - they USED TO BE modern orthodox. Israeli RZ *is* Modern-Orthodox. Machon Meir, Merkaz HaRav etc, IS modern-orthodox. If the women there wear short sleeves and skirts barely covering the knees, the guys wear plain t-shirts and sandals and shorts and small kippot, then that is called modern-orthodox and that is not by any standards 'Haredi'. What I am saying is that they USED TO BE like that, and they left that, and started becoming stricter in these things: dress, and other things such as shabbat observance and kashrut and general halachic things. You fail to understand that America/the OU does not have the copyright to the term 'modern orthodox' - Israel has 'modern orthodoxy' also, and the vast majority of the settlement movement still falls under that category. --Eidah 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but you are incorrect. RZ and MO ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. Some MO's are RZ, some MO's are not RZ's. Some RZ's are MO and some RZ's are not MO. Dress is irrelevant. Again, they're chardalim because that's how they identify. They are from the RZ camp, not the MO camp. There is no MO camp. There are Charedim, Chassidim, Litvaks and RZ. MO doesn't really fit in. Yossiea 13:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eida on this one, MO they were before becoming Hardel, nothink has changed in regards to their Zionism beliefs. Most religious Zionists are in the category of the American modern orthodox, modern orthodox has nothing to do with America its simply a term described of orthedox jews who a'rnt Hariedim. So Yosias edits are false uncalled and simply out of line to revert it from MO to RZ, please stop doing it--יודל 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yidisheryid's edits

Yidisheryid: we have previously had big wars about this here. We came to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to divide the section about Haredi groups in 1 section about those groups which typically adopt a pragmatically supportive stance vis-a-vis the state (such as Ger, Belz, the Litvaks, Klausenburg, Chabad), and those groups which typically adopt a negative, opposing stance vis-a-vis the state (such as Satmar, Dushinsky, Neturei Karta, and organizations such as the Edah and the CRC). Could you explain exactly why you keep completely destroying this division? Further: Dushinsky is a separate group, just as Satmar is a separate group. Further: the CRC is not a subdivision of Satmar. Yossiea, I ask you also to look at this and thus to revert the order of the groups to my previous version, which was made in consensus and which 'Yidisheryid' keeps messing up. --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear eida, i have no issue on the sections just a few chabad i can see in devided but al other Hasidim cannot be divided because they are the same opinion towards Zionism, crc isn't even a different group they are just a rabbinic organisation controlled and comprised mainly by satmar so i would not give it a separate header, we cannot make sections for a the satmar rabbis and organizations that have been expressing somewhere sometime a statement about this issue why make so much headers to inflate your cause please consider that their are other people here reading this who will get the false picture that satmar is huge and bigger and more then others which isn't true let all stamar ideas and statement be under their respective section. i agree that Eidaa groupd should not be part of satmar since they are a organizing organization of all those jerusalem groups, dushinsky included, which are indeed opposed to Zionism, why make dushinsky extra group? are they not just like Toldos ahron and other eidanikas?! and stop using the word consensus as if i am not part in this process, everybody can revert minor thinks without talk pages until somebody explains why its not a minor edit which u only now did and i successfully answered--יודל 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have warned him and submitted his name to the admins for 3RR and edit warring. Let's hope he stops. Which one has the order of Chassidim? Yossiea 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the way it was *before* he started messing things up. We had a list of "groups that typically support the State of Israel" (such as the Litvishe, Ger, Belz, Chabad) and list of "groups that typically oppose the State of Israel" (such as Satmar). That was the consensus we had. Now look at the way things are! It's a huge MESS now! --Eidah 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg u not to just revert al my edits to that Inst because that list was slanderous unsourced POV, they do not support any form of Zionism. it is an opinion and i agree some satmars are by this opinion, but don't write it down as fact, u can write that the satmars look at them as supportive of Zionism but not as given fact that they are indeed which they are not, i dont have sources that they aren't, but i may and i am obligated to erase those accusations even though most users want it inside.--יודל 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check the dozens of edits he messed up. I'll see if I can find something. Yossiea 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just check the last edit from before the hurricane hit. --Eidah 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:), I think I found a good one. I found one of your edits and put in the Chassidim section. You might want to visit the admin board and see YY's section there and comment if neccesary. Yossiea 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems fine. Now I'm off in 20 minutes, back on Monday (no internet at home!). Let's let things rest for a while and take a step back, take a deep breath, enjoy our shabbos meals and next week we'll all be happy and cooperate and turn this into an even better article, and Hakudesh burich hi will send us mushiach tzidkeini, bimheiru veyumeini, UMEIN. ;) --Eidah 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

The page has been protected for three days. Please use this time to discuss changes to the article and come up with a compromise, rather than fighting back and forth. You are all rational people, and I am sure a solution everyone can accept can be arrived at. See Misplaced Pages:Edit war and Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

The protection will expire in three days; when it expires, the edit warring starts again, people will start to be blocked, and the page protected for longer periods. Neil ム 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Neil, u protected this page with a pov version but since u r not Jewish u don't have the knowledge to say which one was the POV version, i ask u to revert it to yesterdays version, so not to be a hand unknowingly to slanderous accusations. thanks--יודל 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I will only be online again on Monday morning (Zionist time). --Eidah 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a solution everyone accepted. We had a discussion weeks ago and we reached a consensus. The article as it stands now is based upon the consensus. YY's edits are breaking that consensus with his edits that don't make any sense. Yossiea 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. We need to move on from here. I think the way it looks now is fine. Though the section about 'newspapers' needs some work, but we'll see about that next week, iy'h. --Eidah 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea, as YY is clearly not in agreement, then it can't be a consensus that everyone presently accepts. Try and discuss things with him over the next few days. If, when the article is unprotected, he still is unwilling to engage with his fellow editors and discuss controversial edits, instead edit warring over the article, his editing privileges will be revoked for longer and longer periods. Neil ム 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yossiea 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardal

As per Wiki's article itself, RZ is not the same as MO. Religious_Zionism so stop reverting. This is a talk page, we use it to talk about changes before we make the changes. Try it out. Yossiea 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea, at this point I am unsure how your actions are any different from those of Yasheryid. You are both edit warring, and at least he is offering explanation for his edits using edit summaries. You, on the other hand, are simply rolling back his edits with no explanation other than "discuss on the talk page" (and, worse, describing them as "vandalism" when they clearly are not). Please explain on this talk page just why the entirety of his edits are unacceptable to you. Neil ム 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was heavily edited before and protected as well. We came to a consensus using the talk page and the article is pretty much "final." His edits are extremely controversial and he is not discussing it beforehand. All I am doing is reverting to a prior acceptable edit and telling him to discuss his changed on the talk page. This is a fairly large talk page and many things were discussed. He is not interested in discussions, he is interested in pushing his POV across. Yossiea 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

my edits are only controversial in your single issue of Hardel which was addressed by me and user Eida, unfortunately he is blocked now but u were clearly in the minority on this point, on the other disgreements i have spoken here above to the respective users and sections please don't try to block this article.--יודל 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Wiki article? RZ is not the same as MO. I'm not sure why you keep editing it to something that is clearly not true. Yossiea 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (Besides the fact that the way it is written now is the best of both worlds. I'm not sure why you see the need to edit it.)

Furthermore, he keeps claiming that he does utilize the talk page. I haven't really seen that. Have you? Not only that, his constant editing to call Hardal MO is not true, as the Wiki article on RZ clearly points out. Yossiea 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in bringing links from the same page, from one section to the other, to proof something in the bottom that was proven in the top of the page, references and footnotes should be only be reserved for side or outside points. You only are lying here to manipulate a lazy sysop should block the article as if there is no talk on talk page! Look up in all the privies sections and see how i answer u and u ignore them. please don't fool sysops who don't read before they block like u did on Friday to me, but fool me once fool me twice and the joke is on u.--יודל 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying. Yossiea 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel

The section headed "Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel" starts with Ger and Belz. Later on the article says that Hamodia publishes articles attacking Zionism. Since Hamodia is a Gerrer-controlled paper, this is inconsistent. An earlier section lists Chazon Ish et al as "opposed to the State of Israel" notwithstanding that these same Litvishe leaders approved of voitng in Israeli elections. The article needs to distinguish voting and participation in the democratic process, on the one hand, from support for Zionism, on the other. The two are not synonymous. --Redaktor 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe its proper to have a section titled like this either Belz is only supportive of Zionism when u ask satmars.--יודל 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version

Yudel, Yiddisher, I am not going to comment on who is correct and who is not here, but I suggest you start discussing this anew, sans the David/Eidah issue. Iz chutsch Elul zman, and perhaps with the yamim noraim fast approaching, you both can approach this issue in the spirit of arevus. Remember, Kol Machlokes Shelo L'Shaym Shomayim, ayn sofo L'hiskayem!

In a nutshell (for the non-Yiddish/Talumd Aramaic speakers) please approach this issue in good faith, and I suggest anew, and work out your differences on talk.

To facilitate the above, I have locked the page for a week to help focus on discussion and not edit warring, and I will clean up the talk page for that purpose as well. -- Avi 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i hope by then the blocked user will already have established his status here and we will be able to talk without any insults. Also please do not forget to remove this slanderous POV as the above section points out as if Belz or other Hasidim sopport Zionism. thanks--יודל 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record because you don't seem to get it, I'm not Daniel. I've actually reported him several times for suckpuppetry in the past. You are more than welcome to edit here but please discuss things first on the talk page. Be prepared to back your statements up. Yossiea 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Step one, rabosai, is to attempt to talk about the article and not each other. יודל, if you believe, and have evidence, that Yossi is Daniel, then you should report the issue on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, it is improper harrasment to make unsubstantiated claims about another editor, and I will not even begin to bring in the Lashon Hara and Rechilus elements thereof. So both of y'all, please comport yourself with the dignity and class I am sure you both are capable of. Thank you. -- Avi 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proof to this but since one name is already blocked i will not go ahead and make my case because i do not want him blocked on this name and on any other names. Case closed, i am stopping to accuse him of any think which is not pertaining from now on, after all he got me blocked so u can understand my pain, but i forgave him and i forgot. Now can u start to erase the Slanderous POV against Belz and all other Hasidim. Or i should turn to other sysops to try this?--יודל 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm not Daniel. I would love to see your "proofs." 2) You obvioulsy have no idea how Wiki works if you think that people are just going to remove "the slanderous POV about Belz" just because you request it. Wiki works on RS, NPOV, etc. Please try to keep that in mind. Yossiea 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen i may be newer then u here but i learn the tricks very fast. Here and i am asking u not to belittle me as if only u know how wiki works last time i checked, any assertions about living people must be sourced i don't have to challenge it with sources once i or some future user can challenge a assertion that it negatively affects its subject matter in real life, it has no place in wikipedia without a source. I ask again of user Avi to erase this, i don't even think i have to mention that this was approved by Eida Pichus and lastly user redkover what ever his name in the one above comment about belz.--יודל 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, carrot does not seem to be working. Let's try stick. Rabosai, continued personal attacks will result in a temporary suspension of wikipedia editing privileges to protect the integrity of the project. In other words, please stop attacking each other and get down to discussing the article. A Ksiva V'Chasima Tova and a gut gebentched yar to you both, now please get on and act like mentchen. Y'yasher Kochachem, V'chol tuv (in other words, thank you). -- Avi 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi if u don't have patience to Look and read my comments how i answer u then stop saying that i don't talk. be quite and come back when u have time to read, nobody is in a rush here. although i would ask u a 6th time please erase the slanderous piece about Hasidim supporting Zionists, its unsourced and u as a sysop should know better then not reverting to such a version, by now i wsil not asking u anymore this think i have stated alerting other sysops about your unheard off conduct, please don't make this into a bigger struggle because your record will be tarnished by this ignoring my plights, and daring to say that i am silent.--יודל 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the paragraphs (regarding Ger and Belz), as currently constituted, are defamatory. However, I agree with you that it is unsupported and likely original research. I will place tags to that effect in the article now, and let Yossi have a week or so to find suitable sources for the information before it gets deleted. I will start a new section below for that purpose. -- Avi 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources requested

Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel: Ger and Belz Hasidim

This section needs sourcing. Please find sourcing soon, or it will be removed. Thank you. -- Avi 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While I was not the author of that section, and like many of the sections here seem to be unsourced, I will try to reason. (Firstly, it seems that YY is going against any chassidishe sect that is supposedly supportive of the State.) The main reason why I would say Ger and Belz, as written, is pragmatic in their support is that they are the largest bloc in the Agudat_Yisrael political party. Being a member of the Knesset certainly is a level of support. I'm not sure how much more is needed. It seems pretty clear cut to me. Yossiea 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(In addition, and I'm not sure how we can "verify" this, but it's one of those things that are "known" to all in Israel. Certain groups are "more Zionistic" than others, and Ger and Belz falls into that category.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 14:36, September 4, 2007 (UTC)

Being a member of something does only proof that they are there to suck some community programs and influence the state away from Zionism and more into a democracy ike America, where all frum Jews and secular and Arabs r evenly. there r a lot of Arab members of the Knesset that do not support the Zionism, and Agudas Yisruel ahs one in a half members in keneset. there are sephardim arabs litvakes and many more forms of Jewish groups who do not support Zionism. this isn't a source and it has no place here as proof to call so broadly all those hasidic groups supporters of Zionism. Especially when other users have declared openly that Belz is not part of Agudah, they go every election with somebody who promises them the most money--יודל 18:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossi, while you may be correct (and I am not making a value judgment) relying on reasoning to support a point, no matter how valid, does violate the original research and/or original synthesis policies of wikipedia. If the statement cannot be directly traced to a reliable or verifiable source, it really needs to be removed, I am afraid. -- Avi 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't being a part of the government mean you are part of the government? That is why Satmar split from the Agudah and formed the Edah, they opposed the State and therefore did not want to be part of an organization that supports the state, no matter how little. They support the state, at whatever level they do, by virtue of the fact that they participate in the State. Satmar and the Edah don't participate and don't support. Furthermore, if we go ahead with deleting this then I'm afraid 90% of the article would have to be deleted. This part I think would fall under WP:CK. I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel. Yossiea 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes i do have axe to grind with them i am entitled to have a personnel opinion, but that is non of your business please stop attacking me personal here. the facts u have written is all wrong if a gere chusid joins the government to extract funds and influence it away from Zionist ideology, it proofs nothing just that he opposes Zionism with a different approach then satmar, they deal with reality and use means to bring it to a end, like the satmars who do nothing just scream and shout from rooftops they actually act and take to the polls.--יודל 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

יודל, your assertion of the thought process behind any group's joining the government is also original synthesis. While one can be part of a government while opposing it, you and Yossi both must bring sources to confirm your positions. Your personal interpretation, or his personal interpretation, is not acceptable in-and-of-itself. Both of you, please find sources or the pertinent sections will be removed. -- Avi 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi i beg u please stop your blatent one sided handling of the situation here when he throws insults on me u r silent or u talk to me as if i am silent here, now when i refute his reasoning that it does not proof nothing u r trying to paint me as if i tried this reasoning to make it as a source, i haven't edit this page on any reason i just say that reason is not alone enough to have this slanderous negative info, i know u already said that u think its not negative, neither do i, but don't deny some people look at it negative. This is ridicules u leave this for a week, if u will not stop making yourself as if u don't know or understand, i will take this up with u on further action until this page will be corected, please lets not go there and erase this Unsourced POV.--יודל 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reb Yudel, I believe I am trying to treat you both evenly and fairly, in accordance with wiki policy. If you believe that I am mishandling the situation, by all means, bring it up on WP:ANI and ask for a third, fourth, or fifth opinion. -- Avi 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reb Avraham i don't give a damn u r mishandling the situation, thios is clearly your own situation there was no real edit war and u came in and decided to bock it, good for u, it is your choosing, and its not my business if u want to say over and over that i dont talk while u r cleary ying, all i ask is delete slanderous unsourced accusations. i have already emailed other sysops lets see what is their opinion. Good Luck--יודל 21:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aza Lashon mittn Elul? Yudel, is this how you want to enter the yamim noraim? Rachmana L'tzlan. -- Avi 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, when you edit in wikipedia, you agree to be bound by its rules; whether you agree with the rules and/or their results. We have processes to handle disputations and interpretations of policy; none of being rude, demanding, abusive, or creating a chilul HaShem are acceptable processes. -- Avi 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Please do mot lecture other users, u dont remind me of Elul u remind me of Uder, on one hand u agree that this is clear policy that it must be deleted. But on the other hand u give it a weak as if u r allowed to break the policy here, Please don't divert the subject like u do each and every comment of yours stop talking about Elul and about myself the issue is very clear we have unsourced line that Belz supports Zionism and it must be deleted, not after one week but after one second u r clearly against the policy here and it makes me really wonder how u r a sysop here?!.--יודל 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ershtens, it's Adar; Uder is either the word "or" in Yiddish or a misspelled k'chal (ayin Yoreah Deah siman 90). Secondly, it is apropos: Yom KiPurim . Thirdly, you misunderstand. It is not defamatory, so it is not to be deleted posthaste. Original research and unsourced contributions are forbidden, but there is a reason we have the family of unsourced templates: because we give some time for editors to find sources, as long as the potentially incorrect and currently unsubstantiated claim is not libelous. So, I reiterate that you may wish to review and refresh your understanding of wiki policy. Lastly, you think that because this wi wikipedia that I am patur from HoChayach ToChiach? If you tell me that you will persist in acting in a way that could be perceived as a chillul af al pi kayn, then I have fulfilled my chiyuv. -- Avi 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Again u r circumventing the subject here to divert other sysops atention from the issue at hand. Please stop playing this game here. Stick to the issue if the line is considered slanderous by only one humen and can therefore be chalanged like i do already for 2 days, even if u disagree on its negative nature, it must be deleted in the spit second not prolonged with your long side points of Ellul and Adar and Kidush and chilul, For the 15'th time: Please delete it since it has no source--יודל 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your attacks against myself and Avi I have brought evidence that Belz is somewhat supportive of the State. "have adopted a pragmatic stance of co-existence with the State of Israel." Pragmatic because they are in the Knesset, etc. Yossiea 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

U did not linked to any outside source your reasoning cannot count here for sources since i refuted them as false reasoning.--יודל 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm stepping in for the first time in a while, but, Reb Avi and Reb Yossiea are correct in their machshovos and corrections. and the adar-uder thing, some things aren't meant to be spelled phonetically, especially in the galitziner havuroh. --Shuliavrumi 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic

Please find some sources for this section before the week is up, or it will be removed. Place sources here please. Thank you. -- Avi 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article is that they pragmatically support the state of Israel. The source, or one of the sources, is that they are in the Knesset, are the main backers of a Knesset party, etc. Yossiea 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

While I was not the author of that section, and like many of the sections here seem to be unsourced, I will try to reason. (Firstly, it seems that YY is going against any chassidishe sect that is supposedly supportive of the State.) The main reason why I would say Ger and Belz, as written, is pragmatic in their support is that they are the largest bloc in the Agudat_Yisrael political party. Being a member of the Knesset certainly is a level of support. I'm not sure how much more is needed. It seems pretty clear cut to me. (In addition, and I'm not sure how we can "verify" this, but it's one of those things that are "known" to all in Israel. Certain groups are "more Zionistic" than others, and Ger and Belz falls into that category.

   Doesn't being a part of the government mean you are part of the government? That is why Satmar split from the Agudah and formed the Edah, they opposed the State and therefore did not want to be part of an organization that supports the state, no matter how little. They support the state, at whatever level they do, by virtue of the fact that they participate in the State. Satmar and the Edah don't participate and don't support. Furthermore, if we go ahead with deleting this then I'm afraid 90% of the article would have to be deleted. This part I think would fall under WP:CK. I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel. Yossiea  03:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics