Talk:Haredi burqa sect
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Cult" or controversy
editI personally object to the use of the word "cult" because it's loaded language, no matter who is using it. I elect to switch it back. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that sect is less loaded than cult, but what do you mean by "controversy"? Do you want it under the heading "controversy" in the Edah HaChareidis article? But are they really a sect and not a cult? They violate basic Jewish halachic laws, if Shmarya Rosenberg is to be believed. As a rule, he is reliable, but I would still like to see another source for the death of the baby. It must have made headlines in Israel, but I dont't find anything in the net. Ajnem (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have found the Maariv article Rosenberg relies on. Now I have another problem: I don't think that Goel Ratzon and his women belong in the article. Their cult was about something quite different from burqas. Don't you agree? Ajnem (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Other beliefs / "Child abuse"
editThe section "Other beliefs" describes the group's attitude towards conventional medicine and mentions cases where the authorities became involved. This section ends with the statement: "Other cases of child abuse and neglect have been reported within the group." However, neither the alleged case of death from untreated flu nor the forced hospitalisation of a child that are mentioned in this section were due to "child abuse" and/or "neglect". In fact the opposite is the case - they are related to the parents' strongly held beliefs about what was right for their children. It is irrelevant whether the authorities concerned share those convictions or have other strongly held beliefs. One can make arguments that both sets of beliefs are true or false, however neither is abusive nor neglectful - they are both based on genuine concern for the wellbeing of the children.
If there *are* cases of actual child abuse or neglect then they should be specified, although not under "Other beliefs". Either way, this sentence should be removed from this location and, if supported by evidence, rewritten under a new heading "Child abuse and neglect". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.21.225 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)