Talk:Michael Laitman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Deletion vs. Undeletion
Why is the article deleted and protected from recreation? Seems to be something like politics of alternative to Laitman Berg's Kabbalah Center. Please help to solve the problem.
- Hi anonymous, and thanks for the question. Please sign your name with the four tildes ~~~~ so that it can be known who is making what comments. For the vote to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Laitman. If you wish to propose any article for undeletion, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review for more information. Thank you. IZAK 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear anon, I just inquired about the permanent deletion of this article myself as well. I also think Michael Laitman is notable as one of the main disseminator's of Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag's teachings on Kabbalah. He's published over 30 books and has a significant international following for his group Bnei Baruch[1] (another article that should not have been deleted, imo). He recently spoke at a conference at Ben-Gurion University as one of the leading experts on Ashlagian Kabbalah along with Moshe Idel and members of the Ashlag family. He is *not* associated with Rabbi Philip Berg of the controversial Kabbalah Centre, though Berg also does base his teaching on those of Ashlag. Here is an article from Haaretz about Yehuda Ashlag and his successors, including Michael Laitman. Meanwhile, there are channels to go through for undeletion, which I may even take up myself as I have time. Hmmm, I see Moshe Idel is red-linked too, he's the world's most eminent scholar on Jewish mysticism from Hebrew University who succeeded Gershom Scholem. It appears coverage of authentic Jewish Kabbalah is yet lacking at Wikipedia. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Authentic Jewish Kabbalah may not be well covered, but that does not have much to do with Laitman. Authentic Jewish Kabbalah is the ARiZal, R' Chaim Vital, the RaMaK, the RaMChal, The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh, the Gr"a, and even in the mdern era (last 100 years) the Leshem Sh'vo V'achlama, the Sulam, Chacham Kaduri, etc. Laitman does not fit this bill. He may be an example of a modern take on Jewish Kabbalah, but klal yisrael has a way of picking its gedolim (in nigleh and in nistar) and Laitman may be a professor of Kabbalah, but professors in and of themselves are not notable. -- Avi 13:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Avi, I appreciate what you’re saying. And I realize that many in Orthodox circles are of the opinion that anyone known publicly as a Kabbalist is likely not a true Kabbalist, among other things etc. I note that Laitman’s group Bnei Baruch is apparently at least kosher and authentic enough to be endorsed by Torah.Net [2] and I recall seeing the group validated on other similar Orthodox sites. Meanwhile, I’m not actually here to argue on behalf of the merits (or lack thereof) of Michael Laitman or whether what he teaches is authentic Kabbalah. I just happen to be aware of his work and noticed this article on him was permanently deleted and protected to prevent it ever from being re-created. I protest that as a Wikipedia editor, since he certainly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). He's written 30-something books. He's been written about in many well known newspapers [3]. He’s respected in academic circles even if seen as somewhat controversial in religious ones largely due to his dissemination to the masses. He runs an international organization that has a large website and broadcasts live daily lessons (kab.tv) simultaneously in several languages and he has a significant following. He's a common name that comes up in the subject of Kabbalah. If you go to amazon.com and put "kabbalah" in the search, he's the first name that comes up. While amazon.com obviously is not the arbiter of what is authentic Kabbalah, for the purpose of Wikipedia it is at least one measure that indicates Laitman is notable enough to warrant an article. Now I didn’t see the article that got deleted, I suspect it may have sounded too promotional, but that certainly can be fixed. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Miri: One of the readers responses in JP article says:"9. Laitman is a charlatan Michael - USA 09/05/2006 17:39 Laitman is a charlatan. He espouses Kabalah as something separate from Judaism and that Jews are just marginally related to it. I have been to his lecture in person and was struck with how irritated he was and very disrespectful to elder people in his audiience. He targets poorly educated Russian people and does some very heavy handed recrutment. Be warned this guys is not for real. Kabalah is not the panacea and the answer to everything." What do you think? IZAK 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- "He espouses Kabalah as something separate from Judaism". Indeed that seems to be the position of the Kabbalah Centre too. While formally adhering to Orthodox Jewish Kabbalah, some proponents universilize Kabbalah beyond the Jewish synagogue. Clarifications about these doctrinal positions and allegations about cult-like practices are precisely what a Wikipedia article should be including. --Haldrik 17:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Miri: One of the readers responses in JP article says:"9. Laitman is a charlatan Michael - USA 09/05/2006 17:39 Laitman is a charlatan. He espouses Kabalah as something separate from Judaism and that Jews are just marginally related to it. I have been to his lecture in person and was struck with how irritated he was and very disrespectful to elder people in his audiience. He targets poorly educated Russian people and does some very heavy handed recrutment. Be warned this guys is not for real. Kabalah is not the panacea and the answer to everything." What do you think? IZAK 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Avi, I appreciate what you’re saying. And I realize that many in Orthodox circles are of the opinion that anyone known publicly as a Kabbalist is likely not a true Kabbalist, among other things etc. I note that Laitman’s group Bnei Baruch is apparently at least kosher and authentic enough to be endorsed by Torah.Net [2] and I recall seeing the group validated on other similar Orthodox sites. Meanwhile, I’m not actually here to argue on behalf of the merits (or lack thereof) of Michael Laitman or whether what he teaches is authentic Kabbalah. I just happen to be aware of his work and noticed this article on him was permanently deleted and protected to prevent it ever from being re-created. I protest that as a Wikipedia editor, since he certainly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). He's written 30-something books. He's been written about in many well known newspapers [3]. He’s respected in academic circles even if seen as somewhat controversial in religious ones largely due to his dissemination to the masses. He runs an international organization that has a large website and broadcasts live daily lessons (kab.tv) simultaneously in several languages and he has a significant following. He's a common name that comes up in the subject of Kabbalah. If you go to amazon.com and put "kabbalah" in the search, he's the first name that comes up. While amazon.com obviously is not the arbiter of what is authentic Kabbalah, for the purpose of Wikipedia it is at least one measure that indicates Laitman is notable enough to warrant an article. Now I didn’t see the article that got deleted, I suspect it may have sounded too promotional, but that certainly can be fixed. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with MPerel on every point. --Haldrik 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That is why we have WP:DRV. Talking here will neither bring the article back nor nail the coffin down more tightly. As of now, it acheived consenus at WP:AFD that it was not worthy or wikipedia. Either a substantially different article needs to be created, or WP:DRV needs to be followed. Thank you. -- Avi 17:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I hear you. I'd like to create a version in my user space and then go through the deletion review process, though I don't have a lot of time to commit to writing articles from scratch right now. If someone else wants to take it up (Haldrik?) on their own user space before I get to it, I'll help contribute to keep it sourced, balanced, encyclopedic and from being a puff piece. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] a question of the truth
Laitman is widely known all ower the world, there are 47 000 Laytman"s sites in Google There is a fact, and this must be in the wiki.Wiki IS not a place for the opinions AND POLITICS, but a place only for truth .We must to have the neutral article about Laitman in WIKI/ Ashpaa 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read above. This failed both a deletion nomination and a deletion review. This is not the place for it. Actually, I think this page needs to be deleted and protected as well until such time as a suitable article is possible, and then is, created. -- Avi 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
