Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 10 March 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Science & education / History / Religion / Demographics & ethnography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Misuse of Sources

(As the author (Matt Hirshberg) of one of the sources quoted (The Columbia Journalist article), I'm happy to see this discourse on the misuse of sources. My article was carefully researched and written to give as accurate an account as possible--I had no agenda other than reporting the truth. I did not enjoy seeing my words distorted to support one side or the other in a Misplaced Pages article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.203.167 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

After digging into the sources used in the Messianism section, I believe they are being incorrectly summarized at best, deliberately distorted at worst. I will quote the sentence, the source, and the problem with it.

• Article text: "While some have believed during the Rebbe's lifetime that Schneerson had the potential to be the Messiah" Source: Columbia Journalist

problem - The source does not say "some". In fact, it quotes Orthodox scholar David Berger saying "The vast majority of Lubavitcher emissaries believe that the rebbe is the Messiah." Abe Froman 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The part that you are quoting is a quote from Berger about beliefs nowadays. As readers of the messianism article would know he is one of a few people that say this. This source however does say that Some believed this during the Rebbe's lifetime, and some believe this nowadays. a point which is separate from the Berger quote. To make myself clearer, he is not saying that he found Berger to be correct, rather he is quoting Berger regarding Berger's beliefs nowadays. And he is also presenting his findings regarding the time during the Rebbe's lifetime and some believe this nowadays. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article text: "only a minute fringe group still believe that he is the Messiah" Source: Rachel Elior in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco

problem - The source does not say this. In fact, the source says a generational fight involving the entire movement is underway. To wit: "The split in the movement is between mainstream messianists and younger messianists. The mainstream messianists tend to be older... The younger messianists tend to be younger... They believe the Rebbe was moshiach..."

I did not see the text that was originally quoted in this source. However, this does not speak about current numbers. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article text: "and today, those beliefs have decreased within Chabad" Source: Jewish Week June 18th, 2004

problem The article does not unequivocally make this statement. In fact, the source notes the continuing belief among many in the Chabad community that the Rebbe was the messiah. Also, when speaking with non-chasidim, the article notes Chabad is not forthcoming with what may be their true beliefs on the topic. From this source:

"A decade later, Chabad leaders said only a small group of vocal messianic activists remain, though they continue to control the basement synagogue at Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Others, however, said the messianists are more prevalent than Chabad leaders admit. “Within the Lubavitch community, you still have a schism,” said Bryan Mark Rigg, an adjunct professor at Southern Methodist University who has been studying Chabad for several years. Chabad members often deny being messianists when speaking with non-chasidim but are part of this faction within the community, Rigg said." Abe Froman 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From this article "There are still some incorrigible messianists concentrated in Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad, the Lubavitch village in Israel, but their dwindling influence can be seen at conventions when Chabad emissaries gather in New York. The non-messianist shluchim fill the largest Brooklyn Marriott ballroom; the messianist emissaries fill a relatively small room in Crown Heights." --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

At best, we have inaccurate summarizing of these sources. At worst, they are being deliberately misused. This messianism passage cannot stand. It is untruthful, and paints a false picture that even its own sources oppose. Abe Froman 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides for the Rachel Elior quote which I cannot find in the listed source, each one stated what it was said to be stated as I wrote above. Furthermore, there are the following source which also state what was said before

• David Klinghoffer (author of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History ) who wrote in the forward on March 31, 2006 "some followers of Chabad's late spiritual leader, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, let it be known that they expected he would return and reveal himself as the Messiah. Thankfully, that fever dream has subsided." (A copy of this article can be found at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3392)
• the latest version of ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 18 p 149 "Schneersohn’s death punctured the messianic balloon, though it is estimated that about a quarter of the hard-core believers in Crown Heights and Kefar Ḥ abad continued to maintain that Schneersohn might yet be the Messiah, despite his death, a belief that became a lightning rod for criticism from the rest of the Jewish community, including fierce criticism from the Rebbe’s emissaries as well." which is a quarter of two communities and the emissaries which compose of most of lubavitch oppose it.
• The National Geographic feature on chabad states http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature4/index.html "A small, vocal faction of Lubavitchers believe that Schneerson is the Messiah and revere him as such."
• http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=3509 "the messianist camp, whose influence is decreasing"
• http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040629-0500-religion-lubavitch.html "Judging from a visit to the headquarters' basement synagogue, those proclaiming Schneerson as the Messiah today represent just a fraction of Lubavitch believers." "Out of hundreds of worshipers on a recent morning, a couple dozen or so leaped to their feet to join a dance and chant to up-tempo music, with one man hoisting a yellow banner depicting a crown and the word "Moshiach," Hebrew for Messiah." --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• http://www.forward.com/articles/hasidic-rapper-strives-to-stay-atop-the-charts/ "fringe group of Lubavitch Jews " --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are posting these additional sources. My beef was with the misuse of the sources I originally described in this section. Not these new sources. Abe Froman 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Abe Froman 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

These additional sources are many sources that say that the messianic group is a small vocal fringe group. This is not currently reflected in the article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Messianism Passage

I offer this passage as a compromise. It uses the same sources misused presently in the existing passage. it also adds the Forward article, but only uses its content as an example.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and is still causing a rift within Chabad. Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, and reached its apogee among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death, and shortly thereafter. Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. The dispute over his status has become a generational rift, with younger Chabad members more likely to believe Schneerson was the messiah. Older members are less likely to hold this belief. Current Chabad leaders publically discount identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. However, according to Chabad researcher Bryan Mark Rigg messianists are more prevalent than Chabad leaders admit. The true scope of the trend to identify Schneerson as the messiah is also obscured by Chabad members who often deny being messianists when speaking with non-chasidim, but are part of this faction within the community.

Abe Froman 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on my comments above and the new sources which I brought above, this will not work. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit of the compromise passage because it removes the context of generational conflict over Schneerson within Chabad. The dispute over Schneerson's status is linked to a generational conflict in sources you used yourself. A cardinal problem in this messianism section, until I edited it, was sweeping statements about Chabad. It is incorrect to make generalizations about Chabad's belief in Schneerson's status when we have verifiable sources that attest to the variegated nature of Chabad's membership opinions on the matter. I also think Bryan Mark Rigg's material should be included. You used this source previously, so I think it is fair to use it again. I think the passage should be amended to read as follows.

Menachem Mendel Schneerson placed special emphasis on one of Maimonides 13 principles of faith in Judaism: to believe in the coming of a Messiah. Schneerson, especially towad the end of his life, expressed his yearning for his imminent arrival. Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and is still causing a rift within Chabad. Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, and reached its apogee among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death, and shortly thereafter. Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. Academic researchers have reported the dispute over his status has become a generational rift within Chabad, with younger Chabad members living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel more likely to believe Schneerson was the messiah. Older members are less likely to hold this belief. Current Chabad leaders publically discount identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway.

While Chabad does not officially endorse the view that Schneerson was the messiah, Chabad carefully hedges the topic by not explicitly denying it either. According to Chabad researcher Bryan Mark Rigg, "Messianists are more prevalent than Chabad leaders admit... Chabad members often deny being messianists when speaking with non-chasidim, but are part of this faction within the community." Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah.

Abe Froman 15:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They have explicitly denied it. See the quote from zalman shmotkin (the chabad spokesperson) quoted in the messianism article and you have all these articles quoted above contradicting Brigg. since 25 percent of crown heights and kfar chabad is only a few thousand people and all sources place the number of chabad members worldwide at at least 200,000, this fringe group is over represented. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Your puzzling "denial" is classic example of non-denial denial. Like I have found with every one of your other sources, the content has been mis-summarized. Like Bryan Riggs has written, Chabad hedges on this issue. Your source, Zalman, actually says "People don't actually believe the Rebbe is the Messiah," questioning the definition of "believe." They say they believe, but really they want, they hope, they pray. But believe this, no." This is Zalman questioning what it is to "believe", according the Washington Post which characterized his comments in their interview with him. This is not a denial. You are again using distorted summaries to trump the third party sources you yourself happily used until someone actually read them, and found they say something completely different than what you originally summarized.

2. Your other alleged source, Fishkoff, has written of the very beliefs you claim she denies for the Jewish Telegraph Agency. To wit: "...a vocal minority of Lubavitchers who, against the wishes of the Chabad leadership, publicly declare that Schneerson is the Messiah."

Until you whitewashed my entry, the passage accurately reflected the fact that a vocal minority believe this. Now nobody knows what your sources are saying, since your own distorted summaries of their findings are in the article again.

3. Removing the messianist poster without comment was wrong. It labels the Rebbe Moshiach 3 times, and was plastered all over Crown Heights. Yet somehow a chabad spokesman's non-denial denial must make us pretend it does not exist?

Since your own sources disagree with your tendentious minimization of this well documented trend within the community, I can only assume you are mis-using these sources for some tendentious end. I cannot support this. Please address why your own sources disagree with your summaries of the messianism dispute. Abe Froman 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. here he says it clearer "Of those who agitate for the belief that the rebbe was or is the messiah, Rabbi Shmotkin, the Chabad spokesman, said Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have “repeatedly condemned them in the strongest possible terms.”" http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9558

2. correct against the wishes of chabad leadership, you have just proved my point in #1.

3. nobody says that it does not exist. A poster by individuals is not a way to represent this section.

My own sources do not disagree as much as you attempt to twist and distort them. Either way, this should not be the place of this 'debate', rather it should be in the messianism page. Here should just be a short summary of what chabad messianism is, as I had edited in my last edit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out why your actions are inappropriate. Your replies, 1, 2, and 3, assume this page should carry only the opinions of official Chabad spokesmen. Misplaced Pages is not censored by organized religion. As I have shown, and you yourself acknowledge, using your own sources, 25% of Chabad believes Schneerson was the messiah. Your whitewashing of the article to conform to 'official' Chabad opinion is, admittedly, censorship of wikipedia. Abe Froman 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that, do not twist my words. 25% of crown heights and kfar chabad which is a minute fraction of chabad believe this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)e

* You replied "Rabbi Shmotkin, the Chabad spokesman, said Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have “repeatedly condemned them in the strongest possible terms.”"

* You replied "correct against the wishes of chabad leadership"

* You replied "nobody says that it does not exist."

yes and I sourced this. and the messianist ar against the wishes of chabad leadership as shown that they have condemmed it. They condemmed it so it must exist, however at the scale that all the sources say which is a vocal fringe group. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How does a poster "plastered all over Crown Heights" indicate the size of the faction that produced it? How many people do you think it takes to put up 100 or so copies of a poster? Now if you cited a well-sourced turnout for the event the poster was promoting, that could be a valid indication of its influence. Zsero 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The poster was in reply to a passage in the section claiming material linking Schneerson to moshiach is not available. Here we have a poster that makes this link three times. Abe Froman 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that there was no link. The sources have said it is vocal fringe group that link it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since crafting this page to conform with what Pinchas's "official Chabad spokesmen" claim Chabad members must believe is a form of censorship by organized religion, I propose my compromise passage be reinstated. It uses the exact same sources Pinchas used previously. It accurately shows the dispute is generational, and that the belief as become less popular with time. Abe Froman 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are distorting my words. I listed many many sources from non chabad sources that said this. The chabad spokesperson source was brought due to your claim that chabad leadership did not condemn the messianists. Your version should not stay for the reasons that I listed above and in my edit summaries. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post says your "chabad spokesmen" was "questioning the definition of 'believe.'" This is an example of non-denial denial. Your sole other source, Sue Fishkoff, has also written that a "vocal minority of Lubavitchers who, against the wishes of the Chabad leadership, publicly declare that Schneerson is the Messiah." Will you please stop censoring Misplaced Pages to conform to what "official Chabad spokesmen" claim Chabad must believe. My compromise passage covers all of the bases. Abe Froman 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of his words, however my next quote from him makes it clear that they condemned it in the strongest of terms. Sue is agreeing with the above by saying that the chabad leadership disagrees. I brought many others sources above regarding the extent of the messianists, which you are conveniently ignoring. And as I stated above and in my edit summaries, this is not the place for debate over this, the messianism article is. Here should just be a summary of what messianism is as my last edit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinchas's new passage is still whitewash. It uses weasel words (some, etc) when even Pinchas agrees a numerical approximation of messianists in Chabad is available ( 25% according to Encyclopedia Judaica). I propose this new passage:

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. Current Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Abe Froman 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the 25% figure is for crown heights and kfar chabad which are the bases of the messianists. As I had brought sources above regarding the rest of chabad, the total percentage is much much smaller.

This new version is better but still not good, because it gives partial numbers and contains too many items which there are disagreements abouts which is the the place in a summary of an entire movement. A side point is that this image could not have been from 2007 as it states on it the 102cd birthday which was several years before. The version that I gave in the article explains what messianism is without going into the nitty gritty of the endless debates as to numbers which is best left for the main article.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinchas is right here. We should not list debates regarding the prevalence of Lubavitchers that believe that their Rebbe will be the Messiah. Rather it should just explain what Chabad Messianism is and leave the rest of the material for the Chabad Messianism article. Chocolatepizza 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not a debate. This messiah business is a fact, conceded by Pinchas and Encyclopedia Judaica. This belief is a fact among many ( 25% in two areas ) Chabad members. I disagree with hiving this off the the Messianism article. It should be covered here, not in multiple linked articles. I propose the following:

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

One paragraph is not unreasonable, given this topic has caused a rift within the movement. It is unreasonable to whitewash it. Abe Froman 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Abe, you are missing the point of a summary. Instead you are including select commentary and opinions without including the sources saying that it a vocal fringe group for example. Additionally, your summary is leaving out some very important information.

1. They believed he was the potential to be Messiah (see the Columbia Spectator article)
2. Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad is only a minority of Chabad. And a 1/4 of Crown Heights is 3000 people, a fraction of the 200,000 members of chabad, thus making that number a fringe or minority group, as the source brought by Pinchas show.
3. It should read has declined to a vocal fringe group according to the sources brought by Pinchas.
4. You write oppose "publicly", that is a false statement, as no one makes that distinction in the above quoted articles.

Therefore Pinchas's version is correct. Chocolatepizza 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable. My paragraph uses the same sources Pinchas used, but apparently it does not say what you two desire. The whitwashed Pinchas/Chocolatepizza approved paragraph I just replaced carried not a single source. Explain to Misplaced Pages how removing sources improves the product? I replaced the wash' with my paragraph, one lonely graph', that uses the same sources Pinchas and the other whitewashers on this page happily used previously. Admins should not behave in this tendentious manner. Abe Froman 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to include Yehoishophot Oliver in your conspiracy list of WP:CABAL members. But seriously, I just gave a number of reasons why your version was wrong. You did not respond to any of the concerns. Plus this article is not the place for your version. Chocolatepizza 01:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

*According to the text of the Columbia Spectator source Chocolatepizza just quoted, "a vast majority believed Schneerson was the messiah." Columbia Spectator's reporting on this is notable, and verifiable, as conceded by Chocolatepizza. Yet he does not allow contrary facts from the same source to be included, as it does not meet his tendentious notion about how this matter should be presented.

* Please source your statement that only 3000 Chabad members live in Crown Heights. I hadn't laughed that hard all day.

* Finally, how do you define 25% as a "fringe group"? Do you call a quarter the "fringe" of a dollar?

Abe Froman 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Columbia Spectator sourcs, Berger says a vast majority (not that you need that article to tell you that), but as Pinchas pointed out above, the writer finishes off that 'some believe.
• Read the Encyclopaedia Judaica source, 1/4 of crown heights believes that the Rebbe is Moshiach. I did not say that the entire chabad community is 1/4 of itself like you just attemted to quote me.
• if there are at least 200,000 lubavitchers and only a few thousand meshichistem, then they are a fringe group, that is besides for all the sources brought that use that term. Chocolatepizza 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you are violating policy along with Pinchas. Your own Columbia Spectator source indeed says the "vast majority" believed Schneerson was the messiah. On what basis, other than pure POV of course, may parts of your own sources be used in this article, and not others? Abe Froman 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, thank YOU for admitting that you are violating policy along with... wait there is nobody else that agrees with you. Your own Columbia Spectator source concludes that some believe it. On what bases other than pure POV of course, may parts of your own sources be used in this article, and not others? Oh, so we should include both, and what about the sources that say that it is a vocal fringe group? As everyone has stated until now, this discussion is best left for the full article and here should just be a summary of what messianism is. Chocolatepizza 02:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I am looking for a name for my cabal to add to the Misplaced Pages:List of cabals, since the name I really wanted was ruled out as being an anti-semitic code word. Chocolatepizza 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All I see here are two editors who nearly exclusively edit Chabad topics, disrupting what should be a sectarian free presentation of Chabad's beliefs. The fact that only "chabad spokesmen" ( according to Pinchas ) and apologist quoting ( according to ChocoPizza and Pinchas ) may be used in this article fuels this belief. The messianism passage is a mess. It has:

* Standard Rebbe boilerplate in the intro that doesn't belong.

* A nonsensical messianism sentence that carries not a single source, but don't try to add any. Pinchas and Choco own this article.

* A concluding paragraph that is answering some charge one of you probably deleted during some past whitewash.

Abe Froman 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To show other editors the absurdity the two of you are going to, please point out what is wrong with this compromise paragraph. Bear in mind, every source has been used by Pinchas or ChocoPizza before in this article. Parts of this paragraph, in fact, were written by Pinchas himself.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Abe Froman 02:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you forgot Yehoishophot Oliver. As a senior member of the cabal he is sure to get offended, and Zsero didn't like your poster, so I guess that he is also a cabal member. Meshulam didn't agree to help you after you canvassed for his support and David Spart just ignored you completely after you canvassed for his support. Wait I just got an urgent message that Meshulam and David have joined the cabal! It must be lonely going against consensus. All I see here is Abe Froman repeating the same things over and over again, after being explained over and over again why he is wrong. Chocolatepizza 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not my fault whitewashing made this article a pain to edit, and drives away editors. Please respond to the questions I asked above. Abe Froman 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't joined any cabal. I was sitting this one out. But I see that some of you are determined to drag me into this one. Since the Chabad article was split, I see no need to make a big deal out of the Messianist issue in the main article. There is a time and a place for everything. Nonetheless, the current version (and I don't know whose version it is) is terrible. There are bigtime grammar mistakes, bigtime ambiguities. Also, I dispute the implication that Chabad "leaders" are against this. Surely, some of the leaders are against it. Still others are for it. It all depends on who you think is a leader. And it isn't up to Misplaced Pages to make that decision (which would be POV in the extreme). But I can see that a consensus has already formed here. There is no reason for me to get involved, because there are already many qualified editors who are handling the situation. --Meshulam 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The current messianism passage does not make any sense. It is answering arguments that are no longer there, uses zero sources, and presents a distorted summary of the sources that have been used there in the past. Please point out what is wrong with this compromise paragraph. Bear in mind, every source has been used by Pinchas or ChocoPizza before in this article. Parts of this paragraph, in fact, were written by Pinchas himself.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Abe Froman 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I put this paragraph into the article. It uses the same citations used before, and at one paragraph compared to three before, is more brief. Abe Froman 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As was explained to you above by multiple editors, your version is not good. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple? You mean yourself, and one other. Meshulam supports the assertion that the current passage is a topical mess. I offered a compromise, you refuse to engage it. Try editing the passage instead of blank reverting to a passage that doesn't say what your own sources claim. Abe Froman 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets go through compromise line by line.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad.

The source used by this sentence was put into this article and defended by Pinchas.

Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter.

The Matthew Hirshberg article used by this sentence was put into this article and defended by Pinchas.

Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared.

Again, the sources used for this statement were used and defended by Pinchas.

Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway.

This sentence was actually written by Pinchas, and it is sourced by a Forward article which pinchas concedes describes a lawsuit at Chabad headquuarters over the messianism issue.

Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah.

Pinchas is the source for this statement. He concedes the content of this sentence.

Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Pinchas wrote this sentence.

This collection of sources are from Pinchas. He has inserted and defended these sources in the past. 1/3rd of this passage was written by him. If this isn't a compromise to him, I am not sure Pinchas would ever accept anything.

Abe Froman 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with Pinchas' new sentence in the passage "Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have repeatedly condemned the Meshichists in the strongest possible terms."

The problem is, in no place in his source is this statement made, or implied. In fact, the source states: "Though Rabbi Schneerson rejected the idea that he was the moshiach, or messiah, supporters of the idea continued promoting it in his final years, especially after a stroke limited his ability to communicate. Nor did his death quiet the fervor, with the messianists saying he would return from the dead as King Messiah."

This sentence should be altered to fit what the source says, or removed. Abe Froman 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As was explained to you with sources, this issue is far more complex to summaries what is happening in a summary. Therefore there is the separate article. Here should just be a summary of what chabad messianism is. And as others have pointed out, there are serious issues with your version and the way you are twisting things. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AChabad&diff=148573873&oldid=148513551 this diff] where Chocolatepizza pointed out many flaws in your version.

And the chabad leaders paragraph that you are misquoting says "Of those who agitate for the belief that the rebbe was or is the messiah, Rabbi Shmotkin, the Chabad spokesman, said Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have “repeatedly condemned them in the strongest possible terms.”". Sure you can quote other parts not related to chabad leaders. However when quoting chabad leaders, please quote the part that speaks about them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, rewriting this article to only agree with what "chabad leaders" say is censhorship, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. Your own sources disagree with your version. Your inability to compromise will only get you reverted once again. Abe Froman 14:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You are misquoting me out of context and twisting things. Your behavior is verging on disruptive editing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my interpretation of your mis-summarization of sources in this article. I find your accusation of disruptive editing a red herring. You are not addressing your contradictory actions in cherry-picking quotes from your sources to support POV. I am not the only editor to have a problem with your misplaced ownership of this article. I casually counted at least 12 other disputes involving your edits on Chabad. Abe Froman 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Misdirecting the attention to other discussions is not going to help you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After a quick glance over this discussion, it seems User:Abe.Froman has some very valid points, one of which is how sources are used. Shlomke 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that I've been away for a very long time and thus have not participated in this discussion. Shlomke 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN situation?

We know there have been some edit conflicts in this article. However, I am curious to know if the other editors around here feel there is a WP:OWN environment around these edit conflicts. Please avoid accusatory tones, and remain civil... and be honest: Do you feel this a regular edit conflict or a WP:OWN situation? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There are definitely issues here, but OWN is not one of them. Nobody here is rejecting edits simply because of who made them, which is a minimum definition for OWN. Zsero 04:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Own may actually be one of the issue's involved here. Shlomke 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Schneerson's death section

Some mention of the groups that split from Chabad. In their eyes they are the true heirs of the chabad idealogy. 202.161.29.254 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What groups would they be? You're not talking about Shimmy Deutsch and his dozen followers, if that many? Zsero 17:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad

See Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad IZAK 11:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seder hishtalshelus

In the article on Seder hishtalshelus, the name of the article and some of the spellings in the article should (I think) be changed. As in the title, change to Seder hishtalshelut. I would like to make the changes, but since the article is obvious a Chabad article, I thought it best to ask here first. Experience has shown that sometimes people get angry when surprised by changes. So if anyone has objections to that, let me know on my talk page.

By the way, the article, Seder hishtalshelus, is very good, but has no sourcing. If anyone here knows Shaar HaYichid will enough to insert at least some sourcing, that could prevent someone from blanking the page. Kwork 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think it's a chabad article? And why do you think it should be changed to Seder hishtalshelut? Yehoishophot Oliver 04:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I think it is Chabad is that is seems based on Shaar HaYichud, and the history of the article showes it was originally written by user Spollen770 - Spollen being a Chabad rabbi I know of, and 770 being Chabad central.

From what I have seen the Chabad article itself, uses also the "t" to replace the "s" endings, as does the Kabbalah article, and many other articles also. For those readers who might do not understand the difference, it can lead to search problems: for instance Daas links to an Indian movie, and Daat to the correct Chassidic and Kabbalistic term. But I would not describe the problem as an emergency, and if you think it best not to make any changes to the Seder hishtalshelus article I will leave it alone. Kwork 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the sfardi pronunciation has been formally accepted according to the wikipedia rules, so I think the spelling can be left alone. This would appear comparable to the rule that if an American originally writes an article, it is allowed to stay with its American grammar, and if a Brit. originally writes an article, it is allowed to stay with its British grammar. --Yehoishophot Oliver 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

okay. I will not change it. Kwork 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

The statement "He was at the beginning criticized for starting the Baal Teshuvah movement" needs a source. As far as I know, nobody opposed outreach completely; it's just that certain gedolim held that a person shouldn't be involved in it until he has enough of a background in learning (is well-grounded himself in Torah). Also, it's possible it's not for everyone; cetain people should be sitting and learning in the beis medrash because their rosh yeshiva sees in them the potential to be future gedolai Torah. I'm erasing this line until someone verifies it. Yonoson 06:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies of Chabad

Message for Netzach: If you look under Controversies of Chabad, you'll see that the controversies their are divided into a number of categories: Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Joseph Issac Schneersohn, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Chabad messianism, Public Menorahs, Satmar-Chabad disturbances, Control of 770 Eastern Parkway. The main Chabad article should briefly mention these controversies. Why should the controversies about the Alter Rebbe and the last Rebbe be mentioned but not the controversies about the Rebbe Rayatz? Next time please give a reason for undoing my addition. Yonoson2 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OH MY REBBE

What are you doing? WHy are completely reverting all my careful changes without discussion? This cant be allowed! Stop it. Put my changes back please, stop edit warring and we can discuss this! Lobojo (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps make one or two changes per edit, instead of bombarding the other editors with many controversial changes all at once? Thanks. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was making one or two edits per change. until he reverted everthing. Then he made loads and I reverted that, so you cant blame me for that. I'll show you how it was one last time, and can people please no auto revert but consider the changes on the diff page please. Lobojo (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my changes in my edit summaries. Your title of this sections shows a lack of seriousness and can be taken as trolling. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to discuss the fact that many followers of the late Rebbe believed him to be the Messiah, to the point that some of them sat vigil by his grave waiting for him to rise. Even if this point of view has waned, it was a source of profound division within the Chabad movement, and was seen by some as outright blasphemy. It can't be glossed over. Also, succession after his death was very murky, and that, too, should be addressed. 47hinge (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It does discuss messiahship, etc. Do you have a source for this "sitting vigil" claim? Everyone knows that there was no succession, and the article makes that clear. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Chabad/Lubavitch and problem with the lead

There are big problems in that Chabad and Lubavitch are extensively confused in this article. While I think separating them would be too much, it need to be fixed. EG: "There have been seven Rebbe's of CHabad" NO there have be dozens of Chabad rebbes, but only seven Rebbes of Lubavitch.

The lead is no good. The lead should be a praise of the entire article. As it stands it simply talks about the naming. I will try to reword it in a satisfactory fashion. Lobojo (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chabad and Lubavitch are not two separate entities. The movement is Chabad-Lubavitch so I'm not sure what you mean differentiating them. I can support many of your changes which I believe are improvements. But there are problematic edits as well, such as calling Shneur Zalman "Liadi". Liadi is the town he was from, no one refers to him as "Liadi" as if that's his surname. It would be like referring to "Joe of Chicago" as Chicago. --MPerel 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it is a misnomer. Chabad was the revolution in Chassidus started by the alter Rebbe. There were 6 or 7 different branches on Chabad, the last one to die out was Lubavitch. Indeed, most of the people who helped bring the sixth rebbe to NY were not Lubavs, they were Chabad, but followers of the other branches that had died out. But the issue is tricky in the naming of the wikipedia article since from the non-historical perspective, based on mere common usage they are the same thing. So while the article should remain the same, it must carefully point out that Chabad is the philosophy while Lubavithch is the major extant grouping of followers of that philosophy. Sadly all the work I put in, making careful edits has been completely wiped 4 times now, and I hesitate to make any further edits since I will either be working on the bad version that PinchasC keeps reverting to, or I wil keep having to revert it just to keep working on it and get banned. Dosen't wikipedia have an answer to this kind of thing? Lobojo (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Chocolatepizza was the one that reverted your edits, not myself. When you correct it, feel free to remove this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to travel and have limited time to address now, but when I return (in a week) I'll try to help on this page. We can walk through and discuss the edits at a slower pace. --MPerel 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Editors are asked to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the subject matter before making vast changes to the version refined by hundreds of editors. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Look PinchasC, you don't need to patronise me. If you think that Chabad=Lubavitch you certainly are in no position to. you reverted every single change I made, both here and on the other article I edited. You have failed to engage on the talk page. You have now completely reverted my edits (every single one) four times now. This article is in a serious state of neglect. It will not do. I did not make major changes to the article, I made minor ones. The ownership by you of Chabad related articles has already gone to mediation, yet you and ChocolatePizza and Shlomke are becoming ever more brazen. Lobojo (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that MPerel and Yehoishophot Oliver left the above comments, not myself. When you correct it, feel free to remove this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, sorry PinchasChocolate, I mean PizzaC, I mean PinchasOliver. hahaha Lobojo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough

I spend time making a lot of small improvements to this article. I added numerous sources and fixed many small errors. You do not OWN this article, do we have do a RFC to get these true believers under control so we can edit here? You need to discuss the changes here one by one. Lobojo (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY. "Discuss the changes here one by one" before you make them. Thanks in advance. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you do not own this article, on wikipedia people are alowed to make improvments, you need a reason to remove sourced info. I can see we are simly headed towards another RFC here, since you wont even pretend to play fair. Lobojo (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been owned for years by a few select editors. If it needs an RFC, I am game. Abe Froman (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I'm going to have one more go at repairing these articles, and removing all the crap that keeps creeping back in. If the 3 or 4 Chabad POV editors continue their shameless display that has continued since the inception of wikipedia, we should certainly make some strides in the direction you suggest. Th evidence is utterly compelling. Lobojo (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Give it your best shot. I estimate that they will revert you within hours without explanation, or bogus reasons. Best to have a fresh set of evidence for the RfC. Abe Froman (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A million Lubavs!!

Ridiculous. Totally absurd. This nonsense claim is sourced to the Winnipeg Free Press, where that number is postulated by some local nobody chabad rabbi and some non-scholarly fuzz-book about great Jewish men. I dint have a copy but the google books clearly implies that at the very least the page reference is wrong.

Simply from common sense this is clearly untrue, the article on Haredi Judaism finds about 850,000 Harderim maximum worldwide, so the idea that there are a million lubavs is insane, and the person that keeps adding this knows it.

Bold claims need the best sources around, clearly false claims need superdooper ones and these don't count. Lobojo (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some work clarifying the language and adding additional estimates. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead (Again, Sigh)

The lead needs to be a consise summary of the rest of the article, this is composition 101. All the stuff about the names needs to be cut down to a minimum, and all non english charachters must go, as most people cannot read them or even display them properly, and it looks super ugly and puts people off. Lobojo (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Care with sources

Someone removed the lead to the philosophy section and replaced it completely with apparent OR, the only thing they kept was the reference which of course is now a false reference!!

Please be very careful in future, whoever did that. Lobojo (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Again somebody has completely changed a section (the first paragraph of "Bringing the messiah" but kept the source!! This is a disaster if this happens! It all has to go back. Lobojo (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The differnce between Chabad and Lubavitch

As noted elsewhere, Lubavitch is merely ONE OF the branches of Chabad, so when listing the Rebbes of the main branch we need to be pedantic about calling them Lubavitch. Lobojo (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to lobojo’s edits

1. Why do you remove the fact that Lubavitch is from the town by that name? seems relevant to me, but you didn’t see fit to explain 2. why do you remove the years that the Chabad leaders lived? That’s relevant info., , but you didn’t see fit to explain that removal 3. why do you remove the Hebrew "חכמה, בינה דעת – Chabad is a Hebrew term, so it’s relevant so those who read Hebrew can see the meaning of the acronym in the original 4. how can you removed sourced estimations of the movement’s size? Because they’re not correct in your POV? 5. Why do you remove this line: “The philosophy guides the individual in their daily life and recognizes the importance of the individual deed.” 6. Here you refer to the Hebrew and Yiddish forms of the adherents to the Lubavitch movement as “ugly”, when it’s merely factual. You also see fit to remove the internal link to Hasidic philosophy, when it is clearly a legit. explanation, and you again remove the years of a well-known personage (the Baal Shem Tov) when that’s accepted enclyopedia practice. You disagree with the statement that Chabad customs are heavily lurianic, and change that to a reference to the philosophy of Chabad, that it “incoproting (sic) some” Lurianic Kabbala – why do you change this, when the topic of the sentence was the customs, not the philosophy. 7. Here you strangely see fit to remove the sourced and relevant phrase that Chabad methodized an understanding of “the purpose of the world's creation, and the importance of every individual person.” Why don’t you explain this removal for us? 8. Here you see fit to change a sourced statement, and you instead state that Chasidus is only “partly” based on Kabala. What’s your source for this, when there’s already a source stating otherwise, that it’s based on Kabala, period? You also for some strange reason think that quoting a few relevant lines from a book may be copyvio, why is that exactly? 9. Here you demonstrate a) your unbelievably stupendous ignorance in the most basic info. Related to Chabad by referring to Rabbi Shneur Zalman az “liadi” as if that were his last name, when in fact it was the city in which he lived. This makes it highly surprising that you are making any edits in the Chabad section in general, never mind of such number and frequency. 10. you remove a section explaining the Rebbe’s advocacy of usage of modern technology, saying “this is not philoposhy (sic) it is utility”. Weiner, the quoted source, in the quoted reference, explained it as a philosophy (as did the Rebbe himself, of course, many times) so your POV on the matter is irrelevant. 11. Here he sees fit to insist that it’s not correct to use the term The Rebbes of Chabad and insists on changing it to The Rebbes of Lubavitch when he knows (or does he?) that neither expression is entirely accurate, as the Alter Rebbe never lived in Lubavitch. 12. Here he removes relevant information abou the Baal Shem Tov, saying “no no, besht not a part of the lubavitch chain” when the paragraph didn’t claim that he was, but rather stated that “Chabad traces its roots back to the beginnings of Hasidic Judaism”, a patently ture statement, as the Alter Rebbe was one of the prime students of the Maggid of Mezritch, the successor of the Baal Shem Tov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehoishophot Oliver (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff is shocking. I cannot believe that you simply reverted 2 hours of careful work in one fell swoop. You have gone too far this time. Lobojo (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On number 3 above, chochma, binah, da'at are linked to other articles which have the Hebrew in them so I don't think it's necessary to include in this article. --MPerel 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Same with the Russian for Lyubavichi, that level of detail can be found in the linked article and is therefore unnecessary to include in this article. --MPerel 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Full response

1. I didn't, I just took it out of the lead, as it is a trivial fact and belongs in the naming section.
2. I don't know what you are referring to, that information is still in the article.
3. As I explained, I removed the Hebrew since 99% of people can neither read it nor display it, and again it belong in the trivia section, the Chabad is STILL defined in the lead.
4. I explained above that I removed the "1 million" from the lead since it is silly and very poorly sourced. If you get a better source I would support putting it in the "numbers" section.
5. I removed that line because because the first part it doesn't add anything to the article, although I wouldn't strongly object to you putting it back in.
6. Again, lots of non-English script in the lead looks ugly, and cant be viewed by 99% of people anyway. I don't know what link you are referring to. I don't know why the Besht was in the list of Chabad rabbis, he doesn't belong there whatever you may thing.
7. I removed that because it is enough to say the "whole world", the other two clauses are rhetorical in tone and don't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article.
8. Again, the phrasing is rhetorical and needs to be summarised and contextualised for an encyclopedia article. And it clearly is only party based on Kabbalah, bible Talmud etc are also involved.
9. I am not going to respond to personal attacks in any way. However, he is referred to as "Liadi" throughout academic literature.
10. If you really think that "using computers" is some great philosophical idea, then you are free to replace that line, I just felt that it was silly.
11. Sigh, yes but Lubavitch claim them as part of their tradition. If it says Chabad, then we have to add a dozen other names, and a complicated tree. I wouldn't object to that, but as it stands it is just Lubavitch.
12. The Besht has no place in a list of the Rebbes of Lubavitch, it is mentioned elsewhere that Chabad is part of hasidism and is rooted in the Besht.

All these issues are entirely trivial and should be discussed. Your lack of respect for wikipeida process is a disgrace. Your behaviour is the most brazen I have ever seen on wikipedia. Lobojo (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The above enumerated issues and responses is a good start. Let's try to set aside any personal comments and rationally go through Lobojo's edits. Both pre-change and post-change versions have pluses and minuses, so can we agree not to edit war and instead take time to slowly walk through the edits? I don't have time at the moment to address every edit all at once, but I'll start with my first question for Lobojo. You modified the intro to read that Chabad is "the third largest Hasidic sect" and you gave two sources. Could you post to the talk page exactly what those sources state? And which two Hasidic sects do they claim are first and second? I just find it hard to believe they're the third largest sect since Chabad's oureach programs pull in large numbers of marginally observant or even nonobservant Jews that I don't see happening at the same level with other Hasidic groups. In general, I think Lobojo's version of the intro is cleaner and simpler. I'll comment on the rest after I have more chance to read through it more carefully. --MPerel 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, thanks for helping out. While you are here, please take a look at my edit summaries from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chabad&diff=172401561&oldid=172299711 and the next 21 edits. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. --MPerel 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of adherents

The 200,000 count comes from a book published 14 years ago. Are there any other more updated statistics? --MPerel 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the references there is also a reference from 10 years ago. I have now found http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12284821/ which is an AP story from 2006 which has the 200,000 figure, and http://www.shmais.com/pages.cfm?page=chabaddetail&ID=812 which is a copy of the text of a Jpost article, published in 2004 which has the million figure. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Lobojo has been removing alot of the references for example for the number of adherents or the number of camps. Check the articles previous version to see the sources. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the 200,000 figure, I removed the 1 million figure. The 200,000 figure is fine and well sourced. Lobojo (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not characterize Lobojo's edits as removing "A lot of references". If anything, he is improving this article from a promotional pamphlet into a real Misplaced Pages article. Abe Froman (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Order and grouping of sections

Would anyone object to ordering the main sections according to something like the following? This would match the intro and appear more organized, imo.

History (subsume the list of rebbes under this and also move Naming to this section)

Philosophy

Customs

Current activities

Controversies

--MPerel 06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the article now in my view, is that it ignores the other branches of Chabad more-or-less completely. This and the fact that the Rebbes list and the history could really be merged without too much trouble. I think in the mean time the order is best left as is, since Chabad is primarily a philosophy and only later a group of sects. I think the philosophy section is just about OK, but the history section is very substandard due to the ommisions. Lobojo (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article as it stood before Lobojo started editing reflected only the "official" Chabad spokesmen, whatever that means in a movement that has no "official" leader. Abe Froman (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Chabad Institutions Section

I fail to see how removing detail about Chabad institutions worldwide improves the article. After this edit, the article is simply left with a number, with no context. I am at a loss to explain it. Perhaps the editor, Chocolatepizza, can explain why he thinks less is more in an encyclopedia. Abe Froman (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo's/David Spart's count is simply wrong as was pointed out back in April when David Spart introduced his original research number. See above Talk:Chabad#Revisions. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That discussion thread does not address my concern. The material you reverted was anchored by a link that broke out Chabad instiutions by type and country. It came from Chabad itself . You swapped a detailed rendering of the worldwide movement for an out-of-context number ripped from the pages of National Geographic. I do not see it as an improvement. Can you please consider adding back the breakout by institution and country, as this information is readily available? Abe Froman (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The count by David Spart along with its "detailed" rendering is not accurate as was pointed out in April when the edit was first made. Would you like more sources for the 3,300 number and 70 countries? I mean is National Geographic not a reliable source? Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please address the matter I am actually talking about. I am asking for a return to a breakout of institution type by country. I don't care if the information comes from NG or Chabad, but it was wrong to remove it. The onus is on the removing editor to supplant or replace what they revert. Replacing the deleted content with a number lacking context like the prior numbers did does not serve the article. Abe Froman (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

When removing inaccurate information, I do not need to replace it with similar information. The previous numbers listed were clearly wrong and original research contradicting every published number given by anyone. It is not better to have inaccurate information rather than no information. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to compromise with you, but you are not being reasonable. Since I care about this article, I'll simply tally the institutions listed on the Chabad website and break out by country and institution, as existed before your edit. Abe Froman (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted David Spart by email, and he has just sent me a copy of a speadsheet where he talied the figures. I will go through it and make so checks, perhaps we could split it up and get the actual figures. Lobojo (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the 70 number is wrong, I have a count of 65 maybe 66 if you include Peutro Rico as a country. Lobojo (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Count again. However your count is original research. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous! Counting isn't research, the information is all on Chabad.org we just need to count up what is there. It is as ludicrous as arguing that you need a source to say that there are 48 contiguous states because counting them would be OR! Lobojo (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There might be different definitions of a center. Are you counting camps, schools, mikvahs etc.? Is their directory updated? Even Bill Clinton gave a number of 2,000 institutions in 1994. That is more that David Spart's count in 2007. Use published numbers not your own version of counting. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Chabad.org which is where David Spart claimed to have taken his numbers from it is written: http://www.chabad.org/global/about/article_cdo/aid/36226/jewish/Overview.htm Today 4,000 full-time emissary families apply 250 year-old principles and philosophy to direct more than 3,300 institutions (and a workforce that numbers in the tens of thousands) dedicated to the welfare of the Jewish people worldwide. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

David Spart's language was institution". I will clarify that with him, but I asume it means "establishents", including chuls and chadbad houses and mikvah and school and such , but excluding summer camps say unless they were actual physical places. I think that was explicit in the language. From what I have checked so far there are some mistakes. Spart extimated the number of Cities in Austarlia to be about 30 when infact it is only 15 since he didn't apparantly realise that all the establishments in Victoria are in Melbourne suberbs. Of the other ones I have checked so far, there are small errors, which may be his, or may be due to updatets. The reason I (and others) think this is important is because I have seen published numbers ranging from 1000 to 5000, so much for published numbers. The Chabad directory is by definition the most updated and complete guide to Chabad institutions in the world. Lobojo (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That number is nice but it doesnt give us any of the interesting detail that Spart's number gave. It is certainly approriate to have both versions we could even have a table. If the numbers dont agree we could offer explainantions. Lobojo (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While the chabad.org directory may be the most accurate of the directories currently online, it does not mean that it is complete. I see a notice on their directory that they are in the process of upgrading it. My definition of an institution or yours does not matter, neither does it matter if the online directory is complete or not, only published reliable sources matter. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A million Lubavs!! Revisited

The source you give only says that there might be up to a million Jews who use their services on Yom Kippur. This is not a number for adherents. The 200,000 figure is well sourced and pertains to adherents. This is an erroneous conflation of adherents and customers who drive to shul once a year to hear Shofar. This distinction must be clear and a journal would be a much better source for demographic detail that a sideways journalistic comment. Lobojo (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording has been revised. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Source?

CP you say that there is an incorrectly cited source? You made these edits, and reverted to them overriding a number of improvements. Which is the problematic source? People are not making up sources, it is too much work. If you are correct what probably occurred was a mix up along the way, or possibly on the part of the person who inserted it. We need to asume good faith. For the time being while we work it out (seeing as how the material is innocuous and has no BLP concerns) we can add fact tags.

It ceratinly was not a reason to revert the other edits I made, all the best. Lobojo (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is true

"Lubavitch is the only extant branch of a family of Hasidic sects known collectively as the Chabad movement..."

I don't think this is true. What about the Malakhim and Anshei Liozna? 212.179.254.142 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Chabad source?

In the Kabbalah article there is this statement which refers to Chabad:

If improperly explained, such views can be interpreted as pantheism. In truth, according to this philosophy, God's existence is higher than anything that this world can express, yet he includes all things of this world down to the finest detail in such a perfect unity that his creation of the world effected no change in him whatsoever. This paradox is dealt with at length in the Chabad Chassidic texts. Kabbalah #Kabbalistic understanding of God

If it is a correct statement, could someone supply a source, and help improve the article? Otherwise I will remove the unsourced statement. (The Kabbalah article once had a number of sections that were not kosher. Those sections are now moved to their own articles, and it is now an article on traditional Jewish Kabbalah. But the article needs help to improve its quality.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave one source, I'll post some more sources soon. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Chabad article AFD

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House and if you can raise the quality of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words, passive voice in Messianism section

I repaired what I saw as weasel words (overuse of "some") and passive voice in this section. "Some Say," and "Some believe," is not specific enough, so I swapped "Some" with the more accurate noun, "Lubavitcher." Abe Froman (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some" is not a weasel word - it means significantly more than none and significantly less than all. You did not replace it with "Lubavitcher" (which would be a bloody stupid thing to replace it with), you replaced it with "most", which is unsubstantiated, and no more specific than "some". Your "was or could be" comes much closer to weaseling, for that matter. Your changes ramble and remove coherence rather than adding it. And you still haven't said which passive verbs you've changed into active ones - I can't see any. All you seem to have done is make the article less accurate and less readable at the same time. -- Zsero (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some" could mean anyone. "Lubavitcher" accurately limits this section to adherents of the Chabad Lubavitch movement. That is why it was changed. Also, "some" is definitely lumped in with Weasel Words. Simply search for "Some" on that page. I feel my passage accurately represents a contentious topic. The previous passage left the subject unclear and confused. Abe Froman (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey. Context, context, context. The paragraph is discussing a division within the movement. "Some" Lubavs believe one thing, some believe something else, and some believe something quite different. It seems that you've read WP:WEASEL but haven't understood it, or you'd understand why "some" can be a weasel word in some contexts (there's that "some" again), and why it's not here. And why, in those contexts where it is a weasel word, "many" and "most" are just as bad. Meanwhile, "the spectrum...is wide" is just bad.

Meanwhile, I'm still looking for an example of passive voice that you've changed. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here's an example from the passage I reworked: "While some believe that... others believe that..." "A few believe... while many negate..." A veritable passive voice, weasel word paradise. Who is "some?" Who is "A few"? "Others Believe," who are these "others?" As you can see, I was correct in reworking this passage to add clarity to the topic. Abe Froman (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1. That is not an example of passive voice. I'm beginning to wonder whether you know what passive voice is.
2. How is "many" or "most" better than "some", apart from being less accurate? Who is "some"? A portion of the population being discussed; substantially more than none, but substantially less than all.
3. In any case, that is not what WP:WEASEL is talking about when it gives "some say" as an example of a weasel word. Read it again, because you clearly have not comprehended it at all.

-- Zsero (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I comprehend it clearly, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks. I think it would be best if an independent editor who does not frequent this page reviewed my edit. This is because I believe the objections to my edit are POV driven, rather than stylistic concerns. Shabbat Shalom. Abe Froman (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You won't listen to reason, you won't point to examples of passive voice or actual weasel words, and it seems you don't even understand what they are or what the problem with them is. Your version is both less coherent and less accurate than what was there before, so I'm reverting it. -- Zsero (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I listed why I believe the passive voice and weasel words were a problem above. If you have a better suggestion,please list a sample passage below. Abe Froman (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Famous Chabadnicks

Should't there be a page on Chabad people? Most pages describing goups have lists of notable members.Thomas Babbington (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington

For now, there's the sidebar and categories. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist

The link claiming Chabad is anti-Zionist has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.66 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Translating into Italian

I'm translating this page into Italian and, let me tell you, it's not a simple task! Unfortunately most images are not transferable to the Italian commons (just the two main Rebbes are available) - I wouldn't mind having some photos to paste onto the translated page... Help anyone...?--Daubmir (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found other images in commons and I'm gonna post them on the Italian page.

One more thing- it's time for Chabad to choose another REBBE!!! --Daubmir (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Chabad Holidays

There should be a section for Chabad Holidays: Yud-tes kislev. etc. Saxophonemn (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions

1. Remove the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Belarus from this page. Even the town Lubavitch lies in Russia, so the Belarus connection is just too far off.
2. I think we should move this article to Chabad-Lubavitch. That is the more encompassing name, which is also mentioned in the lead. Obviously Chabad would be turned into a redirect. One other advantage would be that that would allow for putting more emphasis on the movement there, and make an article about Chabad as a filosophical concept here, if somebody would one day decide to write such an article.
3. Since it seems logical for this page to be visited by Chabadniks/Lubavitchers, I'd like to advertise here the userbox I designed. If it's applicable and you like it, put it on your userpage. It will also add you automatically to the category Chabad-Lubavitch Wikipedians.

{{User:L'Aquatique/Userboxes/ChabadnikLubavitcher}}

This user is a Chabadnik (Lubavitcher).

I've done #1 yesterday. About #2 I'd like to hear opinions first. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC) It turns out that #2 has been discussed before and the result was the other way around: to move from Chabad-Lubavitch to Chabad. I don't agree, but if this was consensus... Debresser (talk)

Image of Rebbe

The image Image:Rebbe.jpg is not a free-use image, and has been removed by a bot from my userbox Template:User ChabadnikLubavitcher. Isn't there a free-use image of the rebbe? Isn't it possible to get one? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

No reason to remove CrownHeights.info or Chabad.info (I linked to the English news site) Especially not on ground that it is not official. Since when does Misplaced Pages include only official sites? And please don't tell me they are blogs either, because that argument won't hold. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "there are 9 Chabad sites which is obviously too much to list all, so we just have to stick to the official ones" is

1. factually incorrect, since 9 external links - although being substantial - is not too much for such a big and central article
2. reeks of a violation of wp:NPOV in determining what are the "official" sites

Debresser (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "if it aint broken, don't fix it"! There are actually only 4 news sites listed at the moment, each lightening its own corner of Chabad and with its own points of view. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, that last IP edit you reverted was actually mine. In the past there has been edit waring among users with each trying to put in THEIR site. Some have been exceptionally obvious in their intent of coming to Misplaced Pages in the first place like user IzGut. The consensus was that what should be listed are the official Chabad news site(s) (if your disputing something about them being official, please explain) and ONE news site that reports more day to day happenings in Chabad. If your familiar with the Chabad news sites which you probably are, you would know that the first - and arguably the most mainstream - (non official) Chabad news site is shmais.com. I've been linking to shmais.com as that ONE site. But edit waring ensued as to which ONE site that should be, so eventually stopped linking to shmais.com all together, and frankly, I've come to believe that there is no need for it either. You need to think if the content of these sites are relevant to Chabad and Misplaced Pages I can find you many many sites that are somehow related but it would be abvious that they don't belong here. A site like crownheights.info that uses much of their space reporting car crashes and fires and other nonsense in Crown Heights is hardly related to Chabad. Would you link theyeshivaworld.com to the article Yeshiva or Haredi? See the above section "Links to news sites" for previous discussions about this. Shlomke (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You convinced me. Both the relevance argument as also the consensus you mention are valid arguments. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Concepts of chabad philosophy?

Why is there no section on the philosophy of chabad, with separate wikis for each individual concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.85.19 (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This was my idea when thinking of moving this article to Chabad-Lubavitch and then making this Chabad article into an article about the philosophy of Chabad. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Chabad philosophy section

I have removed some unsourced statements and all the information that was not encyclopedic. The central plank of Schneerson (the most famous rabbi of the 20th century by miles) philosophy according to wikipedia is that "jews are not Amish and use TV and radio". This is frankly an insult to him it is so purile.

I am of the view that there is a need for TWO separate articles one on Schneerson's philosophy and one on Chabad's.

I have trawled through the talk pages and the histories and have found some good sourced material that am going to add in to replace this stuff.Lobojo (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Before looking at your edits, I'd like to make one correction. It is not Schneerson's philosophy, it is Chabad philosophy, which is over 200 years old. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I am considering expanding the sections on philoposhy significantly, I think there is room unlimately for spin off articles on Schneerson's philosophy and Chabad philosophy, one is a subset of the other but they are not the same thing. Lobojo (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at your edits, and made some changes as well, specifying my reasons in the edit summaries. Same thing at Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'Goyim' in Lubavitcher doctrine / thought

I found this statement: "The founder of Lubavitcher Hasidism taught that there is a difference of essence between the souls of Jews and the souls of gentiles, that only in the Jewish soul does there reside a spark of divine vitality. As for the goyim... Zalman's attitude (was): 'Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever." Nunamiut (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did you find it (include sources), and what do you propose to do with it? Debresser (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted a verification or a disqualification by people who have knowledge on the theme, i.e.: people who write on the theme, so I thought this would be a natural place to find such knowledge or get in touch with it. I do not know where the quote originates from, but I guess a quick google would generate some hits. cheers. Nunamiut (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is what we have the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk for. But the information is almost correct. The only ammend I would make is to add the word "revealed". In Jews the Divine spark is revealed, while in non-Jews it isn't. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, disagree with this presentation of Rabbi Shneur Zalman's teachings. Rabbi Shneur Zalman says clearly (beg. Shaar Hayichud Veho'emunoh) that all created beings contain a divine energy that creates them. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While this worldview could potentially become naively narcissistic or even hatefully paranoid, its worth pointing out the Jewish concept of 'soul' (nefesh, nshama etc.) differs from the Christian concept. The Jewish understanding of soul is multifaceted and refers not only to ones own consciousness, but especially refers to a persons sense of self, that is, ones self-identity. Thus the 'soul' includes not only oneself but also ones relationships with friends and community, even job, and so on. In this wider sense, it is precisely by means of reallife actions, by doing Tora (biblical mitsvot), that a Jewish 'soul' reveals the divine light, via the actions and their altruistic intention. By doing Tora in reallife circumstances, it becomes part of who a Jew really is. In other words, a Jew only reveals the divine spark inherent in the Tora, by doing actions that show compassion for all humans, like Avraham did, and so on for the other mitsvot. All humans have access to divine wisdom, but only the Jewish people have access to the divine Tora, that reveals the divine presence in a distinctive, integrative and balanced way. Haldrik (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has no practical info

I might have missed it, but i failed to find anything about the organizational structure of this "movement", except that "it is based in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York" (the lead). What exactly is based in the Crown Heights, who heads it, etc. remains a mystery.Axxxion (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Info on structure are addressed in the organization section and in the main page Chabad affiliated organizations. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Alienated Jews?

I have removed this section, and intend to do so again, unless it is re worded. 'Because of its outreach to even the most alienated Jews, Lubavitch has become the one Orthodox group to evoke great affection from large segments of American Jewry.' The word alienated is clearly not NPOV. What exactly are these Jews alienated from? The suggestion is that secular Jews are alienated from Judaism as a religion, rather than Judaism as the history and culture of the Jewish people. If the reverse was stated, i.e. that religious Jews were alienated from secular Judaism, then clearly this would be a value judgement. The section cannot stand as it is, but I am willing to discuss changes. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No reason to remove this. Let's simply discuss here how to rephrase. This phrase has been discussed previously, I seem to remember. But you have a point, so make a proposal. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Largest Jewish organization

User:Jayig, who has been recognized by me and other editors as having a pronounced anti-Chabad POV in his editing, has removed the claim that "The organization is believed to be the largest Jewish organization in the world today." This statement was in the lead of this article since March 16, 2011, and the request for a source was added only recently. Jayig removed this claim even though it is good practice on Misplaced Pages to allow for a reasonable timeframe to provide sources (unless the claim were slanderous in a BLP). Yesterday I had some leisure time and found two sources, which also allowed me to rephrase the sentence a little stronger, see this edit. Jayig, as expected, promptly removed the sentence again, because he doesn't like the reliability of the sources. In my opinion, he is showing unfair behavior (read: showing his known POV) in removing a claim that 1. is harmless, 2. is sourced, and 3. with a little effort can be sourced even better, all of this 4. without allowing for a reasonable time for his fellow editors. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment started with a personal attack, so I didn't bother to read further. Please review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES. That said, the relevant points here are:

1. This unsourced claim has been in the very first paragraph of this article for over 14 months now. One should never revert dubious unsourced claims into the lede of an article, particularly when they've been unsourced for over a year.
2. Your most recent revert edit summary included that claim that The guy wrote a book, so he is a RS. No, someone who runs a public relations company is not a reliable source for the demographics of religious movements. Blogs aren't reliable sources either. Please review WP:RS for more details.

If I see this material re-added to the lede without reliable sourcing, I'll ensure these actions receive appropriate administrative attention. Jayjg 04:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Apart from my arguments above, I'd like to point out that significantly only Jayig seems to have a problem with this information and its sources. In all of the 14 months it was here without a source and the 3 days it was here with a source, nobody else even said a word. That fact speaks for itself. Debresser (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the information and its source--a business directory and an online newspaper which simply state that Chabad is the largest organization without corroborating that at all. First of all, what do we mean by 'organization'--does that mean religious groups only (denominational organizations and Hasidic sects)? How are we tracking largeness? By number of synagogues operated, or by number of adherents, or what? The World Union for Progressive Judaism, which seems to me to be some sort of Jewish organization at least, claims 1,800,000 members as opposed to Chabad's 200,000; Chabad has more institutions with 3,600 to the WUPR's 1,200. Which is the 'larger organization'? CharlesMartel (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)CharlesMartel

I agree with you. The word largest should be specified. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Schneerson looked to Torah law for the appropriate view of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

I am not sure this is an accurate statement. Besides being uncensored, Schneerson would always say that his main concern was the safety of Jewish and Palestinian life. EhadHaam (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

He said that the safety of the Jews in Israel is dependent on approaching the issue of their safety in accordance with Jewish law. So both ways of putting it are true, because they are connected. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't belong here at all, it's not part of the 'philosophy of chabad', and chabad isn't a political organization, if anything it belongs on MMS' page.Larryyr (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have just come across an interesting letter in MMS'S Igrot volume 15 in which he writes that Chabad has no political affiliation with any party, in any country. I think this supports the above statement by Larryyr. EhadHaam (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It is part of the philosophy of Chabad to turn to the Torah for a Jewish point of view on all matters, including political ones. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, have you got a source for that? If you do, I think such information - together with the above mentioned quote from the igrot, should be included on either the chabad page or MMS page, in the politic section. EhadHaam (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Organization of page

There seems to be a lot of repetition on the page, and much could be summarized rather than written at length. I've done some editing toward that end, but much more should be done. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yoninah, any section in particular? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Renewal and Carlebach

I removed these two from the list of group that split of from Chabad, because it were only their leaders but not their followers who split of from Chabad. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, true. But the founders of these groups were Chabad shluchim before they started their own following. I think they should be included, though perhaps the emphasis should be more clearly spelled out. Makes sense? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, I have re-added Carlebach and Schachter noting exactly that. They were exChabad, becoming notable figures who founded their own groups. I also noted that the groups are not related to Chabad. I think I have addressed your concerns in the edit. Unless you have something else to add, please undo the revert. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The groups are not related, so these individuals shouldn't be there! The section is after all called "Offshoot groups". Debresser (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Debresser, perhaps I have not expressed my aim here clearly. Rabbis Carlebach and Schachter were formerly Chabad, later establishing their own groups. This fact is relevant within the context of a) Chabad's influence, and b) Chabad offshoot groups. I noted in the edit and the edit note that the groups are NOT offshoots, but that holds true for the Malachim as well. The Malachim were NOT Chabad offshoots, rather the founder was formally Chabad. Now if we are to keep mention of these groups in the Chabad article, we can either change the subsection header from "Offshoot groups" to Groups whose leaders were once Chabad (or whatever was used in the offshoot page) to clarify that these groups are not offshoots per se but the founders were once Chabad, or we can place a sentence or two about the founding rabbis (who are exChabad) in the "Influence" section. Either way this material is relevant as much as the Malachim are. If the matter is really the wording of the header, that should not stop relevant information to be posted.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, please consider that the Melachim are now a historical footnote, and yet, their founder's Chabad roots are cause to note them as a group who is a Chabad offshoot/group with leader who was exChabad. All the more so for renewal and Carlebach, groups active today. I think the average reader would benefit from the info of these groups founders having Chabad roots. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The malachim, to the best of my knowledge, pray with a nusach Arizal siddur, and learn Tanya. They are a legitimate Chabad offshoot. Carlebach and Schachter were just former Lubavitchers, and that can and should be noted in their respective articles, but there is no need to have it here. The same is even more true for their respective movements. No connection, no inclusion. Please do not try to confuse readers. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, the groups may not be related, but the leaders are. That was what you initially pointed out, and that is why I subsequently modified my edit so you would agree with the addition. Please don't take this as a personal attack of any sort. But I think the hesitation on your part to include these two references of former-Chabad-followers-turned-leaders-themselves has more to do with the fact that the groups who follow these former Hasidim are not Hasidic themselves. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy section to new page

The current version of the article has a nice sized philosophy section but there's a problem. Any editor familiar with Chabad philosophy can easily see how more information can justifiably be added as Chabad philosophy covers a range of topics. At what stage do we create its own article? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Note I don't think it is justified right now. But what would qualify? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Update. I've added additional paragraphs, and due to the section's size and range, I've created Chabad philosophy. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive older threads

How do we have the older threads on this page archived? Consensus? Specifically, I refer to all the discussions that are older than one year! I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Chabad holidays

Chabad holidays were recently removed from the main Chabad article to Chabad customs. I think that is not a good idea, since I for one would not expect to find holidays in an article about customs. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking Debresser's comments into consideration, Chabad customs was changed to Chabad customs and holidays. The reason for the join is twofold, a) neither "topic" is fully explored and warrants their own article, b) both topics are closely related and makes sense to join.

In the main Chabad page, sections follow one another and follow a logical grouping. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new term

I propose a new synonym for Hasids, Chabad, Lubavitch, Breslov, Neturei Karta, "orthodox", ultra-orthodox, frum, whatever - all these nice people are FUNDAMENTAL JEWS--24.203.108.54 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar usage

For those who use the chabad sidebar, what's the best way to make collapsable sections? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality scale

How often can an article be reviewed as per quality. Are we sure this is still a B class article? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Opening section

I made some edits to the opening section. There were numerous repetitions -- there still are some that need to be worked on. I ask other editors to please comment. In general, I think the page needs some work, and it seems like a lot of the information is old and dated to 2006 and 2007. TM (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Shabtai Bloch

Should this article mention his name? From a WP:BLP point of view, I mean.

Also, I remember that situation. Another Chabadnick with an opposite political agenda gave (what is likely to have been false) information to the Israeli Shabak. He was released after a few days (I remember 2-3, but I read somewhere it was 5 days). No charges were made. Is this whole paragraph not a WP:BLP violation?

Let's remove it till there is consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, note that ithe NYT source has a "Correction" at the bottom, denying that he is a Chabadnick. That is not true, he is, but he is no rabbi and certainly no leader in Chabad. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Haaretz, The Forward, The Times of Israel and the Guardian have all covered the horrifying testimony of the Chabad child sexual abuse that went on in Australia. It's not just that it took place, but that the religious authorities protected each other instead of protecting the children, and are continuing to protect the pedophiles. This needs to be covered in a prominent place, not shoved into a separate "controversy" article---doing that would be "covering up" just like these rabbis did. The article contains info on when Chabad itself was a victim years ago at the hands of the Russians. Now we need to cover where Chabad is creating victims and protecting their abusers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs)

Stop attacking the subject using words like "Horrifying testimony". Caseeart (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman has crated a new section called "Legal; issues", in which he gave a very good representation of the facts of this widely infamous scandal. And well done for that! However, I think that when we are talking about a wordlwide movement of some 250 years old, this is not lead material, and that section that VanEman wrote is completely adequate and sufficient, without the need to have it duplicated in the lead.

I must add that I sense in his post above and in his edit summary when he reverted my undo "No protection for pedophiles and those who protect them" that this user is at least partly motivated by the indignity of the case, or other personal motivations, and I think that if the question is reviewed objectively and calmly, there is no need or justification for a paragraph in the lead about this news item. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, it is not what we think, it is what is appropriate. Controversies that have garnered world-wide attention and believe it or not, the first instance of some people hearing of Chabad, are notatble for the lead. A quick mention is the usual way. The lead does need trimming, but censorship is not usually done on wikipedia. Murry1975 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Watergate scandal was a crucial event in Richard Nixon's life, and has 2 sentences in the lead of his article. We are talking about a worldwide movement of some 250 years here. I think this issue does not need trimming its length in the lead, it has no place in the lead at all.

This is a news item and not something many will remember in another month. Moreover, I almost haven't heard of it here in Israel. This is a local issue, which for some has a lot of emotional value, and we at Misplaced Pages, when writing an encyclopedia, should take that into account, and not give the issue overdue attention. By which in this case I mean mentioning it in the lead of the Chabad article.

I do not understand what you mean by "censorship is not usually done on Misplaced Pages". I remind you that there is an extensive paragraph about this in the "Legal issues" section. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, editor who claims others are emotionally invovled. I will re-add and we can trim from there. 20:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murry1975 (talk • contribs)

I strongly protest this step of yours!

1. I reverted per WP:BRD and you can not claim any consensus at this time for restoring the long version. So far consensus is 2:1 against a long text in favor of a short text, 1:2 against a short text in favor of no text. So you can not restore the long version.
2. There is no justification in Misplaced Pages procedures for not first doing the trimming and then placing a finished product in the article. This is not the way editing works!
3. I see a possible misuse of implied power in your revert, since you know that per WP:3RR I can not undo it, even though you yourself agreed the current paragraph is not proper. Note, I do not accuse you of doing so on purpose, I just point out the fact.

Please self-revert this restore of the long paragraph to the lead, or feel free to trim it within the next few minutes. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you cant trim it either, as per 3rr. But you have a COI with the topic, so maybe you should calm down. Lets discuss the trimming. Murry1975 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a POV, not a COI, let's make that very clear. In this case, however, my complaint to you is only procedural. I ask you again to undo the revert of my undo, per, among others, your own arguments. You have not replied to the procedural argument at all.

Calling for me to do the trimming is strange, to say the least, since I have already stated my opinion, that there should be no such paragraph at all in the lead.

It was far too early in the discussion to decide on restoring or trimming. Per WP:BRD you should have left the previous consensus version. I ask you now to undo your mistake till such time as a more solid consensus will emerge. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED. And WP:IDLI. And I dont have a COI or POV. As per brd, there is no time limit, but as you are emotional about this point, I would ask you to step back and calm down. Murry1975 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED can not apply, since there is a whole paragraph about this subject. WP:IDLI is just your guess, and in this case an incorrect one, because how would you know if I like or not like it? I'd say the assumption should be that I like anything that helps prevent child-abuse. If I am emotional, then it is only because of your undo of my undo, which is clearly against procedure. Why should I roll over and play dead, when I can argue with you and try to make you see reason.

In any case, now that I see I can not make you seek reason, I will post at WP:ANI. My official notification, as demanded by procedure, will appear on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Australian sex abuse case does not belong in the lead because it relates to an individual Chabad community institution and is not a movement wide incident. Echoing User:Debresser, the Chabad movement is 250+ years old, with thousands of community centers across the globe. The Australian case may be added in full to the Australian Chabad page, and it may be mentioned briefly here alongside the movements response. Otherwise we have a serious WP:UNDUE issue here where an individual local incident appears in a general movement wide article. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

VanEman -Stop spamming Chabad articles with your Negative POV. Why is this more relevant than every incident in the past 200 years. First go add another 500 pages of every other neutral incident that ever happened. Then go and add some of your POV attack material. I already specified in the edit summary various rules you are violating Caseeart (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Break for WP:JUDAISM input

Caseeart: You should stop trying to censor information that is timely, has received international press attention, is factual and well documented in respected newspapers. If Chabad has responses to the mishandling of the abuse cases in addition to firing or recommending the resignation of authorities involved, then please document those responses in the article. I hope there are some! VanEman (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the point Caseeart is trying to make is that these legal issues are not related to Chabad as an international Jewish movement, but rather concern specific communities and people, and as such should not be mentioned in this article, but rather in the articles about those communities and people. I think he does have a point here. The argument is rather related to the argument I gave above why these issues are not lead material, namely, that this article is about a 250 old world-wide Jewish movement and these incidents are simply not relevant enough for the lead. The same point may be made about the article in general. I think we perhaps need a broader discussion to assess this question. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Timely has nothing to do with it. Go and create a neutral 500 page article on every incident about every institution in Chabad over the last 200 years and then go and add this attack information. Also Debresser is right that this is a group of 200,000 people. This article is about the group not individual cases. Caseeart (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have asked editors at WT:JUDAISM for their input here, suggesting that "this material is perhaps not fit for this article, or should be moved to Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies", as per my above stated opinion. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree here with Caseeart and Debresser on this point. Possibly—possibly—it rates a mention in the main article. (I don't really think so, but I could concede that point.) If so, I would combine the sections for "Controversies" and "Legal Issues" and put it there. But the issue here is the materiality of these events to the overall Chabad movement. And, frankly, it just doesn't rate.

Consider, for a moment, the article President of the United States. It certainly mentions the possibility of impeachment, and mentions the two Presidents who have been impeached in history. It does not say (in this article) why these two particular Presidents were impeached—because those controversies are not material to the office of President of the United States. So, here, these issues are not relevant to the Chabad movement as a whole.

In my view, only one controversy concerning Chabad is really material enough to cover here: the messianist issue. Personally, I am satisfied with how that is covered here. But that controversy involved (involves?) a material fraction of the Chabad world, and led to some very serious discussion about whether or not a portion of the Chabad world was actually in a schism outside the normative framework of Judaism. (Please, don't reargue the point here, that's not why I mention this.) So that controversy achieves a level of materiality with respect to the overall Chabad movement that demands some coverage here. This issue? Tiny in comparison—and believe me, I am no defender of people using religious positions to hide sexual (or other) abuse, rather the contrary. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the matter can be handled in the same way that "sexual abuse" and its "cover-up" has been handled in the article about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has existed for something like 1700-2000 years depending on who's counting. The sexual abuse matters that go from 1980 to the present are covered in one paragraph in the main article but then link to another separate article. Of course, that separate article is now longer than the main article about the Catholic Church. But at least it keeps people from worrying that one issue is getting too much coverage in the main article. Because the cover-up of sexual abuse by Chabad leaders has received wide coverage in Jewish news around the world (US, Israel and Europe), it needs to stay. It is not simply a local issue but one that is receiving international attention. VanEman (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The importance of the Catholic Church in the world, and the extent of the problem within the Church, make that a far more material issue there than here. Still, since I want to find some common ground here—and because the last thing I am looking to do is to cover up a serious and important problem in Chabad (and elsewhere in the Jewish world)—I can live with your suggestion, provided you do this in a way that tries not to tar the whole movement with a single brush. I cannot, however, endorse any mention in the article lead whatsoever. That would not be appropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The section mention two incidents. There is no mention of a world-wide effort to cover up, or to prevent the cover up, of such incidents in the Chabad movement in sources, like there is for the Catholic church. Therefore, I see no room to have these incidents in this article. International attention to a local issue is not the same as an international issue! Debresser (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Van-Eman calm down. There are 10'000s of Neutral articles and publications on individual incidents of Chabad and it's individual institutions - Non of that belongs in this article. Regarding your Catholic Church attempt There is not a single mention in the Catholic Church article about an individual institution. The small mention about the Church as a whole might be a result 30 year period where vast percentage of media coverage on the Catholic Church in general has been over cover-ups. Even if there were to be that in the Catholic Church the article would contain such individual information - the argument "Other stuff exists" (WP:OSE) is weak and there is no comparison with the articles and coverage to the Catholic Church. I want to add to StevenJ81's comment - Maybe add this to Australia's wikipedia article because there was a case of abuse in Australia. Obviously that would be ridiculous because this is about an individual institution.

The same is about the info that you added about an individual lawsuit against a single individual (or group) has nothing to do with the Chabad Article. Maybe at it to the Los Angeles article because it happened in LA. I understand that you are passionate and angry - move your anger somewhere else.

Also please stop falsely attacking and accusing me in the edit summary. Caseeart (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "The Lubavitch Messianic Resurgence: The Historical and Mystical Background 1939-1996", Rachel Elior in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco ed. Peter Schäfer and Mark Cohen, 383-408. (Leiden: Brill, 1998)
2. ^ Hirshberg, Matthew, The Columbia Journalist, February 21, 2006
3. Tauber, Yanky, The Lubavitcher Rebbe
4. "Jewish Literacy", Telushkin, William Morrow 2001, p.471

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• Start-Class Russia (science and education) articles
• Science and education in Russia task force articles
• Start-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• Start-Class Russia (religion) articles
• Religion in Russia task force articles
• Start-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
• Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles