Talk:Neturei Karta

* ARCHIVED: Old discussions moved to: Talk:Neturei Karta/Archive. --Daniel575 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TTJ has been cited on a number of anti-Semitic websites

CJCurrie twice removed this sentence, saying that "if we're going to condemn them it should be for *what they are* not for *who has cited them*" and invoking "guilt-by-association".

Note that we don't pass judgement, so "condemnation" is only in your head. Surely it is important to note _who_ cites them: scholars, theologians or... not. As for refs, do a quick web search and see for yourself. I didn't want to add those refs because I don't want to give them any publicity. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HS,

I simply meant that we should present the facts about NK and TTJ in a neutral manner without adding innuendo or guilt-by-association. If readers choose to oppose the group after reading the article, it should be for the right reasons.

For all TTJ's problems, their website does condemn anti-Semitism outright. I don't see how adding "the group has been quoted by anti-Semites" adds anything to the article, when TTJ evidently reject the message of such groups.

What do others think? CJCurrie 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that TTJ being used as a tool by antisemites (despite TTJ themselves ostensibly being against antisemitism), is notable. IronDuke 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the current edit doesn't describe the situation in quite those terms. Perhaps a rewording (as opposed to deletion) would be in order. CJCurrie 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is obviously common for people to insinuate other points by falsely innocuous edits, I think in this situation we are simply staing a relevant fact and that the innuendo us just a matter of the of the pov of the reader.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I've been wary about changes to this page ever since someone tried to describe the group as "Minim" a while ago (and in the opening section, no less).

I believe that certain editors (mostly anons) have been attempting to portray this group in an unfair light, and that a few sections of the current edit are very close to the line of "guilt by association". For instance, I don't see that citing comments made by Louis Farrakhan several months after he met with Neturei Karta representatives serves any useful purpose -- as much as I despise Farrakhan, I doubt these comments had anything to do with NK.

The irony is that I don't particularly like Neturei Karta either: I consider their connections to Farrakhan, Ahmedinejad, Hamas et al to be wrongheaded and highly objectionable, and I find their views on Jewish issues and human rights generally to be anti-modern and reactionary. That being said, I also think that their ideological views are the result of sincerely-held-if-misguided convictions about the nature of Jewish identity and Torah worship. Writing "the group has been cited by anti-Semitic websites" strikes me as unfair, in this light.

I'll reiterate the point that I made at the start of the discussion: if a reader is to condemn them, it should be for *what they've done*, not for *who has cited them*. CJCurrie 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important fact directly related the discourse relevant to the org in question. In other articles we say that X has been cited in academic journals, or scholarly publications, etc. In many other articles we note influence. We are not even saying that it is bad, or that it's their fault, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: (i) Perhaps, to facilitate a compromise re:TTJ, we could also note that their website explicitly condemns anti-Semitism. (ii) I still disagree as to the inclusion of the Farrakhan quote. Any comments on this?

Btw, does anyone have conclusive proof that NK and TTJ are one and the same? CJCurrie 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Farrakhan belongs to their influences, just as other antisemites who traditionally [ab]use internal Jewish disputes to turn them against Jews - the tradition probably predating the gospels.

From we've seen so far, TTJ is a non-notable website and nothing more. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Farrakhan qualifies as an "influence". It's fair to mention that NK met with him and made apologies for his "dirty religion" speech ... but I don't see how drawing his subsequent comments into the article is relevant.

The bit about LF abusing internal Jewish disputes may be notable, but I don't see it having a place in this particular article. CJCurrie 02:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

most CJCurie, most and not "several". Stop advancing your political agenda in every article opposing Israel

You missed my point: I was simply arguing that the evidence provided does not support the statement. (On the larger issue, I'm not certain that most mainstream Jewish groups have even heard of TTJ.) CJCurrie 02:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was you who missed "and other fringe groups opposing the existence of Israel". For shame. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: you missed my point.

The only evidence that you provided for your initial statement was a dubious-looking website called "True Torah Nazis". I do not take this site to be indicative of the opinions of "most mainstream Jewish organizations".

I don't doubt that most such organizations would find the beliefs of NK and TTJ objectionable, but you haven't provided much proof of actual criticisms. The article notes that other haredi groups have recently condemned NK, but there's little evidence to show that non-Haredi Orthodox groups particularly care about NK one way or the other.

This may surprise you, HS, but we actually aren't too far apart on this particular dispute. If you can show sufficient evidence for your initial claim, I'll withdraw my objections. CJCurrie 03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the True Torah Jews section altogether. It doesn't belong here. See its AFD. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. CJCurrie 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hamza al-Masri

I have removed the reference to him as Captain Hook. It both lacked a reliable source and was not compatible with NPOV. Capitalistroadster 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is how he is/was widely known in Europe, in the mainstream media also. So it can be put back. Just use Google. --Daniel575 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the links section, archived talk page

I cleaned up the links section, which had way too many links, many of which were very biased - written by Zionists, with only the intent to bash NK untruthfully (such as what is written on www.zionism-israel.com about NK). And I archived two-thirds of the quite chaotic talk page, which contained discussions from 2004, 2005 etc. --Daniel575 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Silverburg: The ADL link contains only a few sentences about NK, informatiom which can also be found elsewhere.

Next, I personally know who are behind 'Jews Against Zionism', and I also personally know some NK people including Rav Hirsch. 'Jews Againt Zionism.com' and Neturei Karta are not the same. They are miles apart and are not connected to each other in any way. Not noting that in the article will lead people to think that they are connected to each other. --Daniel575 23:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who you personally know is irrelevant and would qualify as original research. Also the links are relevent so long as they mention the group, which they do. A reversion is in order.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Results 1 - 10 of about 98,700 for Neturei Karta. (0.25 seconds)" Shall we just put all 98,700 results here as links? Or should we perhaps use common sense to determine that links like the ADL one, which is a whole page with only a few lines on NK (information which is also found in other articles), are totally unnecessary? --Daniel575 06:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, espcially considering the fact that there are not an excessive amount of links present.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:30, 14 June 2006

(UTC)

There was a huge amount of links available before I cleaned up some. Now, again, I again added the notice that Jewsagainstzionism.com is not a NK website. IT IS NOT. How many times do I need to tell you this? IT IS NOT A NETUREI KARTA WEBSITE. Either you leave it out completely or add the notice that it is not a Neturei Karta website. Do you need me to prove that it is not a Neturei Karta website? What do you want, a signed letter on official paperhead declaring that they are not Neturei Karta? The link is very useful and I do not want to see it removed, but to not add the notice that it is not an NK site would be misleading to those who are not very knowledgeable about the subject. 'Jewsagainstzionisn.com' is NOT Neturei Karta. The persons behind it are American Satmarrers and American Litvish. It is run from New York and it has no connection whatsoever to Neturei Karta. --Daniel575 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23/6

1. The Jewsagainstzionism.com link is fitting because it is a similar ideology, belonging to a much bigger and almost as strongly anti-Zionist movement. It is absolutely relevant. 2. The Islamonline.net link is relevant because it gives a very good and accurate background picture of Neturei Karta, and it has even been approved and edited by someone of Neturei Karta, as you can read there. If you want to start deleting links, why not start with the danielpipes link, for example, which does not even contain 5% of the information to be found in the Islamonline.net article? --Daniel575 11:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that you are writing this under your own text: "...it has no connection whatsoever to Neturei Karta"? I don't see why WP should advertise extremists with "no connection whatsoever" to the subject. Islamonline is not an encyclopedic resource on Judaic sects. See WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes and the ADL are neutral links, of course? I can see the logic behind not including Jewsagainstzionism.com, which really has no link to Neturei Karta but to Satmar and certain elements in the Litvishe velt (and I must note that Neturei Karta is also litvish). I can agree on not including Jewsagainstzionism.com, but the Islamonline link is very useful and gives an excellent and positive view of NK. As opposed to the hateful articles by the ADL and Daniel Pipes. If you insist on deleting the Islamonline link, the Daniel Pipes and ADL links will go as well. --Daniel575 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS, you may have problems with the ADL and Daniel Pipes, but they are considered acceptable sources. Islamonline is not.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ADL and Daniel Pipes are definitely reliable sources concerning most Jewish- and Israel-related topics. However, when it comes to Neturei Karta, things lie a tiny little bit different. If you want, we will go over every point in the Islamonline article to judge its validity. Or I will take the article and put it on my own website (I run a Dutch version of 'Jews Against Zionism'). The Islamonline article is very fair, independently written without any bias and I see no reason why it should not be included. On what ground (except your own Zionist motivations [no insult meant]) do you automatically consider the ADL and Daniel Pipes to be 'reliable' sources concerning an extremely anti-Zionist movement, as opposed to Islamonline, which would be an 'unreliable' source? If you ask me, it would be the other way around! It is quite something that those ADL and Daniel Pipes articles are linked to here. I am not going to remove them, since others would place them back in a second anyway. But the Islamonline article, which I accidentally came across while googling some, is a great article and a much more useful addition than both the ADL and Daniel Pipes articles, and as such it will be placed back again. Please show me just why the Islamonline article is not reliable, and then we will talk about it. It's very easy and convenient to just disqualify any website you don't like as 'unreliable source' and delete it on that ground. I am, more or less, a member of Neturei Karta and I hereby qualify the Islamonline article as reliable. Oh and by the way, with your revert, you deleted my other edits to the article as well. --Daniel575

23:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, I agree with your current edit, greatly limiting the number of links. As I wrote above, there was a huge and disproportionate number of links here. However, the completely neutral and reliable Islamonline.net link will stay. If you agree on that, things look wonderful like this. --Daniel575 00:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Ideology Edit

Hi CJCurrie, I'm curious what you find objectionable in the ideology section you removed. Thanks, ShalomShlomo 01:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This attitude became particularly unpopular with large numbers of the global Jewish community following the Holocaust, and was one of several major divisions between early Zionists and their adversaries, both those within the haredi world and outside it. The dispute continues to exist today, and serves as a significant dividing line among world Jewry.

"This attitude" (ie. fatalism, defeatism) is an attitude that NK are *accused* of holding. I'm not certain that they'd agree with this assessment, from their way of looking at the world. Describing the discussion around this attitude seems to reinforce the credibility of the accusation (which is what I meant by "leading") -- although this may not have been deliberate on your part.

There's probably a better way of saying that NK are regarded as holdovers of a previous age by most groups within the Jewish community ... CJCurrie 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think I see what you're saying. I'll work on finding a more moderate tone and try to resubmit something tomorrow. ShalomShlomo 06:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes, the ADL, and Zionismontheweb / Zionismisrael

These three sites are obviously not neutral sources regarding this issue. All three are right-wing Zionist organizations, automatically disqualifying them from being neutral sources regarding an extremely anti-Zionist organization. While all three are certainly very good and neutral sources regarding other aspects of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict, they cannot be called neutral sources when it comes to Neturei Karta. Furthermore, the information in the Daniel Pipes link is mentioned earlier in the article and a link is provided there to Ynetnews.com. The ADL link contains only a few sentences about Neturei Karta and contains a blatant lie (the accusation that NK would have voiced support for suicide bombings). Zionismontheweb / Zionismisrael refers to an NK-affiliated group as 'True Torah Nazis'. Yes, very neutral sources, aren't they? --Daniel575 14:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be neutral, they just have to be reasonably encyclopedic, and not excessively propagandistic. Pipes is a well-known and respected, if somewhat controversial, academic and commentator. He meets that qualification. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes is a very right-wing Zionist Jew. He is not the person to write in a neutral manner about Neturei Karta. If you insist on placing that link, I insist on placing the Islamonline link. Furthermore, the Zionismontheweb link cannot be placed. It is by definition not a reliable source. Have you read the article? Do you realize that this is about a movement that considers Zionists to be agents of the Angel of Death, of the Satan itself? Do you think a website like 'Zionismontheweb' provides a neutral view of such a movement? Have you checked out the link yourself? --Daniel575 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking a little more, I just came up with a better idea: we could divide the links section into 'pro-NK' and 'anti-NK' links. How does that sound? No more trouble about 'reliable source' qualifications. That would be an ideal solution. --Daniel575 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes is a famous academic whose view is obviously relevant. IslamOnline, on the other hand, is a propaganda website, and nobody knows who writes articles for it. Pecher ^Talk 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that Pipes is a "very right-wing Zionist Jew" is interesting, but hardly a fact, and irrelevant in any event. As I said above, links do not have to be neutral, they merely need to be reasonably encyclopedic, and not excessively propagandistic. Pipes is a well-known and respected, if somewhat controversial, academic and commentator. He meets that qualification. On the other hand www.islamonline.net does not appear to meet that qualification. Who writes it? Who supports it? The "About us" section tells us nothing about the site that is helpful in deciding this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes IS most definitely a very right-wing Zionist. He is very controversial and definitely not universally acknowledged as a serious academic. As I wrote before, the Islamonline article was checked, edited and approved by rabbis of Neturei Karta. Thus, it deserves a place in any case. I now changed the links section into a clear view of anti-NK, pro-NK and neutral (ie, newspaper) links. Please evaluate, and add more links to the 'anti-NK' and 'neutral' sections. --Daniel575 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making unourced assertions. Please provide evidence for your claims, and reference the relevant policies to explain why you think links should be included or excluded. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the non-encyclopedic links, the blank links, and the links not about Neturei Karta. You've already violated WP:3RR a number of times, and I would hate it if you were blocked. Please do not restore the links again, or you will undoubtedly get blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the link again. There is no reason why Daniel Pipes and 'Zionismisrael' should be considered reliable sources but Islamonline should not. Zionismisrael is a hate-sowing site which refers to one subgroup of Neturei Karta as 'True Torah Nazis' and emphasizes only alleged negative aspects of Neturei Karta. Islamonline on the other hand emphasizes the positive aspects and shows what the effect of NK's work in the Islamic world is. They spread the message of Jewish anti-Zionism as much as they can, and articles such as this one are the result of their actions. On top of that, as I said a number of times already, the article was read by, edited by and approved by someone of Neturei Karta in New York. The fact that the website itself is not neutral and not a 'reliable source' is solved by putting it under the 'pro-NK' links category. I repeat: I will not allow the Islamonline link to be removed while the Daniel Pipes and Zionismisrael links will stay in place. Either all are to be deleted, or none. If that means that I will be blocked, so be it. I am not giving in on this issue. My demand is entirely reasonable. --Daniel575 13:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who deleted the Jewsnotzionists.org link? That is also an NK website, though belonging to a different subgroup (NK consists of several divided subgroups). I see no reason why it should be deleted. --Daniel575 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained multiple times, Pipes is a respected academic, Islamonline is a propaganda site of unknown provenance. Your claims that various people have read the material etc. are unverifiable and irrelevant, and while a site can be biased, it certainly cannot be a pure propaganda site. As for the ZionismIsrael site, I removed it myself. Also, there is no evidence that jewsnotzionists is an NK website, so it cannot stay. If you have reliable evidence that it is, bring it forward. I've also put some pro-Neturei Karta links in the correct section. Finally, since you cannot seem to grasp policy, from now on any edit you do which contains the Islamonline article will be reverted completely, regardless of any other merits to the edit. You must follow policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was posted on an NK website it would be fine. Meaning that I can post the article on my own website and post a link to it with my own hechsher (as I said before, I am the webmaster of the Dutch NK-affiliated website, under approval of Rabbi Moshe Hirsch). About Jewsnotzionists.org, I can tell you that they are an NK site because of the people behind it and the articles on the website. The articles on the website are of the NK type, not the Satmar type. Since there is no concurrent to NK regarding anti-Zionism of this type, it is an NK site. --Daniel575 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any real, verifiable evidence that jewsnotzionists is a NK site? I don't just mean "trust me, it is" evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you expect me to find such evidence? This isn't something you can find in a book or so. You can see it when you read the articles there. I think (no insult meant) that you are not even Jewish and not very well aware of what I am talking about when I speak about the subtile differences between Satmar and Neturei Karta. This website is obviously on the NK side. And as I mentioned before, there is no other group like NK which is as strongly anti-Zionist. If it is more extreme anti-Zionist than Satmar, that automatically makes it NK, get it? --Daniel575 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, got it (and let's use the whole page again). On http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/nyt/nyt051893.html it says "American Neturei Karta - Friends of Jerusalem". Sufficient now? Or should we also make an article American Neturei Karta? As I mentioned previously, there are several subgroups in Neturei Karta. Jewsnotzionists.org is a different group than the one running nkusa.org / netureikarta.org, though they are on speaking terms. Jewsagainstzionism.com is not affiliated with either, however. --Daniel575 22:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ad/letter to the New York Times from Neturei Karta, which is posted on the jewsnotzionists site. Please provide some real evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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