Talk:Haredi Judaism

Meaning of Haredi

I took out a paragraph on the meaning of Haredi as "fear and anxiety" because the two sources, while technically first-rate, clearly showed anti-Haredi bias in their titles by using "extremism" and "fundamentalism" (see POV for use of this latter term) which combined with the prejorative nature of the definition, makes them unusable as the primary definition of Haredi. Also note that, as I showed in the opener, Haredi orginally often meant simply Orthodox; it does not make logical sense that the Modern Orthodox OU would have referred to itself as "anxious". As a check, I looked up the verse given in a Mikraot Gedolot, the traditional commentaries most likely to be used by Hareidim. One (Rashi) translated the word - it is a verb there - as "to hurry with trembling" and the other (Metzudot) as simply to hurry. If "ignore all rules" means anything, it means to use common sense.

I think this paragraph would be all right if it did not head the section, and if the person who placed this (and presumably read the papers) would preface it with a description of their view of Haredim.Mzk1 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood; we rely on what reliable sources say. These sources are both accurate and factual, and one's personal opinions about whether or not they have "bias" are irrelevant. If you have other reliable sources that define the term a different way, please feel free to bring them forward, but you cannot simply delete this. Please don't do it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RS depends on a number of things, such as context. A sociological study that is clearly antognistic towards its subject is rather questionable when giving the major meaning - a historical issue by definition - of the term the group uses to define itself. (I note the first source in its self-description refers to "deviant behavior".) To claim that the classic Hebrew word for Orthodox was intended to mean anxiety is an extraordinary claim, and it needs a better source.

(These could go in a criticism section, or perhaps at the end of the section with a description fo the attitiude of the authors.)

Since you appear to be the author who added this - I did not realize this at first - could you tell me if the articles have sources for these statements, and what they are? Or are these simply primary sources making unsupported assertions? (By the way, I wonder at your straight claim that the article is "accurate and factual"? Based on what?)

This reminds me of the case cited by Dr. David Berger of a publication of Harvard University Press that defined "Eivah" as "Hatred of Gentiles" instead of "Fear of Anti-semitism", leading to a statement that every anti-semite would have loved to get into Wikipedia. In this case, it appeared to be sheer laziness, as anyone even slightly familiar wih the literature would have known better. That is, he simply translated instead of checking with the literature or an expert. I suspect this is the case here. (yutorah.edu, David Berger, Shituf, towards the end; more specifics on request.)Mzk1 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is original research. It is not appropriate here. Zero^talk 04:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources meet the requirements of WP:RS. If you don't think they do, please take them to WP:RS/N. If you have other reliable sources that give different views, please present them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Mzk1, you'll have to justify the removal of this reliably sourced and accurate information here in this talk page. It will remain in the article if and until there is a consensus to remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I will need more information. I would appreciate if you would answer the question above. What sources did the articles give for this explanation (not the verse, the extraordinary explanation of it).Mzk1 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Stadler cites Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman (1991), The Haredim in Israel, p. 198. But more importantly - why would this be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more interested in the other article, which I think is making an extraordinary claim, although it is good to have some some source for the use of the verse, as even the Hebrew article has none. Is it sourced, or is this the author just asserting it. And to why - well, even the short FAQ at the top of the WP:IRS talk page points out that no source is reliable for everything. We have an extraordinary claim by a paper whose official description is extremely pejorative; forgive me if I am a bit suspicious. If he has a source, great. Otherwise, I think we are dealing with what is basically a semi-primary source, and in a field (history and linguistics) not that of the article (sociology), and one where the author likely has questionable motives; so I think that while the paper is a RS for some purposes, it is not so for the derivation of the word. one questionable for this particular purpose. To repeat, it is clear in the FAQ that there is no such thing as a source that is automatically RS.Mzk1 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the only reason you have provided for not considering these sources reliable on this matter is your personal dislike of what they say. Actually I don't understand your objection because what they say is not extraordinary but rather the explanation I have read multiple times. Btw, ben-Yehuda cites page 9 of Friedman, Haredi Society, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Jerusalem 1991 (Hebrew). Zero^talk 14:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not personal dislike. It is not a rational claim to say that a group would refer to itself by such a term, and the source itself is prejorative. More to the point, he seems to be mixing up modern terminology with terminology Haredim themselves are likely to use. The Hebrew version (horribly POV, by the way) at best refers to this as folk etymology. It seems that no-one actually bothers to do research; they pick the verse they think it refers to, then at best check a current dictionary. But I will check Friedman first.

It is true that I dislike prejorative material, in general. I would not censor it, necessarily, but it should be labeled as such. I wish someone with more knowledge than I would clean up Modern Orthodox; too many of my fellow Chareidim seem to have got ahold of it.Mzk1 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities of Concentration

I have added the cities that Hareidim are concentrated in; something I felt was sorely lacking. I have done Israel and America. Also, I split up demographics and history in the Israel and America section.עזרא משה (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology section cleanup

The terminology section does need a cleanup.

It is currently structured as follows:

1) a formal definition of the Hebrew term "Haredi" 2) the use of the term ultra-orthodox 3) alternative terms

I think this structure is good and should remain this way. However, section 2 seems to be entirely focused at a few relatively obscure sources who deep the term as controversial.

• Norman Lamm, a modern Orthodox (not Haredi) Rabbi, is quoted. Possibly okay to leave in, although not sure of its significance.
• Canada's Centre for Faith and Media is given a lengthy space with a long paragraph. There is little I can find on this organisation apart from its own website. There is no reason why wikipedia should give it so much credit at the expense of the vast majority of other credible media organisations who do use the term ultra-orthodox.
• The Star Ledger, a New Jersey based Newspaper, relatively tiny in the context of all newspapers who ever report on Haredi Jews.

This section should either be cut down and be more succinct. Alternatively, if the Star Ledger and Canada's Centre for Faith and Media are noted, should all the other papers and bodies (who do use ultra-Orthodox) be listed?

Again, I refer to my original structure and that is a good way to have it: Discuss the fact that ultra-orthodox is the main translation but there are a few who deem it controversial. Anyone who reads up on Haredi jews in English who find 95% use the term ultra-orthodox, so I cannot see why wikipedia should only focus on the few who oppose it.

Please discuss further... --Halma10 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources may be reliable, but that doesn't mean that they themselves are not using it in a prejorative manner. If one goes back to the earlier part of the last century, one can see Jewish history being treated this way (see Malcolm Hay, Thy Brother's Blood, Hart Publishing Co., 1975) in many cases; today this is still found for certain politically-incorrect groups. Also, if a large portion of the people themselves consider it prejorative, this also makes it contraversial. I do concede that as of late this term has been used by some Haredi sources.Mzk1 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources indicate that the term is, or can be, controversial. The article presents this in a brief and NPOV way. I don't see where the tag is warranted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, yes there may be a few sources and I do agree that some view the term as controversial, and this should indeed be noted in the article. My concern lies in the proportionality of the discussion. If you were to read articles/news/research on the ultra-Orthodox you would find that this term is used almost universally. Thus, the wiki section gives the false impression the the view of it being a pejorative term is somewhat mainstream. As Mzk1 pointed out, this term is also used amongst the ultra-Orthodox.--Halma10 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it gives that impression, but in any event, you can't add your own opinions to the article - everything you add must be cited to reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the prevalence or use of the terms "haredi" or "ultra-Orthdox"? I'd be happy to see them, and to help you add them to the article, regardless of the position they espouse. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I find this disturbing that one person (Jayjg) has hogged this article, when this author has clear lack of knowledge of the Haredi community - given that various comments made (for example, being completely surprised that Strictly Orthodox was the same as ultra-Orthodox). If every word on wiki was sourced, 90% would be gone - including this very article. Facts are figure are sourced, but broad overviews are not (if you look at any article). Wikipedia relies on experts in those fields to give an overview and provide citations where relevant. I am not going to engage in this this further, but find it a shame and baffled by this person's motives (unless he/she view themselves as a proponent or opponent of Haredim, rather than objective author). I am concerned as this person seems hardly willing to engage in any discussion (for example, a citation by the BBC was removed with no reason). It would be better if there were more authors involved in these discussions rather than the self-styled owner of this page. For people who read this, be cautious of this page's content and read some reliable material elsewhere.--Halma10 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I will proceed with a Dispute Resolution request in the coming week, and we can hopefully resolve some these matters that way.--Halma10 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but if I were you I'd carefully review WP:V and WP:NPA first. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fired for observing the Sabbath

The article contains the passage:

"Jews refusing to work on the Sabbath were almost always fired at the end of the week;[citation needed]; the large majority of those who desisted from working on Saturday had to face the formidable challenge of finding new work each week).[citation needed]"

I don't think citations can be found to support this. Starting in the 1880's, the first large wave of Jewish immigrants included many who founded businesses, then hired other Jews, providing a way to remain both observant and employed.

In my moderately extensive reading, I have never come across stories of Jews who hired on to Gentile firms, concealing their refusal to work Saturdays, then surprising the employer at the end of the week and getting fired. How could this happen? New Jewish immigrants could not conceal their Jewish background. English was not taught or spoken in the ghetto, and the immigrants' accent and limited English proficiency would have given them away.

Someone who feels they have some intellectual authority on this point should consider removing the quoted passage.

I personally know people whose (great)grandparents were affected by this, and who told me it was indeed quite common. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Involvement in the Israeli political process, military, economy and education

Can somebody add some more information about recent Haredi involvement in Israeli political parties (only Shas discussed in some detail so far) and in the IDF? In the labour market? Or lack of involvement, voluntary or involuntary? Also on curriculum of Haredi schools and to what extent it overlaps with the one taught in other Israeli schools? I don't know enough about if myself. Many thanks. Nescio vos (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are completely right, but I think it reflects a wider problem that the entire article needs a major cleanup. Some sections are written in long essay style form and also doesn't reflect what is happening with Haredim today (as you mentioned with education, employment etc.)--Halma10 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"like other Orthodox Jews"

isn't the phrase "like other orthodox jews" in the opening pgraph too vague? i'm not sure that Modern Orthodox Jews would consider themselves part of an unbroken chain of tradition. Doesn't the very title "modern" imply otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.77.244 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything I've read indicates that Modern Orthodox Jews consider themselves part of an unbroken chain of tradition. And all movements in Judaism today are "modern". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)