Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Living Persons[edit]

Don't a LOT of these come under the living persons policies? (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For this reason (and others) I have removed much of that content... (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about this controversy page[edit]

Many editors, myself included, feel that this page has become a list of all of the publicly known negative occurences that are related to Chabad. This is not the place to cite every controversial individual that considers themself Chabad or even is Chabad. This is not the place to cite each political move made by every Lubavitcher. Perhaps if there are groups of people that are embroiled in controversies with a significant segment of Lubavitchers or with the Rebbe's recorded ideas, it can make sense to include it here. Is there anyway to settle a dispute on wikipedia in a definite way so that things don't just get reverted a million times??? My point of view is that the entire local controversies section should be removed. The contents should be relocated to the pages of the figures mentioned there. For example, all the Russia stuff goes under Berel Lazar. Also, much of the stuff that is categorized under each Rebbe should also be removed or at least relocated; the "controversy" with Rav Hutner's opinion on lealter leteshuva is just plain childish. That is not a controversy, perhaps a strong difference in opinion (nothing wrong with that). Control of 770, fine. Messianism, fine (minus Deutsch's one man breakaway). Even Weinstock, I can hear you. Make a section for shac's criticism about literally everything the Rebbe said, make a section for Satmar's zionism criticism and were done. Let get something definite and final on this issue.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. This page violates WP:COATRACK. (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is kind of the Jerry Springer of entries. Next thing you know it will be written that Bernie Madoff was a Lubavitcher. Oh, so is George Costanza? Teetotaler 5 December, 2009

Agreed. Barring any sustainable argument being made to the contrary, I propose deleting all the 'individual' stories. Otherwise, we may as well start a page devoted to 'Jewish related controversies' and feature every Jew ever arrested and convicted of a crime. Obviously, that would be rather bizarre, as is much of the information on this page.Winchester2313 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators has to step in and issue a ruling on this matter, because this information has been in and out for years now. There has to be a clear rule for which information belongs and which doesn't. I submit that this rule be: Only controversial information related to Chabad as a movement belongs--not an endless list of unfavourable reports about individuals that happen to identify with the Chabad movement, but whose actions have nothing to do with Chabad per se. So the Public Menorah controversy belongs, because that's a campaign for which the Lubavitcher Rebbe called. Same goes for "messianism". But shul politics between a rabbi and a board doesn't, because that's found in all Orthodox circles, and so on. There's no Orthodox Judaism controversies page listing every single misdemeanor of every known Orthodox rabbi or layman, or every dispute ever conducted. So, too, here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Although this page probably deserves WP:TNT, let's settle that all "individual" cases must be removed. (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Other Haredi critiques[edit]

Now let me see if I have this straight: on the page "Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies" there is a section entitled "Other Haredi critiques". As of January 4, 2010, this section consists of one reported statement of Rav Hutner concerning Chabad as a personality cult and a response from one "Chabad Rabbi Elimelech Silberberg" to an accusation of avodah zarah. Where exactly is this accusation (probably in the form of quotations from last year's article in Mishpacha Magazine)? I suppose a Lubavitcher edited it out.
Now, I added the following measured and sourced paragraph to provide some context to the Silberberg spin:

Notwithstanding various denials from within the movement, there remains a large number of primary sources from Rabbi Schneerson's own authorized writings that are perceived by many in mainstream Orthodoxy[1] as, at the very least, resting at the very edge of full heresy.[2] Insider claims like those of Rabbi Elimelech Silberberg should be judged in that context.

And guess what? Zsero took it out. I suppose he thinks that "controversies" and "critiques" are just synonyms for "we all love chabad and there's nothing to worry about here." If you guys want to post how wonderful everything is in Chabad - do it on the Chabad page. The accusation of avodah zarah in the movement is a legitimate controversy and critique and most certainly belongs here. Tikkunsofrim (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not an op ed page. Editorial comment has no place in WP articles. We report on significant and well-sourced criticisms, and on significant responses; we do not critique them ourselves. Rabbi Silberberg is a great talmid chochom and a renowned expert on the subject matter, and his comment on the subject is notable; yours is not. Nor is that of the author of the attack-blog you keep linking to. -- Zsero (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted a reference to the Misphacha interview with Rabbis Miller, Heinemann and Belsky. Surely no one can say this isn't appropriate in the section called "Other Haredi critiques" Tikkunsofrim (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed certain broad statements which were either improperly, or not at all sourced as per Should anybody care to research and substantiate similar information in the future, I doubt anyone would object to its being published.Winchester2313 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ The yeshiva deans of many of the world's largest yeshivos are on the record on this very point. Among them, R' Aharon Kotler, R' Shach, R' Aharon Feldman, R' Shlomo Miller, R' Yisroel Belsky etc., see these sources as examples
  2. ^ see the primary documents collected here by the authors of the book "Identifying Chabad"

Needless edit warring[edit]

I've restored three edits undone by Jayjg without explanation, and would welcome a discussion or reasons why these should not remain. 1. I've researched a number of texts cited as references, and they do make direct mention of the concept cited 2. The few lines containing the Chabad response to RS's sole accusations of heresy are relevant as they provide accurate context. Edit-warring will not change that. I have no objection to the entire paragraph being removed either. 3. There is no evidence, and the mere notion is patently absurd, that Yated Neeman accused Chabad of heresy "in response" to Schneerson supporting Agudat Israel? "In response??!"- where is the exchange? 4. The paragraph about Oholei Torah is simply a blatant lie. Should anyone believe otherwise, kindly present better support than a link to an article in a newspaper established to bash Chabad. Winchester2313 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, you should stop engaging in needless edit-warring. Regarding your statements:
1. Please review WP:PRIMARY - you cannot use primary sources to create Original Research arguments.
2. Please review WP:NOR - you cannot construct arguments on behalf of Chabad.
3. Good point. Removed.
4. David Berger is a respected academic who has written extensively on Chabad. Please carefully review WP:V, and also review WP:BLP regarding your statements about Berger. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
For example, this paragraph you just added is pure original research, based on primary sources:

, despite Schneerson having cited Rabbinical precedent for this, including that of Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (the Chofetz Chaim), one of the most important figures of the 20th century Torah world.<ref>Chofetz Chaim, Likut al hasiddur-168,C'C al hatorah, par.behar, and similar statements in p.noach. See also the Kol Yaakov, [R'Y.T. Yalish] on p' tavo 16</ref>

Who makes this argument against Shach's view, aside from User:Winchester2313? Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids editors inventing these kinds of arguments. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No it is not original researchat all. Rabbi Schneerson habitually cited precedent and sources for every position he took, and certainly in all his published material. On the few occasions where he felt he had none, he said so. For you to attempt deliberate distortion of this type, by removing relevant context, and presenting ignorant criticism as fact is simply a violation of Schneerson in-fact, cited more sources directly in his talks, which I may bother researching and adding as well. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's not original research, then show which source explicitly counters Shach's view by citing these statements of the Chofetz Chaim et al. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, please show which source explicitly counters Shach's view by citing these statements of the Chofetz Chaim et al. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the article you refer to from David Berger and primary sources, the facts are simply otherwise. I attended prayers in Oholei Torah about 20 times in the last 2 weeks, and the fact is that there were no 'official' recitations of 'yechi' at all. Berger does not trump reality. Additionally, that article is full of other blatant lies, and of-course the fact that it appeared in a publication dedicated to attacking Chabad would simply be an unfortunate coincidence... I'd suggest a re-read of Winchester2313 (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean 'offical' recitations? Also, you need to re-read WP:V. Berger is a reliable source; User:Winchester2313 is not. Please restore the material. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Berger tells blatant lies. Therefore he is not a reliable source. -- Zsero (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean quite simply, that the statement "In Oholei Torah/Oholei Menachem, the largest Lubavitch yeshiva outside Israel, Yechi is recited during the service," is simply untrue, and that until you provide an acceptable source, it needs to stay out. The service in OT follows the Chabad siddur. What a relative few (among roughly 250) students may recite afterwards does not quite qualify. Berger writes "In the absence of scientific polling — which is virtually impossible in this case — how does one go about assessing the spectrum of beliefs among contemporary Lubavitchers regarding these questions? He then proceeds to support his 'thesis' with a variety of assumptions, selective quotes, and deliberate distortions. None of those belong in an encyclopedia. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC) still aplies to hatchet jobs by David Berger. Unfortunately, the article you keep inserting here as a 'source', is also a violation of : Additionally, using in this case, Shach's own newspaper site to support his attacks on Chabad is unacceptable. Deiah v'Dibbur is not a reliable source on anything related to Shach, Yated Neeman, Chabad or similar. If the information you insist on inserting is accurate, you should be able to provide a real source as per;'All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.' Winchester2313 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Berger does not publish Deiah v'Dibbur, and therefore cannot be considered a "self-published source" in this instance. Please try again. Also, please answer the challenge regarding your original research raised above. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In plain English, then. Deiah v'Dibbur is owned by the Israeli Yated Ne'eman, a fringe publication who routinely attack Chabad and related persons/entities, and have been doing so since inception. When editing a controversial subject, it makes no sense to rely solely on what is, at best, a questionable source As for the references where Rabbi Schneerson cites precedent for his call to 'demand' the Messiah, I will post them soon, I simply need to copy the exact page numbers etc. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand; the issue is not where Schneerson cites this precedent, but rather which source brings this up as a counter for Shach's statements. That is what you must find, per WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also restored the contextual information you deleted from the 'RES critique' sub-section. The NPOV policy of "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." means quite simply, that you cannot quote a charge of serious heresy bu a Rabbi well-known for partisan attacks, without providing balancing, well-known, and widely available information. This was already discussed on the page, and resolved some time back. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are referring, of course, to this material you added to the article:

This concept (of Tzadikim being called 'God') is often refererred to in classic Kaballistic and Chassidic texts, such as Pardes Rimonim 16:6 and 22:3 by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Zohar-2 38a, and Zohar-3 79b, and Sefer Tanya ch. 22 & 23. See also Rashi Bereshit 33:20. Note that the Divrei Shlomo (Venice 1596) writing on p.vaeira, explicitly states that"All the Names of God are actually 'atzmuso umehoso', and not merely descriptive like the other names people give to things..."</ref> Shach described this as nothing short of idolatry.<ref>This, despite the sources cited above. See also Zohar-1 9a, Zohar-2 163b, Mechilta on Exodus 18, Bereishit Rabba 86, Tanchuma Tissa 27, and the well-known Chassidic principle ascribing fundamentally the same status to the soul of any Jew, as elaborated on by R. SZ of Liadi in Tanya ch.2 </ref>

This is another obvious violation of WP:NOR; an argument that you are making to counter Shach's view. Unless you can come up with an actual reliable secondary source for this argument, it will also have to go. I'll give you a day or so to find one. Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? They are the sources for the statements that Schach criticised. Their relevance as rebuttals to that criticism is therefore obvious. -- Zsero (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who brought these sources as rebuttals of Shach's statements? Which reliable secondary source rebutted Shach's statements with them? Do any of these sources even mention Shach? Please carefully review WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Not necessary. They are the sources of the original statements which Schach criticised. That is what makes them relevant to his criticism. -- Zsero (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
If one is presenting a counter-argument to Shach, as is being done here, of course the sources need to directly address Shach. Clearly, however, they do not; this is a counter-argument constructed by a Wikipedia editor, using primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a counter-argument, it's the original argument which was the subject of Shach's attack. -- Zsero (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And by logical extension, were your narrow interpretation of WP:NOR to be valid, it would make sense to remove every statement of Shach's where he doesn't explicitly mention his target by name, which would be most of them. The rule doesn't, however, say that. Specifically; "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." That means that this information and sources stay. Winchester2313 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We would indeed have to remove Shach's criticisms if they do not explicitly refer to Chabad or Schneerson. Of course, they would not have to refer to Chabad or Schneerson in every single sentence, so long as Shach clearly established the subject of his criticism in his response. If there are criticism of Shach that nowhere mention Chabad or Schneerson, please point them out. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got it back-to-front here. Rabbi Schneerson made the statement in 1950, and said then what he was innovating in his explanation. When Rabbi Shach criticizes that statement 20 (or 30, whatever-) years later, the onus is on him (or anybody quoting him) to supply a source, not when a Hassidic Rebbe makes a statement squarely in-line with Hassidic tradition and texts. To remove the contextual references would simply be a (deliberate?) distortion that has no place in any encyclopedia. The information should stay.Csteffen13 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. Sources used to refute Shach have to actually refer to directly refer to him. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that in this case the statement was only attacked by Shach 20+ years after being made!! Do you mean to say that if somebody today attacks Einsteins theory of relativity, somebody would have to provide 'proof' that his calculations were the source of his theory?!! Of-course not. The burden of proof lies with the party quoting Shach, not the other way around. You've put the egg before the chicken here, it seems. Csteffen13 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In order for the article to be balanced and in context, the sources originally quoted by Rabbi Schneerson in support of his statement need to be included in the article along with the critic's explanation of his critique decades later. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please review WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. You are using primary sources to try to refute Shach's view, but which themselves nowhere refer to Shachs's arguments; instead, you must use secondary sources that directly argue with Shach. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
How many times does it have to be pointed out that of course the sources don't themselves directly refer to Shach's attack on the LR, because they were all written long before? They are the sources the LR cited and relied on for his statement; then, years later, Shach attacked that statement. It's obvious even to you that when reporting this attack one must explain what it was that he was attacking; otherwise the paragraph will be incomprehensible. You don't call that OR or SYNTH, even though the original statement didn't refer to Shach in any way! And to do so one must include the basis for the original statement, or the reader will be misled into believing that it had no basis, and that the LR made it up himself. -- Zsero (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than try to achieve consensus, User:Jayjg unilaterally removed relevant contextual information, which I have now restored. As has been pointed out by various editors, nothing need (nor can) be brought to 'prove' that a common chassidic concept, cited numerous times in many chassidic classics, is the basis to 'disprove' an attack by Shach twenty-odd years (or is it thirty) after the statement in question was made by R.Schneerson. Incidentally, if you bother reading what he actually said, he was only innovating in terms of a narrow application of these (previously published) ideas, NOT in terms of the status of a Rebbe / Tzaddik that he describes. That is in the Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Meor Einayim and others cited in the references. User:Jayjg has it backwards. The sources for this concept all precede Shach by hundreds of years! Prove that he was arguing with them. Winchester2313 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Are you referring to this edit, where you unilaterally restored WP:MOSBIO violations, and unilaterally removed large sections of the article? I suggest you carefully review the exact edit you've made, which appears to be a blind revert. Review it very carefully, please, and I strongly suggest you take appropriate action after you have. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the section blanking, and restored the relevant information you deleted as per the previous discussion on this page. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate censorship of racist comments made by Mendel Schneerson[edit]

A few people including myself have been trying to add verified sourced citations which show an incredible (and well-known) depth of anti-gentile racism made by Rabbi M. M. Schneerson, such as calling all non-Jews separate inferior biological species.

Wikipedia is a place where the objective truth needs to be stated, thus the militant actions of the above people who are all no-doubt fanatical religious followers of the rabbi who is seen as the Mosiach (Messiah)of Chabad Lubavitch.

Thus I am demanding that these people stop their deliberate censorship of the sourced objective truth, as it is THEM who are committing vandalism on the Wikipedia website, and acting against everything that Wikipedia stands for. This is no place for religious bigotry. The truth and the truth only must be written.

Below I will provide the unedited citations made by the Rabbi:

(i) "..we have a case of 'let us differentiate' between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world..."

(ii) "Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness."

(iii) "Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew."

(iv) "In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity. It is written, "And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews."

SOURCE: Quotes from "Lubovitcher Rebbe," Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson - “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” - Chapter 4: The National Religious Party and the Religious Settlers – By: Dr. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RabidZionist (talkcontribs) 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Action Taken[edit]

I have sought dispute resolution on the issue by a third party.

Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation[edit]

The case involves the return of alleged texts belonging to Judaica in possession of the Russian government which could end up on the black market. The U.S. Courts have ordered Russia to preserve and return the texts, but Moscow eventually withdrew from the case citing sovereign immunity. As a result of the lawsuit, the Russian Federation has cancelled loans to Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the National Gallery in Washington, the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles and Houston Museum of Natural Science over the threat the artwork could be seized as reciprocity. In June 2011, the Justice Department filed a notice it would not support the confiscation of Russian artwork on loan as retaliation. (See: "AGUDAS CHASIDEI CHABAD OF UNITED STATES v. Russian Federation", "AGUDAS CHASIDEI CHABAD OF UNITED STATES v. Russian Federation", "U.S. to Russia: No Artwork Seizures in Chabad Case", "U.S. Justice Department may intervene in Chabad-Russia feud over texts", "US Judge Orders Russia to Preserve Chabad Texts")

Petey Parrot (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information as "original research"[edit]

Jayjg removed the information I added an anti-gentile racism in Chabad, calling it original research. This is absurd - as anyone can see who checks, I offered documentation from books and newspapers. This is no more original research than anything else in the article. It may be something that Jayjg would prefer to talk about, but Wikipedia is not censored. Jayjg may be a prolific contributor, to Wikipedia, but this is no excuse for censorship, especially without justification being given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You've taken a bunch of sources and mixed them together to create a synthesized "controversy" - see WP:SYNTH. Even worse, the majority of those sources do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements - they include, among other things, various blogs, and a polemic written by a chemist/political activist. And finally, comment on content, not on the contributor - that's fundamental Wikipedia policy. If you comment again, please make sure your comments do not refer to individual editors. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
In the future, please revise pages to meet policy rather than removing information altogether. Civility on all sides will help us all make Wikipedia better. I have removed the blog sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Since the material consisted entirely of WP:SYNTH, policy dictated removing all of it. Per my previous comment, it still consists of WP:SYNTH, and still relies heavily on a non-reliable source, a polemic written by a chemist/political activist. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not synthesis, and it is certainly not original research. Kindly see [1], [2], and [3]. Such a broad understanding of synthesis would obliterate most of wikipedia. Regarding your other objection: what source do you assert is not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's WP:SYNTH - the various sources don't describe these incidents as the same phenomenon, you've just thrown them together as your own examples of what you consider to be a "controversy". Also, most of it consists of a giant copyright violating quote from a book by the chemistry professor/political activist Israel Shahak - obviously not a reliable source on the topic of Judaism in general or Chabad-Lubavitch in particular. Also, you need to review WP:BRD - you Boldly inserted the material, it was Reverted, now we'll Discuss: it stays out until there's consensus to insert it. Even if there is consensus to insert it, it certainly wouldn't be the very first section, considering the generally chronological ordering of this article. And finally, you're RabidZionist (talk · contribs · block log), a blocked editor, so this is all moot. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
First, I am not any user account on wikipedia. If you're going to make such allegations you should be prepared to prove them. Second, the passage from Shahek's book is itself a quotation from Rabbi Schneerson. Unless you're ready to argue, with evidence, that the quotation is inaccurate, Shahek's identity is irrelevant, nor would it make a respected book "obviously" an unreliable source. All he needs to be able to do is copy a quote accurately! Third, if you believe the quotation to be too long for fair use to apply, then it should be abridged, not removed. Fourth, you have misunderstood WP:BRD. I quote: "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." Finally, if you think what I have written does not provide a balanced perspective, please add more information to flesh out the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
  1. Shahak was a chemistry teacher and political activist. He is not a reliable source on Chabad-Lubavitch. Whether or not you think the material is "accurate" is irrelevant; Wikipedia articles can only quote reliable sources.
  2. That incredibly lengthy quote is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Read the policy.
  3. The relevant policies for removing your material have already been cited; WP:SYNTH, WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS. In addition, the placement of the section was inappropriate, as explained.
  4. WP:BRD is relevant because your insertions violate several policies, and will not go in the article unless and until they comply with policy. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Concerning Shahak: first, as you know his book is co-authored with Norton Mezvinsky, a historian. Please quote from WP:RS to show me how his book in unreliable. Concerning copyright, please tell me exactly how many words policy allows to be quoted before it becomes a copyright violation. I have abridged the quotation slightly; perhaps that will satisfy you. Concerning the placement, what placement do you think is appropriate? Concerning synthesis, I have already established that this is nothing of the sort. The kind of synthesis that is prohibited is drawing new conclusions from multiple sources, not simply using multiple sources. Concerning WP:BRD, I have already showed that you are violating that policy, and I have already refuted the charge that my edits violate other policy. Finally, you persist in maintaining that I am a banned editor. I ask that you prove this false allegation or retract it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Please review the previous comments. You are free to propose an insertion here, where we will discuss it, and see if it can become compliant with policy. It will not go in the article unless and until it does comply with policy. Jayjg (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the false and blatantly distorted information keeps inserting here as it fails WP:NPOV WP:RS and WP:OR , among other Wiki policies. The 'quotes' in the piece are either obvious mis-translations, fabrications, or clearly quoted out of context to support a radical agenda by distortion. Surprise - that's what extremists like the authors of that piece usually do. I'd suggest a careful read of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE before coming back to WP:WAR again on this.--Winchester2313 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You offer no evidence that what you say is true. Is Haaretz now officially an unreliable source? Is Haaretz unable to do accurate translations? Does Haaretz fabricate stories? If so, publishing an expose is in order. Otherwise this objection is baseless. Calling me names is not an argument. Further more, to whom are you referring when you say "the authors of that piece" are extremists? Surely not Rabbi Schneerson, nor Israel Shahak, nor the Haaretz writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The issue is not whether Haaretz is a reliable source, but whether this cherry-picked quotation is WP:SYNTH (which it is). And the cherry-picking is quite obvious: for example, you conspicuously failed to quote this:

A few days after anger about the comment surfaced, Chabad headquarters released a statement saying that, "we vehemently disagree with any sentiment suggesting that Judaism allows for the wanton destruction of civilian life, even when at war." The statement added: "In keeping with Jewish law, it is the unequivocal position of Chabad-Lubavitch that all human life is G-d given, precious, and must be treated with respect, dignity and compassion."

In any event, please review my comment above: your insertions violate several policies, and will not go in the article unless and until they comply with policy. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the passage you quote. Please do not hesitate to add more information to ensure balanced coverage. Your other allegations I have refuted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Please review the previous comments. You are free to propose an insertion here, where we will discuss it, and see if it can become compliant with policy. It will not go in the article unless and until it does comply with policy. Jayjg (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some parties wish to omit information about the controversial racial views of Chabat from the article. They make the following claims:

  • The book "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" is not by a reliable source. I reply: one of its authors is Norton Mezvinsky, an academic historian. This meets wikipedia's standards.
  • The quotation is a copyright violation. I reply, that a quotation of 443 words from a book in no way constitutes a copyright violation.
  • The section constitutes a synthesis. I reply, that the kind of synthesis that is prohibited is drawing new conclusions from multiple sources, which I have carefully avoided doing. Simply using multiple sources is acceptable, and necessary.
  • Undue emphasis is given to the issue. I reply by inviting others to add information to balance the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The nonsense keep attempting to force into the the article fails WP:RS. You seem determined to ignore WP:BURDEN, however the rules have not changed as a result. Shahak and Mezvinsky are well-known as extremists. Their piece that you have used in this attempted WP:SYNTH is full of fabrications and obvious distortions. The term "three satanic spheres" does not appear anywhere in Rabbi Schneersons works, nor, in all likelihood, anywhere else in Rabbinic literature - but that is only one of many produced by these 'researchers'. Nor is Shapira a "Chabad rabbi", and the list goes on...
When 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Protocols' are deemed acceptable as per WP:RS then Shahak and Mezvinsky will be as well. 'Pluto Press' likewise fails WP:RS as it seems to be a vanity press -type fringe publisher of radical and controversial material, while Wikipedia seeks "mainstream".--Winchester2313 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Shahak and Mazvinsky are both respected academics - not to mention Jews. "Someone I disagree with" is not synonymous with "extremist." Nor is Pluto Press a vanity publisher - it publishes major academic works, although its emphasis is certainly on the left wing. Please quote from WP:RS to show how quoting a book by academics violates policy. Please cite your sources for your other claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
As I already pointed out (and you seem determined to ignore), the screed you are attempting to cut and paste here is full of lies, and obviously fails WP:RS among other policies. Perhaps most importantly, it fails WP:QS , which states that;
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."
I'm sure this type of material would be more than welcome at or , but obviously knows that already - why not stick to those sites?--Winchester2313 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
No personal attacks, please. What unreliable website do I use as a source? Haaretz? An academic book is not a web site, you know. Just because you say something is unreliable doesn't make it so. What lies do my sources contain? Back up your claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Does the Haaretz article state that Chabad has "controversial racial views"? Please quote it doing so. Or is that just something you synthesized? Also, Shahak was a chemistry professor - I'm sure his academic credentials regarding chemistry are sound. Pluto Press proudly describes itself as "one of the world’s leading radical publishers". Being radical may be something Pluto Press is proud of, but on Wikipedia that means WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. In addition, you're still inserting a huge, copyright violating quote, and you are still inserting the material in the very first section of this article, despite it obviously not belonging there. You still have not addressed any of these issues. Rest assured, the material you are proposing will not go into this article unless and until these issues are addressed. Rather than attempting to edit-war this material in, you must propose it here first; otherwise you are bound to get blocked. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've answered all your claims. Please read my comments above.
  • Read the article. It says there are controversial racial views within Chabad, not that Chabad has controversial racial views.
  • Mezvinsky is a history professor.
  • Pluto Press is a publisher of academic books. They tend to be left wing, but that doesn't violate policy. The policies you cite don't say what you claim they say. I suggest you read them, then quote them.
  • How many words must be quoted from a book for copyright to be violated? Provide a source.
  • Feel free to rearrange the article if you think the order is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises the court found that as few as 300 words copied from a 500 page book was a copyright violation. You are currently copying 434 words from a much shorter work.
  2. Mezvinsky may be a historian, but Shahak is not, and the work itself is not an academic work, it is a polemic.
  3. Pluto Press is not an academic press, it is a radical press that publishes WP:FRINGE material respectable academic presses won't touch.
  4. The sources you use (e.g. [4], [5]) don't mention "controversial racial views" or even "racism".
  5. Even if the material weren't WP:SYNTH (and it is), it still wouldn't belong as the first section, so continually putting it there demonstrates bad faith.
  6. Propose a section here so that it can be brought into line with policy, if possible. Refusing to do so also demonstrates bad faith. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


I fully protected this page for 3 days due to edit warring. Use the time to resolve this dispute. Users who edit war over article content may be blocked from editing. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Other haredi critiques.[edit]

I have reverted User:Ajnems edits and restored a more WP:NPOV version of the information regarding Yitzchok Hutners supposed critique on a number of grounds.

1. The article the way it read was based ' in toto' on a single account by one individual (Hillel Goldberg) who is not an acknowledged expert, and whose reliance on an anonymous account fails WP:IRS and WP:NPOV.

2. The publisher of the book with the snippets of information this section was predicated upon is KTAV. I have an email directly from Adam Bengal, managing editor of KTAV, stating that they do not use fact-checkers as a matter of course. Much WP:RS information has been published in recent years that casts serious doubt on the WP:CONTROVERSIAL claims made in this section of the book.

3. The above renders the claims made by Goldberg in his book rather WP:EXCEPTIONAL and they should therefore not be restored until these issues have been satisfactorily resolved. To quote the relevant guidelines specifically;

"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;"

I personally recommend removing the entire Yitzchok Hutner piece from this article due to the many obvious issues with it's inclusion, but will not do so until there is some consensus. --Winchester2313 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Theres also the point of the bit about Rav Hutner being problematic as in wp:undue and wp:burden which need to be fixed. I think that section should just be deleted to avoid the wp:undue problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Other Haredi Critiques - R' Shlomo Heiman and R' Moshe Soloveitcik[edit]

Should this also be included?

Yonoson3 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Split Page by Controversy Type[edit]

My edit to this page was to divide the topics by "Controversies Relating to Chabad Rebbes" and "Other Chabad-related controversies"

Perhaps we can split the page by controversy type. Does this make sense? How we do we go about it? (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Refine types of controvos[edit]

After much clean up on this page, including summarizing content, trimming excessive detail and cleaning up POV language, I think it is time to address types of "controversies" on the page as a number of them seem to have little encyclopedic value. So, what should stay or go?

1. "Major" controvos- concerning rebbe's or main orgs should obviously stay. 2. Legal disputes- should only stay if there is a real controversy. Otherwise, legal dispute should be noted on specific subject page rather than a "controversy" page 3. Local minor disputes with little connection to major orgs are of no value to WP and should be removed.

I will be reviewing the last segment of the article and removing the 3rd type on this list. There are only a few, and their removal is long due. (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been turned into a puff piece on Chabad[edit]

People like "roost" on this article and remove or displace anything that is critical of Chabad. That has to stop. For example, Chanad in Australia is now the subject of international attention and condemnation by the global Jewish community for tolerating and protecting pedophiles. That needs to be covered in Wikipedia. It is current, important, well documented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talkcontribs)

As per earlier consensus on this talk page only movement wide controversies belong here. Feel free to add the Australia content to Chabad in Australia page. The reason for this rule is because this page has long been one big COATRACK in violation of Wikipedia policy. (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Qwerty, I'm not sure I agree that such a consensus was reached. And I am sure that if such a consensus was reached, it was reached several years ago. The only statements above concerning consensus that are newer than about four years old are your recent ones, and consensus can and does change.
I fully appreciate why you are taking this position. At the same time, VanEman is entitled to some space where he can critique a Chabad affiliate. And frankly, I disagree with you that he's not entitled to at least a perch here. (That is to say, he's entitled at least to be able to post a sentence or two with a link to a more detailed article.) Where else should he do it? I don't especially think the article Chabad itself is the place to do it, but here?
Remember: we're not talking about an allegation that a single Chabad rabbi in Australia was a pedophile. We have an allegation that the Chabad organization in Australia tolerated pedophilia and protected its members. That's notable, and that's notable at the global level. Moreover, if I heard that there were a controversy about a Chabad affiliate and pedophilia abuses, and I didn't know ahead of time that it took place in Australia—perhaps I wonder where it took place at all—I'd come here. For you to demand that it go on the (nonexistent, by the way) Chabad in Australia page is entirely absurd to me.
Tag it as controversial or disputed? Fine. Delete it? No.
(By the way, ask Debresser if he thinks I am anti-Chabad. I most certainly am not.)
VanEman, of course, let me remind you to stay focused on the controversy at hand and not to tar all of Chabad with a broad brush. If you have institutional objections to Chabad, start researching and writing a piece along the lines of Critique of Chabad, which would be a reasonable place to compile such objections. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This page is worthy of WP:TNT[edit]

WP:TNT clearly needed for this page as the previous editors consensus have noted that the page has just become a listing of all events critical of Chabad, in violation of WP:POV and WP:COATRACK. (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a coatrack. Any controversy regarding a Chabad-related controversy that is institutional in some way (as opposed to individual) is on topic here. Do not TNT this page. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sentence[edit]

Quote: In return, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok was critical of the efforts of Rabbis Kalmanowitz and Kotler based on the suspicion that Kalmanowitz and Kotler were discriminating in their use of funds, placing their yeshivas before all else, and that the Mizrachi and Agudas Harabonim withdrew their support of the Vaad after they discovered this fact.
I'm not sure what the bolded "that" is referring to. Does it mean that RYY's criticism was based on the suspicion that Mizrachi and UOR withdrew their support because they discovered this fact? Implying that their "discovery" was only a suspicion on the rebbe's part? Can someone familiar with the source reword this for clarity's sake? MosheEmes (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

critiques vs controvs[edit]

Based on a re-reading of the last AfD, I've gone ahead and re-organised the article to reflect the difference between core movement-related controversies and core criticisms. (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple merge proposal[edit]

This page is useful in that it becomes a single source for all "Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies," however, I would argue that it is un-encyclopedic in its nature (it's basically a list of unrelated incidents spanning 200 years) which is discouraged under WP:Criticism and this page has in the past and presently become a dumping ground for negative news stories relating to individual Chabad rabbis. I propose the following "multiple merge" solution which I believe is fair in preserving existing content but moving it to more relevant pages.

I will add a merge tag on the page though the tag won't reflect the fact that this is for multiple merges. (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Or rename to "Criticism and controversies related to Chabad-Lubavitch". Debresser (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
While you're at it, change it to "Criticism and controversies and lawsuits related to Chabad-Lubavitch" (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)