Talk:Chabad/Archive 9

merge from|Hasidic philosophy

Much of the contents of the Hasidic philosophy article should be merged into this article or the Tanya article because it deals with Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic philosophy mostly. IZAK 07:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

'agree'Bold textthat the parts that are related should be merged because chassidus is the one item greatly lacking from this article, although it occupies a very central location in chabad

Hasidic Philosophy is an entire field of scholarship and as such deserves it's own article. One particular school of thought within this area of scholarship is Chabad philosophy. It is perhaps one of the more popular ones, but by no means synonymous with Hasidic philosophy in general. Other schools of thought within Hasidic Philosophy include Breslov, Belz, Karlin-Stolin, Carlbach, and Satmar. The one thing they all have in common is that they are the legacy of the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism, and expand upon his teachings. They are not, however, the same. In some cases they differ sharply, such as the (relatively) well-known contraversy between Chabad and Satmar. The Hasidic Philosophy article should focus on the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his recognized successor, the Maggid of Mezritch. It should list the different schools of thouht within the philosophy and link to seperate articles about them where applicable. Althogh Tanya is primarily a Chabad book ,no discussion of Hasidic Philosophy would be complete without it, as it is one of the most basic texts of the philosophy as a whole, and is referenced throughout all schools of thought.

• Oppose merge. Agree that different Hassidic groups have different philosophies, not all Hassidic philosophy is Chabad philospohy. The Breslover group and its founder Nachman of Breslov, for example, are quite notable and distinctive. If Chabad is over-represented in the Hassidic philosophy article, this should be remedied by adding more material on the philosophies of other Hassidic leaders and groups and/or by trimming the Chabad material to avoid WP:NPOV#undue weight. --Shirahadasha 04:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Split article The parts of the Hasidic philosophy article that are "pure" Baal Shem Tov should go into Hasidic Judaism article. The parts that relate to Chabad-Lubavitch should be in the Chabad-Lubavitch, and the schools of thought subsequent to the Baal Shem Tov (including Tanya, which came after him and so was obviously not part of his philosophy, and which is almost exclusively identified with Chabad) should be placed in those appropriate articles. The Hasidic philosophy and Judaism article should focus "purely" on the Baal Shem Tov and his own teachings, not what became of them afterwards or how they were interpreted or applied or expanded upon or even changed by others. Even the Baal Shem Tov's grandson Boruch of Medzhibozh (Reb Nachman's uncle) complained that Shneor Zalman of Liadi was not following the Baal Shem Tov's authentic derech. --ChosidFrumBirth 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A Hassidic philosophy article that focuses exclusively on the Baal Shem Tov would be like a Western Philosophy article that focuses exclusively on Plato. The article should address the origins, history, commonalities, and varieties of contemporary Hassidic philosophy. The Baal Shem Tov's philosophy should be under Baal Shem Tov or similar. --Shirahadasha 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the name but I don't know who Plato or anything about Western Philosophy, lhavdil, and you make a good point about what the article should do, but it seems to me that Hassidic philosphy IS the Baal Shem Tov as proven by everyone saying they're following the Baal Shem and this is what he said. The Baal Shem Tov's philsophy shouldn't be just under the Baal Shem Tov, since his philosophy WAS Hassidic philosphy by definition. I understand what you say about later developments and contemporary philosophy but I don't know if it would be managable or doable to include all the other schools or dynasties, and a lot of them don't speak openly about it anyway so it would be very spotty and incomplete, but maybe links should be made to them in this article. Unless you get rid of this article entirely and put Hasidic philosphy under the Baal Shem Tov and all the rest under theirs. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ChosidFrum Birth, perhaps you should look into it (Greek philosophy). :) A lot of Chabad philosophy's language is based on Rambam's logical approach (pretty much, Chabad = Kabbalah x Rambam's logic + gilui of new concepts), and a lot of that is based on, lehavdil, Greek philosophy of Aristotle and Plato. Read, for example, Mittler Rebbe's Shaar Hayichud, Ch-s 10 and 11. As to the topic: Chabad philosophy is quite distinct from the Chassidic philosophy of other groups and Chassidic philosophy "in general" (Baal Shem Tov's philosophy). Joining them together is (almost) like joining Chemistry and Physics, or Neuroscience and Biology. As long as it is noted that Chabad philosophy is part of Chassidic philosophy, and Chabad is mentioned in the Chassidic philosophy article, no joining is necessary, as far as I see. -- Aflyax

So you're saying don't merge -- I agree -- that why I suggested that Chabad stay "pure" Chabad and separate from the general Chassidic philosophy article which should focus on the Baal Shem and perhaps just refer to others. --ChosidFrumBirth 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Why PinchaC deleted the explanation of the meaning of the name Lubavitch. It seems to be very important for Chabad to state that this name means "town of brotherly love". However this expression sounds in Russian as "gorod bratskoi lubvi". Lubavitchi may be related to the word for love "lubov'" in Russian or Belorussian, or it can be related to the east-slavonic female name Lubava. The revertion made by PinchasC is a sign of ignorant ideological censorship applied to this article, which is against the very idea of Wikipedia as a free neutral knowledge source.

The word is not Russian. It is Polish. As it was near the border with Poland, it received a Polish name.

The Slavic lubav (любав-) root is associated with love, the fact being alluded to by Chabad adherents to imply that the town is somehow "a town of love" in Belarussian. In fact, Lubav- might as well be a name of a tree, a grove, a weed, or any other geographical feature. The suffix –ich or ichi (-ич, ичи) or is a common suffix of Belarussian (and some Ukrainian as well as Russian)towns and villages. To make the point, another Belarussian town of Baranovichi's root baran (sheep) has no historical or agricultural connection to sheep; sheep are to be found only in the faraway Carpathian Mountains.

Consulting Dahl's Dictionary of Russian, we find that любавa (lubava)is one of many affectionate names for a daughter, sister, wife, or beloved. --Bo Basil 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As you found, one of the possible meanings of lubava is "beloved". And Lubov is "Love", now, although you believe it may mean something else, you need to bring sources that it means something else. Meanwhile there are no shortage of sources that Lubavitch is referred to as a town of love. In any case I have removed it from the into as this article is about the movement and not about the town. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following are a small sample of references that say that Lubavitch means town of brotherly love. Perhaps the other editors can help me choose a few to list as the official source.

• Holy Days: The World Of The Hasidic Family

by Lis Harris (1995) - Touchstone ISBN: 0684813661 Page 98 Lubavitch (City of Love), a town on the River Dnieper.

• Chicken Soup to Warm the Neshama

by Pesach Burston and Chana Burston (2003) - Pesach & Chana Burston ISBN: 0972795405 Page 161 Lubavitch - (Russian: town of love)

• Practical Kabbalah: A Guide to Jewish Wisdom for Everyday Life

by Laibl Wolf (1999) - Three Rivers Press ISBN: 0609803786 Page 232 Lubavitch (lit. "Town of Love"; Rus.)

• The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia

by Michael Gray (2006) - Continuum International Publishing Group ISBN: 0826469337 Page 130 Lubavitch, meaning `brotherly love' in Russian

• A Portion of the People: Three Hundred Years of Southern Jewish Life

(2002) - University of South Carolina Press ISBN: 1570034451 Page 239 Lubavitcher Follower of the Lubavitch branch (named for a Byelorussian town meaning "town of brotherly love") of the Hasidic movement.

• The Israelis : Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land

by Donna Rosenthal (2003) - Free Press ISBN: 0684869721 Page 416 Like most other Hasidim, the Lubavitch get their name from their town of origin, in this case, the now Byelorussian town of Lubav, which means "love" in Russian.

• Major World Religions

by Lloyd Ridgeon (2003) - RoutledgeCurzon ISBN: 0415297966 Page 160 the word Lubavitch in Russian means the `city of brotherly love'.

• Wrapped in a Holy Flame: Teachings and Tales of The Hasidic Masters

by Zalman Schachter Shalomi (2003) - Jossey-Bass ISBN: 0787965731 Page 93 Lubavitch, the "City of Brotherly Love. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

These English-speaking resources are eager to exploit the wishful thinking regarding the obvious association of Chassidus with "love," and the claims by Chasidim to imbue the divine service with "love." In the world of etymology, common sense would suggest that the town named such (in the barbaric country such as then-post-medieval Russia) has NOTHING to do with love, but most likely with a brook, a weed, a field, or other geographical feature. I am trying not to use academic data here.

Lubavich - named after love? Not by Chassidim, for sure - they did not name anything in Russia for the pitiful position of Jews in the country. Good exercise of artistic license.--Bo Basil 12:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was not chassidim but the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Joseph Isaac himself who explained that in Russian this name means, “city of love.” See Sefer Ha’Zichronot, Vol. 1, ch. 1. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 8 (!) footnotes proving that this name means “city of love”! This is completely redundant. One reference suffices, and the record on this talk page will serve as testimony for those who require more proof. I'm removing all the other references. Yehoishophot Oliver 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Chabad.info

I'm reinserting chabad.info together with the extensive list of other chabad news links. --Shlomke 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

otzar770.com

I just added otzar770.com. It was previously removed for copyright violations, but does not seem to be so. --Shlomke 00:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire site is copyright violations. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think so. --Shlomke 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The site is composed of scans of books copyrighted by Kehot Publication Society. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That in itself does not prove it to be a copyright violation. They may have had permision. --Shlomke 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will send Kehot an email asking them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime please do not remove it again. --Shlomke 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinchas, what was Kehos' response to your question? Yehoishophot Oliver 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They did not respond, however as Shlomke wrote below, it is mainly the copyright of Vaad Lehafotsas Sichos... --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I think otzar770.com does not seem to be a copyright violation and should be linked:

• otzar770.com seems to be a big and organised project with 10 people on its board, including rabbi Mordechai Ashkenazi, head rabbi of Kefar Chabad, and Prof. Yirmiya Branover, so it seems like a pretty ligitamite org..

• The 38 volumes of Lekutei Sichos are published and copyrighted by Vaad Lehafotsas Sochos, not kehos. [I think its abovius that they had permision to scan it, since two menbers of VLS are on the board of otzar770.com.]

• The 50 volumes of Hisvaaduyos are published and copyrighted by Lahak Hanochos, not Kehos.

• The 14 Maamorim books are also published and copyrighted by Vaad Lehafotsas Sochos and Vaad Kisvei Kodesh, not kehos.

• The English section books are published and copyrighted by "sichos In English", again not kehos.

What is published and copyrighted by by kehos is 22 volumes of Igros Kodesh and 10 volumes of mamarim form the Rebbe Rashab.

So a majority of the website is not even copyrighted by Kehos (thats if they did not have permission). While everything published and copyrighted by Vaad Lehafotsas Sochos is done with permission.

• Another point to consider is that the (non- meshichist) weekly Dvar Malchus chita"s booklet has the otzar770.com website listed on its back cover every week. This boklet is given out internationaly and has people affiliated with who are not at all against kehos.

• Finaly, Kehos has (to my knowledge) never voiced it opposition to this project and website since its founding in 1998.

otzar770.com is a great resource of chabad teachings. I think other people here have felt the same. It would be a pitty to have to keep this website off the article. I would like to hear the opinion of other editors. Shlomke 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR + Please engage in constructive dialogue

I would like to remind all editors to be careful of the three revert rule and urge you to actually discuss the edits in question. Neither of your versions has almost any sources; I suspect that attempting to source content over which you disagree might help resolve some of the disagreements. JoshuaZ 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits by shlomke

Shlomke has been reverting me for no reason. I explained my edit in the edit summary. Shlomke, why are you reverting? --TrachtGut 16:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to start discussing why you are changing the article in the talk page. The edit summary's you gave do not explain your edits. saying "minor accuracy update" is misleading and not explaining. Additionally you can not just explain your edits, but they have to be NPOV. What you call "corrected description of link" is rather biased and POV. As you are well aware, a number of editors here do not agree with your edits and would like the article to stay as it was. If you think something should be changed (in adherence to NPOV) you should finally start using the talk page, thats what its made for. Shlomke 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected it so it should be accurate. So that is an accuracy update. My description of the link is neutral and accurate. I believe that your edits are biased and POV. --TrachtGut 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I redid some of the wording (which was unclear).I also replaced an entire section that had been removed, with no explanation whatsoever. I found that strange, and replaced the section. However, some of the wording in the section was unclear (and probably wrong). So I replaced that with clearer language. Finally, I corrected the misquoted Sichah from Shoftim 5751. The language does not indicate "in a spiritual sense." I understand that some might interpret it that way, Wiki must present the facts, not interpretation. --Meshulam 15:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the paragraph titled "Controversy during the seventh Rebbe's life" because there is nothing controversial or anyone that disagrees with what is quoted there. --TrachtGut 00:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. If you don't think the heading is correct, please change the heading, or paste it into a different section. There's no need to remove perfectly good text altogether that numerous people took the trouble to work on. Yehoishophot Oliver 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Never died

This can be elaborated on, and I think it is the source of some of TrachtGut's frustration (though, I can't know it for sure, because he has yet to explain even a singe edit in his series of one-tracked edits). There are those who believe that the Rebbe is alive in a physical sense. They refer, among other things, to the Shoftim Sicha (which never mentions anything about "in a spiritual sense"). Others counter that the ultra-literal interpretation that those give to the Rebbe's words are misguided. Perhaps (and this is an emphatic perhaps) they interpret those statements as meaning that the Rebbe is alive in a spiritual sense. If that is the case, then that view needs to be given airtime as well, using properly sourced material. But the reference to the Shoftim sicha in the article are there to explain the views of those who say that the Rebbe literally never died. Wiki gives equal time, and does not pick POVs to push (as some of its more zealous editors do). --Meshulam 15:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Keter

Keter has nothing to do with chasidut, let alone Chabad. It's part of nusach Sefarad, which was used by Sefardim for centuries before chasidut existed. The Ari Zal based his nusach on that of the Sefaradim among whom he grew up, the Shelah Hakadosh combined parts of this nusach with his native nusach Ashkenaz, and chasidim adopted the Siddur Hashelah, in whole or part, in various versions which came to be called "Sfard", or "Ari". Among the many differences between nusach Sefarad and Ashkenaz are nakdishach/keter versus nekadesh/naaritzecha, hodu before or after barush sheamar, Tehilim 98 and 121-4 on Shabbat morning, not saying kiddush in shul on Friday night, etc. This all belongs in an article on nusach hatefillah, not on Chabad.

By the way, Nusach Italia says keter, not only in musaf but in shacharit and mincha as well.

Zsero 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Knew it had nothing to do with Chabad, but remembered reading that the Baal Shem Tov started Nusach Sfard based upon the Ari. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Use either G-d or HaShem

Zargulon stated: "In Wikipedia it is "G-d". Nobody is forcing you to look." This is an article about a branch of Judaism, isn't it? And who made you Editor-in-Chief? Nkras 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

About the merge tag on Yechi

This article is long enough as it is... Way past the official limits as to how long an article should be before it is broken into pieces. Therefore, I would strongly oppose any merge. Perhaps a new article about the controversies in chabad, would be good, and this could include the yechi article along with the controversy section in the chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size for relevant policy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I could support splitting this off and merhing Yechi into it, as I don't think it is notable in and of itself, but it is as a section of a controvery article. -- Avi 12:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Yechi deserves its own article. Kolindigo 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason it can't be together with the other controversies? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The obvious reason is that it is bigger, more current, and more relevant than the other controversies. Besides, Yechi is more than a controversy. It is a point of view that is gaining popularity in Chabad, and already has a large following (perhaps the majority of Chabad). --Meshulam 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke right?

The last Rebbe of Chabad was described to be in a very spiritual and detached state while delivering his ma'amorim during Shabbat (stories are full of anecdotal information such as him holding on to a handkerchief to remain attached to the surrounding reality); on the other hand, there are accounts when he was visited by other rabbis in his office and was seen actually preparing a new ma'amor by studying earlier chassidic texts. Therefore, it is not clear whether it is believed that the full contents of his ma'amorim were completely received as a result of revelation or whether his particular analysis, synthesis and application of already existing information were merely inspired by "gilui me-shamaim". It is probably that both beliefs exist among Chabad chassidim and regardless of which one prevails both lead to perception of the texts as holy and inspired by a spiritual experience.

This drivel is like something out of an FArtScroll hagiography. I just can't believe that so many editors contributions have led to such a pisspoor article. "Not clear" which ludicrous POV fantasy is correct! Holy Moley. David Spart 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be quoting the views of chabad chassidim which you may not agree with, however it may still be the views of them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV fork to be repaired with summaries

POV frok since there is no summary of the controvecies in the section only a link. Please fix this someone. David Spart 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to news sites

Thre are curently seven links to Chabad "News sites". I think this should be limited to two or three the most: Lubavitch.com as the official news source for chabad, Shmais.com for everyday news, Chabad.info, for messianist news. The rest can go. Shlomke 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, however I think that the link to the chabad.org news should stay as another official chabad site news. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Lubavitch.com is a resource for other news services, they update less then once per day, and Chabad.org merely RSS list of what Lubavitch.com publishes. As relevant as it is to having a messianic news service linked, therefore IMHO all of them belong. --IzGut 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shlomke and PinchasC are correct IMHO, wikipedia is not a web directory and as long as "both sides" get a fair mention that should be it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So you say it isn't a directory then none of them belong, yet they are relevant so they do. Now the argument stands, why Shmais not CrownHeights.info? Why Chabad.info and not [Chabad.fm?--IzGut 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know - I just know we cant have them all. Which are the biggest ones? We could check on Alexa. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to an alexa graph comparing the size [1] David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Manipulating Alexa is an easy thing to do, their entire formula for calculating hits is flawed 'Article explaining the flaws'. That cannot be what the deciding factor would be. I would better rely on a rank in Google search. --IzGut 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed Chabad.org as a news site and replaced shmais and added col --IzGut 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be only one link to one major news site, and that is shmais. The others are there either to relate news from a meshichist pespective, or because it's there official news source of the movement. These are only news sites and do not add much to the Chabad-Lubavich article. Shlomke 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shmais is in no way to be considered a 'major' news site, if we were to base it on alexa's flawed ranking system, they say that chinfo gets a significantly grater amount of traffic versus shmais, and a simple google search puts chinfo on top of shmais in the chabad news front. On a obvious note, chinfo is updated many many times a day vs shamis which is updated once. Based on all this i think chinfo deserves to be there over shmais, if not side by side. --IzGut 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shmais is the oldest and most established Chabad news site, founded in 1996 (vs. CH.info founded in 2005). The news on Shmais is central, while CHinfo has news about car crashes home robbery and the like. As it's name say's it "Crown heights" Info. I dont see any evidence that CH.info is bigger then shmais, only that shmais is bigger. This is why I linked to shmais. Remember there is an effort here to cut down on the links. It was ridicules to have links to seven "news sites" on a ecyclopedia article about Chabad. Also according to wikipedia policy you should not promote your own site, and it seems all your edits are connected with linking to crownheights.info, this is against wikipedia policy Shlomke 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shmais is undoubtedly the oldenst news site but that alone does not give him any supraceeding rights should a new site (i.e. CH.info) and outdo Shmais. Shmais's news is just as 'central' as CH.info's, just read the site, remember CH.info has a turnover of 20 articles per day wheras shmais has a mere 5 to 10 plus half that number in paid advertisements, CrownHeights.info is a name which is synonymous with Chabad as it is the 'home' of Chabad Chassidus at the present time, which makes it still a Chabad 'central' news site. You bring no proof that shmais is bigger, whereas I bring proof that CH.info is bigger and ill list them again a quick Google Search for the words Chabad News puts CH.info on top of shmais, and an Alexa traffic ranking shows CrownHeights.info way above Shmais.com in their traffic ranking. You statement "I dont see any evidence that CH.info is bigger then shmais, only that shmais is bigger." is compleatly out of line, followed by your other line "you should not promote your own site" you make a claim with ZERO proof supporting it and you say uim supporting my own site? Take a look at yourself my friend, you have a significant amount of edits just concerning shmais yourself.

Now since I bring support to my claim that CH.info is in fact bigger and more popular I am going to make the edit, and until you bring PROOF otherwise you shouldn't make any edits regarding this matter.--IzGut 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The links you provided prove the exact opposite of what you ay. Do you know how to read alexa traffic rankings? the lower the number, the higher the traffic. Traffic Rank for crownheights.info: 103,848. Traffic Rank for shmais.com: 59,833. This is all in addition to what I already explained above. My edits to the external links are a mere fraction of the rest of my edits, however all you edits focus around CH.info. So please stop promoting your own site. Shlomke 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Shmais is the leading Chabad Classifieds site with some one liner articles translated from COL, unless Shmais gets an email or something with an 'exclusive', most of Shmais's articles are just plain empty, I dont think being a classified site makes him a news site. I think CH.info has proven itself to be the leading english Chabad news site, with its bold reporting and the real news they put on the table. Enough said. Zpinson 06:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Zpinson

The above is not true at all. Where do you get you info from? Shlomke 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look a Shmais NOW, look how many Classified it has up there, trying to shove it in as news. Then the NEWS. What news? I dont see anything in there worthy of making it a NEWS site to begin with, first of all it has to be NEW, most of the things up there has been reported on like a week before by Chabad news site including CH.info. Secondly, the 15% to 25% (being generous) of new news up there, is just plain empty articles, that you can find anywhere on Chabad news sites including CH.info. What new does Shmais bring to the table? Do you still think Shmais is a news site? Id so, then you simply dont know what else is out there... Zpinson 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary. The fact that Shmais has so many ads on their site tells you something about their traffic and popularity. In any case lets look at the facts again. Shmais is the oldest Chabad news site, thats undisputed. Alexa traffic ranks show shmais much higher then Crownheights.info. Your argument that shmais has no "new" news is not true, just take a look at their site. in any case, this is not the place to analyze web sites and give reviews and opinions about their content. We simply cannot have links to all chabad news sites, so I picked shamis which is arguably the most central news site. Another point to consider is nearly all other chabad news site rank higher then CH.info. See chabad.org Shturem.net Col.org.il 0 Chabad.info. Even if we were to say that Alexa is not an absolute measuring stick and not 100% accurate, it is still my general understanding that shmais is the most central news site (not that I really care about any of them, but we have to pick one). Shlomke 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Major Changes by User:David Spart

I finally mustered the energy to read this whole article end to end. It was in a terrible state. I added Citation needed tags to most of the unsourced statements. I removed some blatant POV along the lines of "Chabad is really awesome because...". I wikified some stuff. I removed a few whole paragraphs of blatant OR from the philosophy section. I removed a lovely story about a rebbe and chasid and transwikied it to the the Artscroll wiki. I still don't understand a word of the philosophy section - does anybody else? I removed one seven-line sentence, but there is still a five-liner in there.

It goes without saying that sources need to found for all the unsourced statements and kal v'chomer nothing can go in without a good source. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

I have made many changes to this article, I provided a new philosophy section, as the previous one was either one massive unreadable copyvio or one massive unreadable piece of OR. I tried to remove much of the POV. For example it often said something like "he stressed the importance of x" that is a POV statement - since it is predicated on the "importance of x". It needs to be "he said x was important".

The article is still dismal. Particularly the history section - there is more homely waffle about the names than there is about the history. That needs to be expanded. are there 4000 chabad houses? It doesnt seem credible. Just going to their website I see that there are 29 in Australia and one in New Zealand. This need to be checked. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I went to the Chabad directory and for Australia there are over 70 institutions, therefore your count is inaccurate and I will be restoring the original sourced numbers. Chocolatepizza 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

I think that the name should be changes from Chabad-Lubavitch to Chabad. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we should always the the most commonly used name. Here is a internet survey of how often names are used:

1. "Chabad" (1,530,000 (Google search)) (12,900 (Google News Archive Search))
2. "Lubavitch" (880,000 (Google search)) (8,140 (Google News Archive Search))
3. "Chabad Lubavtich" (513,000 (Google search)) (3,410 (Google News Archive Search))
4. "Habad" (89,000 (Google search)) (1,060 (Google News Archive Search))
5. "Lubavitch Chabad" (19,000(Google search)) (194(Google News Archive Search))

Chabad is the most common by miles, and this lead is extended when we look in the News Archives which probably gives a better picture of how the names are used. I propose that the name be changed to Chabad, and all the other ones redirected. With a link to a Chabad (disambig) at the top. The naming conventions are unambiguous about this. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Page moved, per request at WP:RM. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think confusion arises when the movement is sometimes called "Chabad" and sometimes "Lubavitch". This is the case on wikipedia too. Therefore perhaps it's better for the article to go back to "Chabad-Lubavitch" and "Chabad" and "Lubavitch" redirecting to "Chabad-Lubavitch". We'll still have the disambiguation on top of the page for other uses of "Chabad". Shlomke 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Chabad should be blanked

It is high time that the long-dormant page for User:Chabad be permanantly blanked, so that no confusion or offense be created with this article. The attention and help of the admins is requested. Thank you, IZAK 09:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. --Shlomke 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies?

As fond as I am of the Chabad teaching, I have to tell you guys that this article reads like a promotional piece, and not like an encyclopedia article. Even the "Controversies" section manages to avoid mentioning any of the real criticism that has exists, and that has been published. If nothing is done to improve the article I will tag it for its non-neutral point of view. Kwork 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at this article, and really it amounts to Chabad propaganda. This is to the point where I think there are grounds to nominate it for deletion. I have tagged the article for its lack of neutrality. I understand that strong personal beliefs are involve in this article, but Wikipedia is not about promoting one's personal beliefs, or promoting one's favorite religious organization. There are plenty of Chabad web sites that do that already. Wikipedia articles here are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Kwork 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you are saying is valid. However, instead of merely discussing the faults of the article in a general sense, you should be bold and help to actively improve the article by editing it in the places in which you find fault.--DLand^TALK 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you can't have an article called Controversies of Chabad and also have the same controversies in the chabad article. Which controversies are not in the controversies article? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The real question is how could there be a Controversies of Chabad article? That article surely deserves speedy deletion. If there are "controversies" they surely should be handled in the Chabad article. Bus stop 13:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoever was covering the controversies saw fit to compile them neatly in a separate article for the sake of clarity. What's the problem with that? And if kworki thinks that certain parts of the article are not neutral (and much material from the article has already been edited and removed based on this claim) then it behooves him/her to point out what and why. A general dismissal, however, is simply not helpful. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem because "controversies" is not what Chabad is about. That is the placing of the cart before the horse. It gives far undue weight to any controversies that exist. Chabad is not primarily a controversial organization. The freestanding article devoted to "controversies" represents an undue weight issue. It is not easy writing an article. That is the challenge the editor faces. A well-written article on Chabad will present controversies, if any. But a well written article on "Controversies of Chabad" is unlikely to give a good representation of Chabad, the primarily uncontroversial organization. Bus stop 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversies should be discussed here, in this article. Creating a separate article is just a means of warehousing the problematic material. Moreover, the biggest problem with this article is that it is so far from neutral in viewpoint that it amounts to pure Chabad propaganda. That needs to be changed, because it is grounds for nominating the article for deletion. Kwork 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it lacking in neutrality? How is it "propaganda?" Can you give me an example of something illustrative of that? Bus stop 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I can give an example. Here is an example:

Chabad is known today for its centers around the world. Each center is called a Chabad House, which is a Jewish community center that provides educational and outreach activities serving the needs of the entire Jewish community, regardless of degree of observance.[4] Each center is an informal place to learn about and observe Judaism,[5] and endeavors to provide an atmosphere such that all Jews feel comfortable at Chabad events.[6]

This is nicely worded, but it is a sales pitch to get Jews to come to participate in the Chabad Houses. And there is certainly no crime in that. But Wikipedia should not be used for that purpose. I wish you well in this project, but this is not the place for promotional material. An encyclopedia article should be neutral, and without solicitation. (By the way, one controversy is that the Chabads try to raid the membership of other Jewish groups.) Kwork 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That quote is sourced. But if you think it sounds like a sales pitch, then (as other editors have done) instead of suggesting that the whole article be removed, simply make the slight changes that you deem necessary, leaving all the facts intact. TIA. 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't see why the controversies article itself can't be NPOV. There's a criticism of this religion and that religion article, and everyone seems to consider that legit. 2. And here you go again, with wild, general, unproven assertions that the article is POV, when it has undergone numerous edits by numerous editors to prevent just that. Please be constructive, and simply make specific edits pointing out specific problems, thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kwork -- I didn't find the paragraph you pointed out all that problematic. I rewrote it. Tell me if you still think it contains any problems. Bus stop 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was not that one paragraph (that was just an example), the problem is the WHOLE article is written as Chabad promotion. The article on Orthodox Judaism is an example of an article that is informative and neutral (but the Chabad article does a much better job on sourcing); but, even in that article, the paragraph on Chabad is promotional:

Chabad Lubavitch is a vast international educational, outreach, community-building movement of Hasidic Judaism. In over 40 years, they have sent throughout the world about 5,000 young men called Shluchim, who are all accompanied by equally motivated spouses with typically large families, all of whom aim to fulfill their mandate of Jewish outreach, education, and revival. They look for and recruit people who want to join them, and they are major players in, the Teshuva movement, which encourages Jews alienated from their religion to become more Jewishly aware and religiously observant.

I have noticed that there are pages of discussion with this article, and my guess is that some of the editors are very skilled at dragging out the talk while minimizing changes that are not wanted. That is understandable, because Chabad Chassidim believe in promoting their approach to Chassidut, their teaching, and their approach to Judaism; and the Rebbe emphasized doing that. Moreover, you have every right to promote Chabad Chassidism. But not on Wikipedia. That has to change. Kwork 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kwork -- OK, I have rewritten the above paragraph that you cited as being problematic. This is the version I have changed it to. Tell me if it is still problematic. It has already been posted. This is it:

"Chabad Lubavitch is an international educational and outreach movement of Hasidic Judaism. The organization has been in existence for 40 years during which time they have sent out emissaries (Shluchim) who have as a mission the bringing back of disaffected Jews to a level of observance consistent with basic Judaism. They are major players in what is known as the the Baal Teshuva movement. Their mandate is to make nonobservant Jews more Jewishly aware."

This re-write may need some more work. For one thing, it makes it sound as though Chabad is just fifty years old. But the big problem is that this makes it seem as though Chabad is just an outreach program trying to hustle new members; and so, perhaps, not much different than the Kabbalah Center! God forbid. My own understanding is that Chabad contains a teaching that may be the most profound ever offered to humanity, and I would like to see that made clear.

This makes me think that perhaps an acceptable solution to the general problem under discussion would be to move such projects as Chabad House to another article including all Chabad service and Jewish outreach programs. Then the main article could focus on Chabad history, and (what I consider the greatest treasure) its spiritual teaching. With the service projects in their own article, the element that makes the article seem promotional would be gone. And the service projects in the context of their own article need not seen as promotion, but rather as service. Kwork 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break

The tag I put on this article has already been removed quite a few times. NB: The problem, as I see it, is that this entire article reads as a promotional work for the Chabad service and outreach projects. That is a misuse of Wikipedia. The problem is not in just a few sentences or paragraphs. Moreover, the article gives the impression that Chabad Chassidism is just a promotional effort to bring in as many people as possible, and that makes it unclear how the Chabad movement is any different, or better, than such groups as the Kabbalah Centre, or Bnei Baruch (and the Bnei Baruch article was deleted because of its promotional approach). I think Chabad deserves better, and I do not believe that is the impression the editors want to make. I did make a suggestion (see directly above) that I think might resolve the problem. Kwork 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to have any discussion here on the talk page, rather than in the revert notes (as you have been doing). As I have said, I think that much of the problem with this article could be solved by separating Chabad history and teaching from Chabad Jewish outreach and service activities. I could just edit out the outreach and service projects, but I assume you would want them in a new article. Or if that approach is not acceptable, suggest a different solution. So far the action here has been all reverts and no edits. Kwork 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is important to take note of the fact that Chabad does not proselytize. I don't know why there is the great concern with their "promotional approach." Nor do they even charge money. They do what they do out of religious conviction. They merely exist to try to educate Jewish people about basic Jewish observance. It is basically a selfless pursuit. Nonobservant Jews often don't know the details that constitute basic Jewish observance, and it is to that lacuna that Chabad addresses itself. It is almost impossible for the description of such a selfless pursuit to be considered "promotional." Bus stop 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. They are, in fact, pre-eminent fund-raisers, and their efforts, while often quite self-sacrificing, are geared towards bringing Jews towards Chabad observances, with the ideal of them becoming Lubavitchers themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg -- They happen to be Lubavitch. Do you expect them to not bring their own identity to their efforts? Is their identity greatly at variance with other identities within Judaism? I think that by and large the differences are minor. What may appear to be outlandish attire is actually of minor importance. The knowledge learned at a Chabad house can easily be transferred to whatever Jewish community a person may live in. The differences are minor. And is there any group of such a nature, within any religion, that does not engage in fundraising? As concerns the article it is a very relevant point that the person walking in the door of a Chabad house does not pay a fee. Fundraising addresses people who are probably already observant and probably already personally predisposed to want to support such an effort. Activities at Chabad houses are actually completely free on a long term basis to the person who walks in the door. I think part of the problem we are wrestling with concerning this article is that it is hard not to sound "promotional" when describing something that is basically a freebie. Bus stop 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways; your argument is now that they do it, but its perfectly reasonable for them to do so. The differences between Lubavitch are other Hasidic groups are already fairly wide; between them and other Orthodox groups even wider, and between them and other Jewish groups substantial. The fundraising is quite often from the non-observant, and many Chabad synagogues charge for high holiday tickets. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg -- That they do what? Raise money? I am assuming you know what you're talking about. I don't know whether they do, but it is reasonable to assume they do raise money, and you are asserting that they do. What difference does it make? Are they raising money from the people who chose to partake of the services at the Chabad houses? I don't think so. They are trying to entice nonobservant Jews into greater involvement with Judaism and I don't think they want to introduce obstacles to that process.

I don't think we can argue how great the differences are between various groups of Orthodox Judaism because that is subjective. You say that,

"The differences between Lubavitch are other Hasidic groups are already fairly wide; between them and other Orthodox groups even wider, and between them and other Jewish groups substantial."

First of all we should be comparing Lubavitch to other Orthodox groups. That is the purpose of Chabad -- to bring Jews to Orthodox observance. Can you tell me what differences you observe between Lubavitch and any other Orthodox Jewish groups?

If a person chooses to learn Hebrew with the Lubavitch, do you think that acquired skill might not potentially have wider applicability?

I don't know what you are faulting them for -- having to pay bills? I think most synagogues try to receive income at the high holidays. Is that particular to Chabad? No one is required to contribute money to Chabad. All do so voluntarily. And I doubt your claim that the nonobservant are large sources of support. Why would they support financially something that they don't support in their life's activities? Bus stop 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not faulting them for anything; I'm pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If they ask for money, then they ask for money. And they have, indeed, been remarkably successful at raising money from non or minimally observant Jews - that has been a key to their success, and one of the things that distinguishes them from other groups. As for the differences from other Hasidic and Orthodox groups, they range from smaller appearance related items, like wearing fedoras (other Hassidic groups don't), not wearing payos as adults (other Hassidic groups do), to larger observance related items, like effectively banning the eating of bread at Seudah Shlishit and sleeping in the sukkah, to the elephant in the room, their posthumous elevation of Menachem Mendel Schneerson to messiahship and, in many cases, a near godlike status. It's hard to find any but the most learned among them that even bother quoting anything besides "The Rebbe's sichos". It doesn't mean that Lubavitchers are bad, or evil, or even wrong; of course, some people think they are all of those things, but perhaps these people are entirely correct in everything they do. However, these are simple facts, whether you approve or disapprove of the group. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As a general statement, that's not true. The object of Chabad outreach to the not-yet-observant is to bring them closer to observance. Each additional mitzvah that they do is seen by the shliach as a success, even if they never progress to full observance. If a mekurov becomes fully observant but not a chossid, the shliach sees that as an unqualified success. Of course it often happens that the person does become a Lubav, and naturally the shliach is happy to see that, but it is wrong to describe that as the goal, or shlichus as being "geared towards" that. It isn't even an aspirational goal.

It is true, however, that Chabad does reach out to already-observant Jews to bring them to become Chabad chassidim, and it has always done so. But that is not on the horizon of the average Chabad House nowadays, because most of them are dealing with people to whom this isn't appropriate. This sort of outreach is done nowadays by specialised centres such as Hechal Menachem in Borough Park.

In any case, none of this is relevant to Kwork's complaint about the article itself. He claims that the article as a whole is simply an ad for Chabad. That is plainly not the case. If he were to focus his complaint on specific paragraphs or phrases, and point out how they are not neutral or factual, perhaps his concerns could be addressed. Zsero 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Messianism Section

Why do the sources that contradict the affadavits included in the Forward article not include page numbers or quotations? It is not possible to verify the claims given the paucity of detail. On the one hand we have senior Chabad rabbi's saying "most believe he was a messiah," and this is attested in sworn affadavits contained in the Forward article. On the other hand, an unknown Jewish Press article and Columbia Spectator article, claims the opposite. We need the page numbers from both of these aformentioned sources to synthesize the information. Abe Froman 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not a senior chabad rabbi, in fact he is not listed as a chabad rabbi at all on www.chabad.org/centers which is the official listings of chabad rabbis. The page numbers for the researchers are already listed in the ref. And the Columbia Spectator article has the date. And the source is not from the Jewish Press, rather it is a book researching chabad messianism. There is also the Jewish Week article with a date that says the same. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources you give, a college newspaper, Jewish Press Op ed, and book on Christian messianism seem a little out of place as "research". What page numbers in your sources support whitewashing the senior Chabad rabbi's statements? Also, the quote accurately referred to the Ohio rabbi as "former," so it makes sense he would not appear on the Chabad listings. The chief gabbai at 770 Eastern Parkway also rebuts the college newspapers' sweeping claims. He is still the chief gabbai. The fact that direct quotes given in affadavits are being blanked on authority of op-ed's, college newspapers, and a book on Christian messianism is troubling behavior for an admin. Where are the quotes and page numbers to support these sweeping claims? Abe Froman 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So a former rabbi trying to promote his cause says something, and there are current rabbis among others saying the opposite. This Gabbai is not an authority on the subject and is quoted from the same court case where they are trying to promote their cause and not be evicted. As I wrote above the quotes and page numbers are already listed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also the Sue Fishkoff piece and the Zalman Shmotkin quote in the messianism article that agrees with these researchers. This is supposed to be a short summary not a full elaboration. Kalmonson's views are in the full elaboration section of the chabad messianism article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to take your removals with good faith. The forward article says a banner at 770 Eastern Parkway proclaims the rebbi messiah, and Yechi is recited to this effect, yet you removed that piece and replaced it with boilerpolate saying "Chabad centers do not claim he is messiah." This is a direct contradiction. Abe Froman 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To wit:

During services at 770 Eastern parkway, most worshipers join in ::::a spirited prayer that celebrates the Rabbi Schneerson ::::as the messiah. On the northern wall of the sanctuary is a long ::::banner that says “Live Our Master, Teacher, Rebbe King ::::Moshiach Forever and Ever." ::::[2]

As you would know from reading the forward article, that the downstairs 770 shul(which is not a chabad house is controlled by the messiansts. And they are in the process of being evicted, which this court case is about, and where you have a quote from the current messianist gabbai and his supporters trying to bolster their claims. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The Chabad headquarters shul does believe he is the Messiah. This is an important fact that should not be removed from this article because you disagree with it. I also find your labeling of the two rabbi's as "messianist" to be suspect. Where did you come to this conclusion? What source? Why does it disqualify them from appearing in this article? Abe Froman 03:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not the chabad headquarter shul. The chabad headquarters is in a four story building above a basement which contains the shul. The fact that they are messianist does not disqualify them from appearing in the chabad messianism article, however they should not be a prominent part of the summary of chabad messianism. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

About finding more sources saying what I'm saying, there are many of them. Two more example,(which still need to be added to the chabad messianism article) are an article written by 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) and in 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.

I am sure that you can dig up a few article saying what you are saying, and I am sure that I can dig up many more reports saying what I am saying, what is important here is that the summary say what these researchers like then Encyclopedia have found that it is a strong minority that believe this, and then you can have a few self promoters say what they want to say in the chabad messianism artile. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Look guys, there is much debate about everything, however that debate should be in the chabad messianism article; in the chabad article there should just be a summary of what messianism is. I agree with pinchas. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:19, 31 July 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)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad IZAK 11:17, 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)

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. [3] 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. [4] [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] [8] 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." [9] 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." [10]

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. Wikipedia 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.'" [11] 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." [12] Will you please stop censoring Wikipedia 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. [13] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [14] [15] 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. [16] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [17] [18] 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 Wikipedia 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)

No Cabal's Allowed!

We only exist if you want us to.

Don't forget to include Yehoishophot Oliver [19] 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 Wikipedia: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. [20] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [21] [22] 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[23]. As a senior member of the cabal he is sure to get offended, and Zsero didn't like your poster[24], so I guess that he is also a cabal member. Meshulam didn't agree to help you after you canvassed for his support[25] and David Spart just ignored you completely after you canvassed for his support[26]. 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 Wikipedia 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. [27] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [28] [29] 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. [30] [31]

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." [32]

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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] 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)

References

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 [In main Chabad article]

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? [I'm thinking about also adding in a brief line about the "public Menorahs" topic.] Next time please give a reason for undoing my addition. Yonoson2 23:52, 14 November 2007 (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)

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. [Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad&diff=next&oldid=176483463] 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/w/index.php?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)

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)

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 Wikipedia article. Abe Froman (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)