Talk:Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)
|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Hungary in WWII
Many Satmar Hasidim were murdered and dispersed during World War II and the Holocaust, though the group's destruction was less complete than many other Hasidic sects. Though widespread shootings and deportations had already killed aproximately 100,000 Jews under Miklós Horthy's leadership, Nazi-allied Hungary was not occupied by Germany until comparatively late in the war. The the first deportations of Jews and death marches to the extermination camps in Poland did not begin until the spring of 1944, when 440,000 Jews were rounded up by the Hungarian police.
keeps getting changed to
Many Satmar Hasidim were murdered and dispersed during World War II and the Holocaust, though the group's destruction was less complete than many other Hasidic sects. Though widespread shootings and deportations had already killed aproximately 100,000 Jews under Miklós Horthy's leadership of Nazi-allied Hungary, the firts deportations of Jews and death marches to the extermination camps in Poland did not begin until the spring of 1944, when 440,000 Jews were rounded up by the Hungarian police, under the oversee of SS Colonel Adolf Eichmann.
Aside from the spelling and grammar errors ("firts"? "oversee"?), this looks incorrect to me and the previous version appears correct. Nazi-allied Hungary was, in fact, occupied by Germany in 1944. Check out this text from the Hungary article:
Hungary passed a series of anti-Semitic laws throughout the 1920s and thirties, and some massacres of Jews by Hungarian forces took place in the early part of the Second World War, but Hungary initially resisted large scale deportation of its Jewish population. Ultimately, however, during the German occupation, the Arrow Cross Party and government authorities participated in the Holocaust: in May and June 1944, Hungarian police deported nearly 440,000 Jews in more than 145 trains, mostly to Auschwitz . Ultimately, over 400,000 Jews in Hungary were killed during the Holocaust, as well as several tens of thousands of Roma.
The note about Adolf Eichmann also seems inappropriate and unnecessary to this article. If one is interested about who commanded SS troops in Hungary in 1944, one should look at an article like World War II, not an article about Satmar. I don't believe these edits to have any merit and I move for their reversion. Thoughts? --Makaristos 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, feel free to revert. Sorry for my error, it`s just that on the article Holocaust#Hungary it says that it was "October 1944, when the Horthy regime fell from power and was replaced...". This contradicted with this article which sayd that "The the first deportations of Jews and death marches to the extermination camps in Poland did not begin until the spring of 1944". It`s either Spring or Autumn? Also, the article Arrow Cross Party says that it "ruled Hungary from October 15, 1944 to January 1945. During its short rule, 80,000 Jews, including many women, children and old people were deported from Hungary...". Does this refere to the same event, and if so, why does it says 80,000 instead of 400,000? And I also don`t like the word "occupied". De facto, the deportations and death marches were done by Hungary, by the Hungarian police (under the oversaw ("oversee") of Adolf Eichmann - his mentioning is indeed superfluous) which altough had a puppet goverment, was not occupied as Poland or Ukraine were for example. AdoniCtistai 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In Satmar Custody
Why was the section on this documentary removed? It is material which is entirely relevant to the topic.
Morgan Leigh 08:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it was removed because it doesn't belong in this article. Movies, documentaries, television show episodes, and such are generally given their own pages if they are notable enough. ShalomShlomo reverted the edit but left the link to the documentary's webpage at the end of the page with all the other links. --Makaristos 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Makaristos hit the nail on the head- it was removed because it's a complete nonsequiteur. It would be one thing if there had been a major reaction to it, or if this was supposedly a widespread phenomenon. Without either of those things, it's just a one-sentence publicity ad- certainly not worthy of being its own section on the page, and not, IMO, appropriate for the page itself, anymore than a Discovery Center episode on "the Mysteries of Satmar" would be. No one's tried to put mentions of "A Life Apart" in the body of the article, even though that's probably one of the more comprehensive (and widely received) documentaries on Hasidim in the past ten years. I just don't see why it should be here. Feel free to try to change my mind, though.ShalomShlomo 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Shalom, many wikipedia articles contain sections titled "xtopic in popular culture" and I think that including such references is useful and relevant, so long as they are on topic, which I feel this one is. Moreover, these popular culture references are often the only way that people find out about things in the first place. I hadn't heard of "A Life Apart" until you mentioned it here, and I am an academic of religion. Now that I have been able to assimilate that information about Satmar, it has provided a more balanced understanding of the group than "In Satmar Custody" did. I'd like to suggest that we make a section 'Satmar in Popular culture' and include both of these films in it, and any others you might know of. Let's face it, most people's only source of information is popular culture. Most are not going to do any sort of decent research, so if we can provide them opportunities to gain information in a medium they will access then we are facilitating a wider dissemination of knowledge. This can only be a good thing.
- Morgan Leigh 04:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Morgan Leigh, I am not opposed to a "Pop culture" section on principle. I would be willing to support the inclusion of such an article when it consists of more than two references and the analysis is longer than one or two sentences. I could contribute on it, but frankly can't spare the time at the moment, and don't see it as particularly critical to the article's content. Until you can expand the section to the point where it stands on its own, as opposed to a mere trivial addendum, I would strongly suggest such references stay in the link section, for the same reason that it is unadvisable to create articles consisting of a single sentence. Just my two cents.ShalomShlomo 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
About Satmar and Neturei Karta. THe Cherem bit is incorrect, as is the bit of a denunciation. Also the part of asking Reb Yoilish to meet with Yasser Arrafat. It's all myth. Yasser Arafat and the PLO were not the public face of the Palestinian cause before Reb Yoilish had his stroke, so it doesn't make sense. He was just the leader of one of many Palestinian resistence/terrorist groups. There wasn't even a PLO yet, just Fatah.
About the cherem, I actually asked a chaver of the Satmar Beis Din about the Cherem, and he said it's nonsense. The Beis Din has not issued a cherem against a person or group of people since its formation in the United States. Cherem is the most severe punishment a beis DIn can issue in our day and it is almost never done by any Beis Din on people. Books, and things occasionally.
No denunciation was issued either. It's a made up propaganda piece by the Kakhnik radio station Arutz Sheva. It never happened. No such thing ever appeared in Der Yid, which is the official newspaper. Many Satmer are uncomfortable with NK, but there's no official stance. (Also, right now there's a false rumor in Satmar that NK denied the Holocaust on American TV, and since Satmar don't have TV, many believe it.)
I am going to remove it because I feel it mars an otherwise fairly accurate and informative article.Shia1 06:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
R' Aharon, Admo"r d'Satmar-Kiryas Yoel
I think the title that Wikipedia has given R' Aharon (Rebbe of Satmar-Kiryas Yoel) is premature. I understand where it comes from. There's Nedvorna-Bnei Brak, Nedvorna-Tzfas, etc., and Vizhnitz-Monsey, Vizhnitz-Bnei Brak, etc. But this is a little different Here, R' Aharon has literally moved part of his operation to Williamsburgh, supposedly in an attempt to take the entire pie. Whatever our judgment is about this maneuver, it clearly eliminates the accuracy of labeling R' Aharon to Rebbe of the Kiryas Yoel branch of Satmar. The desire to label and compartmentalize is compelling. But presently, it may be most accurate to say that the position of "Satmar Rebbe" is contested. It doesn't look like either side is content to be merely Rebbe of Satmar-Kiryas Yoel or Satmar-Williamsburgh.--Meshulam 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see more in this article about R' Chaim Yehoshua Halbershtam, either in this article, or on the article dedicated to him. For ex., he is identified as the Satmar Rebbe on Monsey. But the article does not clarify whether that is something that was unilaterally decided by the Chassidim (and whether R' Halbershtam asceded), or where his "home base" is (ie, the name of his shul). There are countless Satmar shuls in Monsey. Calling him Satmar Rebbe of Monsey is a little too general. --Meshulam 15:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Intro: when was Szatmarnemeti a part of Hungary (clarification/grammer)?
From the intro:
Satmar (or Satmar Hasidism or Satmarer Hasidim) (חסידות סאטמאר) is a movement of Orthodox Haredi Jews who adhere to Hasidism originating in the town of Szatmárnémeti (now Satu Mare, Romania), at that time in the Kingdom of Hungary. Members are referred to as Satmarer Hasidim.
"...at that time in the Kingdom of Hungary." - This doesn't make sense to me... at what time (well when it was named Szatmarnemeti i guess?)? This should either specify when the movement originated in Szatmarnemeti or should be phrased as "...originally located in the Kingdom of Hungary."
184.108.40.206 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
rabbi or rebbe? pick one, please.
rabbi and rebbe seem to be present about equally; for consistency's sake, however, it'd be nice to have only one or the other. --moof 08:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
can someone fix this article? it was very encyclopedic before and now it's just amateur
Satmars slam Naturei Karta
The accuracy of the article seems to be best shown by how Arutz 7 is once again the only media outlet with this great scoop, and the scoop that Neturei Karta is now a Chasidic sect rather than a movement of largely Graniks. 220.127.116.11 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please verify the statement Satmarers have stopped purchasing or advertising in Der Yid and Der Blatt? Who authored this section? The grammar is just horrifying?Hearingpocket 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
grammer and spelling
Can someone help me rewrite the grammer and fix the spelling in the article; it is very bad indeed. Major rewrite needed. Any offers? Lobbuss 10:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:CRChe.gif
Image:CRChe.gif 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I've flagged the "Satmar succession feud" for neutrality and general cleanup. The section contains a lot of personally invested statements; it would be worthwhile to rewrite the whole section in a more neutral tone. --ArthurDenture (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a consensus regarding an informal policy that all articles about Hasidic groups follow the "Name (Hasidic dynasty)" pattern. This applies both when there is an article with the same name, and when there is not. I think this policy should be kept and the article should be moved back to "Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)". Please share your opinions. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No offense, but can you provide some evidence that there's a consensus to that effect? Somewhere this was discussed previously, etc. I don't agree with this practice, obviously--the point of an article title is to name the article's subject, not to describe what it is.Prezbo (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation absolutely needed
The disambiguation, by adding "(Hasidic dynasty)" is absolutely needed in this case because in Yiddish and in the Jewish world it can mean BOTH the city (not always a Hasidic place) AND the Hasidic dynasty that sprouted and derives only its NAME from there, see: "Satu Mare (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈsatu ˈmare]; Hungarian: Szatmárnémeti [sɒtmaːrneːmɛti]; German: Sathmar; Yiddish: סאטמאר (Satmar)) is a city with a population of 113,688 and the capital of Satu Mare County, Romania." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Spelling SATMAR in the english language only means the hasidic dynasty, so there is no ambiguation, when some one looks for the town Satu Mare, why should he/she spell it satmar? and in case some one does just but up a link above saying for the city Satu Mare in Romanie click here....--18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)