Talk:Mea Shearim

Romanization

The move from "meah" to "mea" is because:

• "mea" is several times more common in actual use (says Google)
• Academy of the Hebrew Language, US BGN, UK PCGN, and UN GEGN all agree that we don't romanize final letter he in place names when it has no mappiq.
• article Mea Shearim was on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Other categorization schemes

--Hoziron 03:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

And I am moving back, since in the Jewish world we do write Meah. I don't particularly care what all of those organizations say. I care about what us, those involved in the area, say. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As Daniel575 has been indefinitely blocked for abusive behavior, and his moving the page was done merely on his personal opinion, I have moved the page back to 'Mea'. .אבי נ (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"large groups disturbing the quiet"

What on Earth does this mean? The neighborhood is many things, but quiet is not one of them, nor was it before tourists. Residents of Mea Shearim may have plenty of reasons to not want tourists around, but "disturbing the quiet" is pretty silly. I'll wait a little while before changing this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcarl (talk • contribs)

As for me, this is something I am legitimately curious about: while I wholeheartedly understand the objections to people wearing immodest outfits in the neighborhood, why do its residents object to "large groups" passing through? And what size groups would offend them? --75.110.158.43 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

~ Anything irregular is what the object to. They like to maintain the feel of normalcy in their life. If say large tourist groups were to go through and look at them, the children would feel as if there lives were irregular. This could later lead them to the feelings of oppression etc etc. In general they want to feel as if the way they're living is the same as everyone around them is living. --- 72.208.165.190 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edah

First of all, Daniel, I realize that "silly" is hardly offensive. I'm just warning you now not to lest these insults escalate as has happened in the past. Secondly, I don't see the relevance between EH and MS. I don't dispute where EH is located. But A.) that's not even mentioned in the article, and B.) so what? Based on that logic, I should link to every Pizza Parlour in NY on the New York page. --Meshulam 17:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the Edah shoud not be in the "See Also" section unless the article contains a significant reference to the Edah. Just because it is a popular organization for the residents, and their offices are located there, is not sufficient. And if someone wants to write something about the connection, then the link will be right there, and you won't even need the "See Also". --Keeves 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Another issue: Daniel now wants to claim that EH oversees all or almost all MS organizations and activities. Regardless of the supposed truth of this assertion, it has not been verified, and is probably not verifiable. Therefore, the claim should not be included in this article. --Meshulam 20:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What the ....? WHERE did I claim that??? I wrote that the Edah is an organization in which most Jewish organizations in MS are united. To name a few:

Toldos Aharon Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok Satmar Dushinsky Brisk Some minor groups Karlin-Stolin Sanz-Tshakave

Others like Belz and Ger are not in - but they are not MS movements either.

The EH does rule MS. The EH's word is the law there. Not everybody is aligned with the EH, for example Rav Eliashiv isn't. Neither is NK. But the vast majority are. It is a plain fact that the abovementioned movements are included in the EH.

That makes the EH, by definition, the neighborhood council of MS. It is much like an alternative government, an alternative municipality. The EH (its associated movements) also has sizable enclaves in Givat Shaul (where I live) and Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet. The EH is worth mentioning in this article as much as Kadima is worth mentioning in Politics of Israel. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest just a minimal description, describing it as a major local organization, and hashgacha, and not much else. All this other stuff can be put into the Edah article. Anyone who wants more info about the Edah can click on the Edah article and read it there. --Keeves 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Keeves. If these facts are necessary, they can go into the Edah article (assuming they are verified). I add only that they are not verified, and therefore should probably be barred from the Edah article as well. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.--Meshulam 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Why can't christians wear their crosses?"

I have heard rumours that jewish people spit on christians who is wearing their crosses. Is this the reason why christians is advised not to wear anything that identifies as christians?

Unfortunately, 99% of christians in Meah Shearim are there to proselytize. See http://www.jewsforjesus.org . That type. We in Meah Shearim aren't waiting for such things. If you want to complain about this, complain at "Jews For Jesus". --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, plenty of Christians go on holiday in Israel without trying to proselytise Jews. If anyone's trying to proselytise it's the Haredi trying to coax other Jews into wearing ridiculous eastern European clothing, which is completely inappropriate for the Israeli climate.--87.127.115.178 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rumor or fact, anyone who would spit on another Human being is wrong. Certainly a Christian person would be wise to keep religious displays discrete while passing through Mea Shearim, they should do so out of concern for the sensitivities of the local population and not for fear of being spat upon. It is no different that the countless local etiquette tips a traveller should keep in mind. I've spent a lot of time in Mea Shearim and I have never encountered any of the fantastic rock throwing, women hating, hysteria.

Kipah Shrugah?

"Preferably colored" yarmulke? That doesn't sound like Meah Shearim. I would think the Haredim there would prefer a black, velvet kipah. -- 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The reason why that was written is because an outsider wearing a big black velvet kippah immediately identifies himself as a non-Jew. An secular Jew / Israeli would wear a small colored kippah, of the type you will commonly see at weddings, funerals etc. If someone would be walking around M.S. in secular clothing with a big black velvet kippah, it's like wearing a sign around your neck, "I am a goy". So while at first it might sound weird, when you think a little further, it is very logical. --169.132.18.248 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very wrong, and it is strange that you are so adament about this. As it says at kippah, "Haredi men, who mostly wear large black cloth or velvet yarmulkes, often wear fedoras with their yarmulkes worn underneath" and "The Israeli Religious Zionist community is often referred to by the name kippot serugot (Hebrew כיפות סרוגות), literally "knitted kippot," though they are typically crocheted." The residents of Mea Shearim, being haredi, wear the former, not latter, kind of kippah. nadav 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

-What's your point? No one denies this...to be fair the user 2 above should have probably said 'Satin ::Kippah' opposed to velvet. In any case a person wearing clearly secular clothing with a kippah on is most likely Goy unless they have clear indication by some means...let it be simple sideburns. The two most common in this community would be the large clothed Breslov style kippas and the similarly styled velvit equivalents. All in black 72.208.165.190 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Copy of mea shearim 8.JPG

Image:Copy of mea shearim 8.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images removed by Gilabrand

Gilabrand, Please don't change articles based on unlegitimate reasons. I assume you misunderstood me and were offended by my deletion of a blurry b&w picture of a haredi and his cellphone from the article Meah Shearim. This is no reason to delete two relevant pictures, one of them describing the paragraph "Neighborhood Regulations". And there was absolutely no reason to insert a very large image, without consideration of the article's layout. RonAlmog 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC

Sorry, but the removal of your images was entirely legitimate - they add nothing and the writing on the sign is illegible. If you think that the photo of some people with white shirts is representative of Mea Shearim, I disagree. The photos are dark and hellish and make it look even more decrepit than it is in real life.--Gilabrand 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Gilabrand, I really can't understand your pettiness. There is a paragraph about "Neighborhood Regulations", and the image you repeatedly removed describes exactly this. The posters in the image are mentioned specifically in the article. The second image is of a group of ultra-orthodox teenagers in Meah Shearim. If you want to add a picture describing "Haredi lifestyle" - feel free to do so, but please - do so with considiration of the page's layout (and not 300 pixels width). Thanks for your contributions. RonAlmog 20:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A ghetto?

Someone has once said that only the ultra-orthodox could have set up a ghetto in a Jewish area. This is what Mea Shearim is, and has all the hallmarks of being so. Obviously many of its residents didn't understand the point of physical Aliyah.--87.127.115.178 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC) ? Chesdovi (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Haredi Lifestyle

What is meant by the reference to Old World? The referenced article does not use that phrase. I suggest that it be replaced with the word insulated which is mentioned in the article. Otherwise we ned to say what Old World is being referred to. Since the development is reasonably modern, it is a strange phrase to use. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Violent censorship

I have added details from this article on attacks on bookshops. I hope they are not removed, but add here in case. [1].80.57.81.114 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling a group "violent" is POV and libel, even if it's sourced. Material has been removed from other pages for the same reason. You must provide a balanced picture, and not just throw in a line sourced to Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post, which are both blatantly anti-Haredi. I'm not a fan of the Sikrikim, but I know you have to provide a balance. Moreover, this issue of "violent censorship" does not belong under "Neighborhood Regulations," but perhaps under its own "Internal politics" section. Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Law

Do the signs requesting modesty carry the force of law? If not, who put them up; the Government (out of concern for the resident's wishes)? If there are restrictions for just walking through there, what about living there - can anyone just buy a place? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)