Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archives

Contents

[edit] Who is in charge?

seems to me the article should mention prominently who is the new Chabad leader now that the most recent Schneerson has died. Or, is it the plan to remain leaderless? or what is the selection process? etc. I do see a whiff about a split. But, I'm an outsider, just here for some simple info, and it is not to be found.

No split. And Chabad does not "remain leaderless." All Chassidim, both non-messianists, and the messianists (who are not accurately or adequately presented here) believe that the Rebbe is still Rebbe. Paradoxically, the non-Messianists believe that he is still Rebbe despite the fact that he is no longer alive. Messianists (perhaps more consistently) believe that the Rebbe is still Rebbe because he is alive. --Meshulam 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It is quite common for Hassidim to follow their rebbe after death. For example, Nachman of Breslov's sect.

[edit] The Links

I took out the devisions on the links section. It portrays the false impression that Chabad has split up into two sects.

Is this a problem? If so Why?

Also it seems to me that there are many unconnected articles relating to chabad on wkipedia. can someone connect them with a "related articles" heading please for navigational convinience. --Reb Roovie 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't see why the Chabad article was different to others. Also maybe some Chabad blogs should be added? Like the Crown Heights one and maybe some Yeshiva's ones. Oh yea, where about are you from Reb Roovie, it seems from your postings your community don't fight over such things like Sydney (in Sydney they fight over communal politics, some may say it is worse). One of the bigger reasons why there is no fighting in such subjects in Sydney, would be because of all of Rabbi Leshes' great work, explaining to both sides that they both are needed to bring Moshiach, both sides depend on each other, one side alone can't bring him (Moshiach is said to come when good and evil are seperate...) 220.233.48.200 02:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has reverted this edit, reverting back and adding a new link. 220.233.48.200 09:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The reverting was done by Jayjg, I got no idea why he reverted without repling. 220.233.48.200 09:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I redid the section, add a few more links. Just wondering, is it ok to add links of chabad houses? Like the huge group of F.R.E.E. (friends of refugess of eastern europe) chabad houses? 220.233.48.200 12:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Piling up external links is annoying. It is more helpful to limit them to a few good resources and examples, rather then trying to cover the entire movement's web presence, which is quite formidable. I would prefer a portal over numerous sublinks. JFW | T@lk 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't add the single Chabad houses, but F.R.E.E. almost has a chabad house everywhere where an Europain can be found, that would be one of the big reasons to add their site. Also some of the links are only limited to one community and are only in Hebrew, like chabad.am. I am going to remove such links, if anyone has any objection to such a thing, please reply. 220.233.48.200 14:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time to archive?

This talk page is 142kb, and should be archived right after the spilting of the article, because 90% of this talk page is about topics that are wanted to spilted into another article. Which once the article is spilted will be talked on the new article's talk page. 220.233.48.200 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gil Student holds Moshe was the first Lubavitcher Rebbe

Everything they know about Torah Judaism is from Chabad. http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/moshiach_intro.pdf (page 3)

1. He agrees that Moshe was the first Lubavitcher Rebbe. Because Chabad learn the Torah portion of the day everyday. Unless he is going to say the Torah isn't part of "Torah Judaism."

2. Dovid HaMelech must of been a Lubavitcher Rebbe (according to Tanya, he is the Rebbe of Baal HaTeshuvas) because Chabad learn Tehilim as part of CHT"T and every Shabbos Mevarechim. Also after looking at chabad.info it seems, they ask other to say Tehilim when others need a refuha. Unless he is going to say Tehilim isn't part of "Torah Judaism."

3. All the Tannaim are Lubavitcher Rebbes. Because in Chabad cheders' they learn Mishnayos from the age of 5. Plus many times they say Mishnayot on the Yorziet of others. Unless he is going to say Mishnayos arn't part of "Torah Judaism."

4. All the Amoraim are Lubavitcher Rebbes. Because it is Chabad custom every year - anyone that can - to finish at least one tracset. Unless he is going to say the Talmud isn't part of "Torah Judaism."

5. Mimonides must of been a Lubavitcher Rebbe. Because the Rebbe instatuded to learn either Sefer Hamitzvahs or 1 or 3 Chapter of Meshnei Torah everyday. Unless he is going to say Minonides ins't part of "Torah Judaism."

6. etc...

These are only pointed out because in the begining of the next page he claims: the scholars in Chabad who recognize the misuse of sources are almost entirely silent. From whom will these baalei tshuva learn if all the rabbis refuse to teach? It seems from this he wouldn't want me to stay quiet. I think we all agree that all mentioned above is part of "Torah Judaism" and the claim is wrong. And this claim happens to the main foundation of the whole book. 220.233.48.200 13:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 220.233.48.200

Please work on your spelling. The Rambam is not called "Mimonides", even in Sydney. Also, inserting your personal observations about Chabad in Sydney are original research unless you can cite outside sources in your support. Finally, deleting the comparisons with Christianity is suppression of fact, however much one can disagree with those outrageous statements. If anyone has responded to them, the (published) response may be inserted without concern. JFW | T@lk 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about my spelling, my brain has very hard problems with langauges. Also the introduction Its adherents, or Chasidim, known as "Lubavitchers" or "Chabadniks", are Orthodox Jews belonging to Hasidic Judaism as defined by the Chabad traditions. to say otherwise on the article... As I said about Chabad in Sydney, user:jnothman if this is who I think it is can comfirm this. He is also a wikipedian admin. And in Judaism you only need 2 witnesses. 220.233.48.200 12:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR - two witnesses won't help here. Even Pulitzer Prize level original journalism would not be acceptable on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok then lets do what others have been doing here, I will open up an blog to count as a "reference." This is just plain stupid, you can ask anyone in Sydney to back it up. I shouldn't have to go up making online references so that it could be counted. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rebbe and the Shtreimel

I have deleted this from the Chabad customs: A practice abolished by the seventh Rebbe. As we could see in these links most of the Chabad Rebbe's did not wear Shtreimels:

The Tzemach Tzedek: http://www.chabad.org/444 The Rebbe Rashab: http://www.chabad.org/110470 The Friediker Rebbe there were times he did and times he did not. I cannot find at this time a pic, if needed, I could scan one.Henochz 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The frierdiker rebbe wore a kolpik, not a shtreimel
The Rebbe Rayatz would always wear one on Shabbos and Yom tov. And I heard from Rabbi Boruch Lesches (I have been misspelling his surname earlier, it is with a c.) That someone from Boropark asked the Rebbe

Person from Boropark: "Why doesn't the Rebbe wear a Shtreimel?" The Rebbe: "Would I wearing a Shtreimel bring back Yidden to Yidishkiet?" P.F.B.: "If you do half of Boropark will instantly become your Chosidim." The Rebbe: "And what is wrong with where they are?" P.F.B.: "I see." The Rebbe: "It is where the Kabotzniks are which is wrong, if they would become frum if I wore a Shtreimel by all means I would wear one."

If anyone has the exact wording of the conversasion, with a source (like a written version of the Yichdus or if it is on video) please speak. 220.233.48.200 13:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

All Chabad rebbes wore shtreimels except for the past rebbe, however the RaSHaB (5th rebbe) only wore in the town of Lubavitch and instructed his son to do the same. The only time the RaYaTZ (6th rebbe) wore a shtreimel outside of Lubavitch was by the wedding of the 7th rebbe. {Though its possible that from the Tzemach Tzedek & on the Chabad rebbes wore Spodiks (a similar hat) b/c there was a decree forbidding the levush (the dress code of all jews in those days ) details of this decree and how it affected the jews was researched though as of now i dont know any sources} I dont doubt the story in the yichidus, but i doubt you can get the details in writing, let alone a video.--69.114.174.131 18:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The famous picture in which the previous Rebbe wore a streimel as he was given American citizenship... that's a forgery now? --Meshulam 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chassidus

why is there almost no mention of chasidus and its teaching by all the chabad rebbes 70.49.94.183 (talk • contribs)

Probably because everyone has been focussing on the negative aspects. Thankfully Pinchas (and myself) have written something about daily activities pertininent to Chabad, and if you think you can give a concise overview of Chabad Chassidus then by all means do so. Just make sure you cite your sources, remain neutral and avoid original research and interpretation. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for statement by Riemer and Neusner

The source for Riemer seems to be from http://www.momentmag.com/archive/feb02/feat1.html in the wikipedia article he is quoted "Rabbi Jack Riemer (Conservative), for example, refers to the literature of Meschichist Chabad Jews as Christian, and as being the same as that of Jews for Jesus tract. " However in the source he says no such thing. In context he is saying that if you remove the Rebbe's name, a statement by Rabbi Ginsberg might sound like those stuff. But to quote him like he is quoted here is not accurate and misleading.

Regarding Neusner, see http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14234 where he writes Why Reform, Chabad Are Necessary, writing "They say Chabad is nothing more than halachic Christianity, and Christians apprised of the Rebbe’s coming resurrection comment, “Right idea, wrong man.”" which is writing about what he hears unnamed others saying and from the article it's strongly implied that he disagrees with that. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice find. Now what is needed is respones to what they say, so they can be in the article. Also none of them have a valid Rabbinical degree, wikipedia doesn't call anybody that wants to be called a doctor, a doctor. The same should be with the title Rabbi. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 22:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A response to what who says? If you look at their statements, they don't say anything notable which needs to be in the article, and either way the text in the article needs to be change to accurectaly reflect what they are saying. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If RK has used statements from Riemer and Neusner in a distorted form then this is WP:POINT and the material may be removed without further discussion. I objected to its removal without discussion, as sources were provided and the views would have been notable if uttered by these people. We don't all have access to the sources that are being cited. JFW | T@lk 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
As per discussion here, I am removing those statements. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Uh, no, I am putting those sources back in. I have the originals of the actual quotes, and Pinchas's claims are flatly wrong. Both Jack Riemer and Jacob Neusner explicitly criticize Chabad as becoming like Christianity, and I have the sources to prove it. They are also published, and available in libraries. I cannot understand why Pinchas is distoring their clear words. RK 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
quotes provided by you do not say what he was quoted in the article as saying. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof: Actual quote by Prof. Rabbi Jacob Neusner

Book review by Jacob Neusner in the Jerusalem Post (10/19/2001) on David Berger's book. "A messianism that some call heresy"

To Chabad's claim that their Rebbe is the Messiah, Jews for Jesus respond: 'Right idea, wrong man'. Two fifth columns threaten the integrity of Judaism: theological liberalism run amok and halachic Christianity. Both trends lower the walls that separate Judaism from Christianity - one from the Right, the other from the Left. The lesser known left column, Dabru Emet, legitimizes the Christian Bible. The group's platform says: "Jews and Christians seek authority from the same book - the Bible, what Jews call Tanach and Christians call the Old Testament." The group's reward is typified by the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement that, in light of Dabru Emet, Christianity has no reason to proselytize among Jews any longer.
But a greater danger to Judaism's insistence that the authenticity of the Torah from Sinai (oral and written) takes precedence over any other claim comes from the Right. It takes the form of authentic Judaic living, to validate the substance of Christian Messianism. And this threat from within is represented, not by scarcely 200 Reform and Conservative "Dabru Emet" rabbis of little faith, but by the halachic Christianity of Chabad.
In the years since the death of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1994, Chabad - with its dead Messiah - has come to predominate in missionary activity among the Jews in tiny communities. Chabad is a potent force....Theologically, Chabad exploits a veneer of halachic authenticity that threatens the future of Judaism.

Please look this quote up in the library, it is real. Pinchas's claims are thus proven to be false. 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof: Actual quote by Rabbi Jack Riemer

Fill in the blanks in the following statement: "It does not matter at all if the physical pulse is active or not, and if various phenomena associated with physical life as we recognize them exist, the physical life of ———— never operated in the manner familiar to us, and that true physical life continues with precisely the same force as before. More than this: ... ———— is the 'master of the house' with respect to all that happens to him and all that happens in the world. Without his agreement, no event can take place, and if it is his will, he can bring about anything, and who can tell him what to do? It follows that if he wills it, he can at any moment cause his physical sense to act in a manner familiar to us, and his failure to do so is solely the result of the fact that it is not his will to do so."
The answer, surely, is clear: the missing word in the above statement must be "Jesus." Perhaps it is a Christian statement, or possibly a Jews for Jesus tract? Guess again. The correct answer is "Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson," the Rebbe, who died in 1994. The quote is from Rabbi Levi Yitzchack Ginsberg, a mashpia (religious mentor) at a yeshiva in Kfar Chabad, the major Lubavitch center in Israel.
....Until now, no one has made the case as forcefully as Berger that Chabad is more than just a committed group determined to awaken all Jews to Judaism. Instead, Chabad as a group seems to be crossing the line into what is permissible within Christianity but forbidden within Judaism. It remains to be seen what kind of a response this carefully documented and yet passionate outcry will receive from the Orthodox community. If its j'accuse is ignored and its author dismissed, it will mean that the leadership of Orthodoxy is too timid to confront a major challenge to Jewish faith, and that would be tragic indeed.

Again, Pinchas's claims are false. Rabbi Riemer's quotes speak for themselves. Elizer has the right to disagree with this view and to promote messianic Judaism, but Pinchas does not have the right to remove all quotes that are critical of his POV. RK 20:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your statement that I am promoting messianic Judaism as a personal attack and I am asking you to stop all personal attacks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Pinchas, mentioning someone's religion is not a personal attack. Your profess a version of Chabad Judaism that many people, including a large number of Orthodox rabbis, often term "messianic". I understand full well that you disagree, as you believe that everyone else in the Jewish world is wrong, and that only people who believe with you are correct. Well, that's your right, but there is also the right of other people to disagree. Here on Wikipedia people have identified Conservative Jews as non-halakhic Jews. Is that a personal attack? No, of course not. The truth is that Conservative Jews profess a version of Judaism that many Orthodox Jews classify as "non-halakhic", even though Conservative Jews strenuously disagree. But the mere mention by an Orthodox Jew that a Conservative Jew is "non-halakhic" is not, in any way, a personal attack. Similarly, the description of a person as "messianic" is not a personal attack. That is especially true when the word is being used in a descriptive sense, which helps explain why a person is editing in a particular way. Now, if you were being labeled as "atheist" or "Christian", that would be considered insulting to an Orthodox Jew (as the inverse labelling would be, right?), and that would be understood as an attack. RK 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Messianic_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=1848960 where RK writes "Traditional rabbinic Judaism does have certain beliefs about a person they call moschiach, usually translated as "messiah"; others within traditional rabbinic Judaism believe in the coming of a future messianic era. However, traditional rabbinic Judaism is never called "messianic Judaism". That term is used only for the Christian groups, or the quasi-Christian groups." to now apply the term Messianic Judaism to me is a personal attack. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal/changing of links.

Pinchas please stop censoring the links section Wikipedia isn't and was never meant to be Chabad Media Center affiliate... Ariel Sokolovsky 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC) This edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=33135319&oldid=33133816 shows the removal of 770live.com and changing chabad.info to shmais.com, seems like a bit of an edit war. As many times chabad.info was the link for "chabad news source" and many other times it is shmais.com Can we stop this? I am listing all of them. 220.233.48.200 03:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It was removed following the decision to stop making differences between Meshichist sites and regular chabad sites. Once that difference was stopped those site were not notable anymore. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So a live stream of 770 isn't notable? Nor is probably the biggest chabad news source site? (shmais doesn't have hebrew, chabad.info does...). Anyway now they all are listed, can we keep it that way as they are notable. And I wouldn't call chabad.info a messianic news site, most it's articles arn't messianic based. It just happens to contain a few messianic articles every now and then, if you want to call adding Yechi to the end of the article enough to make it messianic, then ok. Maybe change the wording to something like "Chabad news with some Meshichist articles." With blessings, 220.233.48.200 19:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Links in the english wikipedia should have their notability decided on their english content. COL.org.il is in Hebrew and larger than chabad.info. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

770live has both an english site and hebrew. I added col.org.il stating that it is hebrew and Israeli Chabad news. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be official policy that a live stream of anything shouldn't be referenced on Wikipedia. We need to focus on academically relevant links, not a non-stop fountain of random images of random people. This has nothing to do with Chabad. This is a general concern of mine. RK 21:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

first off, at this point there's no links at all from the Meshichist part of Chabad, this is not NPOV, i think chabad.info should be returned.

as for 770live, well it isnt yet part of wikipedia policy not to have live streams, is it? thats besides the fact that 770live is used to broadcast farbrengens live, big and small, shiurim in yeshiva, ect. plus it has archives of all past farbrengens and to top it of, it has all the Rebbes recorded farbrengens,in audio, every sicha of the Rebbe. to date i do not know of any other site that has this. its like otsar770.com in audio. so no, its not random images of random people. so i think 770live.com belongs in the external links too. Zalmin 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Zalmin

Zalmin, there is a page for 770 that has the 770live link, wikipedia is not a collection of links see WP:EL, there needs to be a good reason why the link is there. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soloveitchik

We have no source for Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik's defence of Chabad. NB I have made a few corrections in the usage of English. Please note that a large proportion of readers will not be conversant with yinglish, and some improvements in the grammar and vocabulary may be necessary. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Earliar on in this talk page someone posted this link regarding Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik's defence of Chabad http://chabadart.com/JewishPress.JPG --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's completely misleading; on December 2, 1994 Soloveitchik an article in The Forward quoted Soloveitchik blasting Lubavitch Messianism, stating (among other things) that the idea that Schneerson could be the Messiah "could be possible in the Christian faith but not in Judaism" and that it was "repugnant to everything Judaism represents". The letter published in 1996 in the Jewish press was not, in fact, authored by Soloveitchik himself. A month later Soloveitchik's student published a letter in The Forward and Jewish Week which clarified that Soloveitchik opposed attacks on Lubavitch, but re-confirmed his belief that the idea that Schneerson could be Messiah is anathema to Judaism. Unless the whole lengthy context for the letter goes into the article (and there's no reason why it should), this sentence and link is misleading, and has to go. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The accusation that the 1996 letter was forged is well-known. Yet, many of the folks I have met who were close with R' Soloveichik claim that the letter is accurate. R' Soloveichik did not print a retraction, or complain of the "forgery." His family did not either, from what I understand. Yet R' SOloveichik also was quoted saying strong things against Chabad messianism. He actively fought against the smear campaign, and yet engaged in his own smears. His position on the subject is elusive (and seemed to change with the Rov's mood). --Meshulam 04:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the date of the letter that Jayjg is refering to, published in the forward and Jewish week, by a student of R. Soloveichik after the letter in the Jewish press? is it online, can we somehow see it? Shlomke 09:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article in which the letter and the background regarding it are discussed. I will find an actual copy of the letter later. Suffice it to say, it looks basically the way it is described in the article (which contains the text of the letter).--Meshulam 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, take a look at the link above. That's the actual letter.--Meshulam 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A response to Meshulam--my teacher, Rav Zev Reichman shlita, son of Rav Hershel Reichman shlita made it very clear that Rav Ahron Soloveitchik felt that it was insane to think the Rebbe was moshiach. --68.218.126.77 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
A conversation you had with someone other than R' Soloveichik himself pales in comparison with a copy of the letter itself, complete with signature. This is especially the case in the eyes of Wikipedia's policies that require all info contained in articles to be sourced. Your conversation does not constitute a "source." Furthermore, I'll let the Rov speak for himself. If I had biased people reinterpreting everything I said in a way that clearly contradicts the words I have spoken, I might go insane myself. --Meshulam 02:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Give me a break"

I will most decidedly not give you a break. Going back to speeches that the Rebbe made in the 1950s and suddenly making charges of heresy out of them by people who are obvious and noted ignoramuses when it comes to Kabbalah needs to be presented within its proper context. New excuses for old hatred dug up by out-of-context and incompetent quotation is given way too much credence in this article. But, in trying to present NPOV, the commonly referred to, if worthless, criticism should be quoted. Within its context. "Give me a break" is not a proper comment for reverting an edit. PhatJew 07:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that comment, and I admit that it was out of line and inappropriate. However, I would still venture to say that "delusions and ignorance" is just as inappropriate for a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia article. Even "fabrication" has anti-Berger POV all over it, but I let it go because it was presented as the argument of Chabad Hasidim. This is all part of an ongoing Chabad campaign to smear the name of Rabbi Dr. Berger (who does have semicha from RIETS, despite allegations of several on the discussion page to the contrary). You can disagree with his ideas and, if they offend you, you have every right to criticize him - but this is certainly not the forum.
Regarding the credence given to Rabbi Berger and his book which you claim is excessive: this couldn't be further from the truth. Rabbi Berger is an eminent and highly respected historian in the Orthodox community (Chabad excluded, of course) and in the academic community in general. He has been a prominent member of the RCA for 13 years. He has been on the editorial committees of Tradition and of the JPS since the late 1980s. He has won countless awards and honors for his contributions to Jewish history and thought. What's more, his book, which you claim is based on "incompetent quotation," won the Samuel Belkin Literary Award in 2004, a highly coveted honor given by Yeshiva University. If that is not enough credence I don't know what is.
All I wanted to do was to change a couple of words that I felt were slanted against Rabbi Berger, and I'm not prepared to fight tooth and nail over these changes if you insist on sticking to your version. But this touches on a broader issue with which more experienced editors than I have dealt in the past. I can't back this up, but I have a feeling that if there weren't a disproportionate amount Chabad Wikipedians out there, we would see that the consensus of mainstream Judaism has a very different take on this whole business than you do. --DLand 08:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delusions and ignorance were both words that I was quoting from Rabbi Dr. Shochet's criticism, and I attributed them to Chabad critics. Berger is not highly respected outside of Modern Orthodox. Even within Modern Orthodox, nobody ever claimed he was a posek of any sort. Nobody has heard of him outside of Modern Orthodox, which is why there is a "scandal" of indifference to him. I live in the non-Lubavich Haredi world, and he is a non-entity. Of course, you think a Yeshiva University award is the greatest honor. To most of the Haredi world, it is "a goyische zach." Igros Moshe never won the Samuel Belkin Literary Award, I am guessing? Avi Ezri? Any sefer or kuntres that any legitimate posek halachot would write? And even if it did, would anyone claim that it somehow gave them legitimacy? I forget who said "Judaism only became sick when Rabbis became doctors," but it is a common refrain in the Haredi world. Let's keep this clear. A historian has come with his psak din regarding a whole congregation of people, and found at best indifference from legitimate poskim and condemnation from some of the greatest authorities outside of Lubavich. As far as mysticism, do you seriously think he knows the first thing about Kabbalah or Hasidic thought? I would be surprised if he could speak about the relationship between Chochma and Binah coherently, much less discuss what a livush of Atzmut u'Mahut may mean. This isn't even an academic who has studied anything about mysticism, he is a history professor way out of his league.
As for the claim that there are so many Chabad Wikipedians: If you have legitimate concerns, please address them. If there are words that you believe are slanted, let's have it out. NPOV is not optional in Wikipedia. "Give me a break" and reverting my edits isn't the wikipedia way. I don't think there are very many Chabad Wikipedians at all. Not nearly as many as the Modern Orthodox. Just look at Jacob Neusner and its talk pages to see that clearly. What I think you are denying is the fact that Chabad has had such a profound influence on Judaism in general that many people outside of Lubavich instinctively find these attacks to be disgusting. Take, for example, Dennis Prager's response to Berger. This article is supposed to be about Chabad, and it still discusses David Berger about as much as it discusses the Rebbe of Chabad. PhatJew 11:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


If Berger is able to misunderstand the Rebbe, it is possible that his chassidim have misunderstood him. One cannot have it both ways, popularise Kabbalah and at the same time expect an audience (the sichos were given to a wide public) to understand the nuances. I do find the unqualified use of the terms "delusions and ignorance" unacceptable unless this is a direct quote from a reliable source. Both are value-laden terms. Delusions suggest mental illness, btw. JFW | T@lk 11:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The terms that Berger objects to were specifically removed by the Rebbe from the published texts of the Maamar. Not to mention that within context, the meaning is unmistakable to anyone who isn't specifically looking to back up a claim of idolatry like Berger is. And, yes, I was quoting from Shochat. PhatJew 11:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Messianic links

I notice that, yet again, all links to the openly Messianic Chabad websites have been removed, ostensibly because Wikipedia is "not a web directory". This seems like an egregious violation of WP:NPOV; can someone explain why the article can afford five separate links to chabad.org, and links to three different non-Meshichist news services, but not even one link to the main Meshichist sites and news services? Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It has to do whether the external links follow WP:EL. Thos meshichist sites and new services did not fit into the criteria of what links should be included. If there are any of the links which are listed currently which do not fit into the criteria of WP:EL feel free to remove them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I left the link to moshiachfacts.com there as it elaborated upon the meshichist viewpoint as opposed to just stating that the Rebbe is Moshiach. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In what way do they not follow WP:EL; can you please be explicit? Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

An external link needs to have a reason why it is there. Going thru the current links they all match the citeria either because it is an official site like Lubavitch News service, chabad.org and chabad on campus, or the ones about chabad and it's Rebbeim because they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. The Jewishcontent.org is iffy the otzar770 one violates copyright and should not be there but I got tired of being reverted and it is a good resource feel free to remove it. and the moshiachfacts.com one fits #4 as I wrote above. about the news sites, lubavitch.com should be listed as it is official and then you have the two biggest ones, which should or shouldn't be there, they are the two biggest Chabad English news sites, feel free to remove them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The Meshichist links whicch were added do not fit any of the criteria of what sites should be listed, as the only criteria which I can think of is #4 and that is represented in moshiachfacts.com as the news sites besides for the meshichist one saying that the Rebbes is Moshiach each time that they mention him, do not provide an alternate view, and the other sites and since "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." and there are not any sites which advocate an anti moshichist viewpoint the one link which advocates a meshichist viewpoint suffices. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Addionaly the point of this article is not to debate whether the Rebbe was or is Moshiach or not rather to report on what is actually believed. Therefore these sites which try to prove that the Rebbe is Moshiach are not relevant this is in addition to my comments above on why they should not be listed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I too feel it is unfair to keep a hold on the Meshichist links. They definitely fit WP:EL #4, in fact they need to be there to link sites dedicated toward each point of view. the idea here is not whether it debates the other view, but rather to have links dedicated toward each view, which are not the same in this case since the Meshichist sites will talk about the concept of the Rebbe as Moshiach Openly, while the not-Meshichist (anti) sites maintain a policy of non discusion of the topic. this affects the articles, storys, and news that each site gives, (not just saying the Rebbe is Moshiach every time they mention him). someone interested in looking into the Meshichist view would thus find nothing in the non-Meshichist sites. Shlomke 11:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What are these sites adding? Which other point of view about chabad are they adding? Once again, this article is not meant to prove whether the Rebbe is Moshiach or not, rather it is to write about the views. Wikipedia is not a web directory meant to include every link out there. See what I wrote above where I elaborated upon this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Additionaly the latest addition of links included a link to a Hebrew language site which does not belong on the English wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want you can add those links to express a different view on Jewish messiah, Jewish Messiah claimants or List of messiah claimants which discuss whether someone is Moshiach or not. And even there it would not belong due to the NPOV Undue weight policy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with debating whether the Rebbe is Moshiach, rather it is to show what is actualy beleived. I read thru WP:EL and they definitly meet the criteria of what should be listed. constantly deleting these links is a violation of NPOV. There should be a mix of links including the views of both Meshichist and non-Meshichist views. and again, the Rebbe-Moshiach topic is a hot one which is not discused in the non-Meshichist websites but is discused in the Meshichist websites. therefor to give the reader a honest scope of chabad today, they should be linked to. this abviosly has nothing to do with making wikipedia a web directory which you keep metioning. if you are concerned about this feel free to trim down the other site a bit, but as explained above and in my first coment these Meshichist websites add to the article and should be here. Shlomke 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding Pinchas. What he is saying that all the messianic one's are either doubles of other sites and that there is already a site with the view of the Messianics'. It should be enough. In Chabad there are thousands of sites, should we list them all?Henochz 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pinchas, Henochz, they provide Wikipedia with a view of the Meshichist faction within Lubavitch, one which has been suppressed in this article. There is no justification in WP:EL for presenting only non-Meshichist views of Lubavitch, that would be like only having links to non-Hasidic websites in Orthodox Judaism. Please provide a valid reason for keeping out these links; otherwise, at least a couple will have to go back in. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to chabad.info English news as it has not been updated since Chanukah. Regarding the other two I still believe that they do not fit any criteria listed in WP:EL as this article already makes it clear that there are Meshichistim in Lubavitch. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats why their there. because its something discused in the article. Shlomke 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Avrohom Pam, held Schneerson in the highest regard"

The article currently states "the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Avrohom Pam, held Schneerson in the highest regard". I keep asking for citations for this, but the request keeps getting removed. Can somebody please provide some valid citations for this, citations which don't involved original research. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I had removed it because it is clear from the titles that Rabbi Feinstein used when writing to the Rebbe that he held the Rebbe in high regard. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No specific source is provided, no source at all is provided for Pam, and in any event that's original research, assuming that Feinstein held Schneerson "in the highest regard" because of honorifics he may have used in a formal letter somewhere. Could you please provide a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS? Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a bunch of letters from Rabbi Feinstein to the Rebbe in "Igros Moshe" (the compilation of letters from Rabbi Feinstein in Hebrew), from the letters one could see the great esteem he held the Rebbe in. From the different letters one could follow the way Rabbi Feinstein is following instructions of the Rebbe and his great honor he gives to the Rebbe's opinion and advice. Rabbi Pam came to the Rebbe's home for meetings and they discussed Torah. The fact that he came to the Rebbe is a great sign of the great esteem he held to the Rebbe. I personally know from individuals who are close to Rabbi Pam of the great respect he held for the Rebbe. Henochz
Again, this is pure original research, using primary sources to promote a novel thesis. If you have any specific sources which indicate Feinstein help in "in the highest regard", please bring them forward, otherwise the claim will have to go as well. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. Are you telling me its something special if one Rav holds another Rav of high regard? ems 13:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you're going to claim that "many Roshei Yeshiva ... held Schneerson in the highest regard", then you better have a proper source for it, and one which doesn't involve original research. Jayjg (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

–—As far as I know there are only 2 letters in Iggerot Moshe. Iggerot Moshe is a compilation of letters by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. One of those letters is wishing the Rebbe best wishes on his 80th birthday and that one certainly shows a great measure of deference to the Rebbe. The second one is a defense of a position that he took regarding ships sailing on the Sabbath in which he claims to not be at deviance with the Rebbe'e position. 70.18.191.224 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)EY

[edit] Chabad pioneered the post-War kiruv movement

Here are some sources I found. "Hapardes" journal (Hebrew), August 1945 pages 36-40 [1], and March/Adar 1946 (not online). Extensive 2 part article on Chabad outreach activities from that time period. Also Hakriah Vehakedusha journal V.10, Tamuz 1941 (Hebrew). It's also very clear form the book: Toldois Chabad b'Artzois Ha'bris (Hebrew) (History of Chabad in the United States of America). (ISBN 0826653332). It brings hundreds of letters about the activties from that time.

[edit] Origin of the term "Mitnagdim"

The first draft of the Mitnagdim article [2] was based on the Jewish Encyclopedia which confirms at MITNAGGEDIM :

"Title applied by the Hasidim to their opponents, i.e., to the Orthodox Jews of the Slavonic countries who have not become adherents of Hasidism (see Jew. Encyc. vi. 254, s.v. Hasidim). The latter have in course of time accepted that title, and "mitnagged" now means not necessarily an active or even a passive opponent of Hasidism, but simply a non-Hasid. An alternative title for "mitnagged" is "'Olam'sher Yid" (= "Jew of the world"), not in the sense of being worldly, but meaning one who belongs to the great mass of the Jews of the world who are not Hasidim." [3]

There are other sources as well. Unfortunately, too many Chasidim have come to believe their own propaganda, and are unaware of the facts. IZAK 06:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Saddly so true... and not just for this.... Do we agree its propaganda not facts? ems


[edit] Origin of the name Misnagdim

Pasted from the talk:Mitnagdim:

See these [4][5] talks by the Lubavitcher Rebbe where he states that in theory the chasidim should have been called the misnagdim since they were the ones who were bringing in new concepts in opposition of what was already there. but in actuality divine providence had it that the name Misnagdim was given to the Misnagdim by themselves , and they were the ones who called Chasidim with the name Chasidim. (from Toras Menachem V.2 p. 78 and V.4 p. 222) (Sicha of Shabbas Lech Lecha 5511)

(This does not mean that Litvaks today should be Called Misnagdim. I heard that the Lubavitcher Rebbe also said That there are no real Misnagdim Today (or something to that affect))

[edit] Origin of the name Chasidim

  • See Sefer Ha-sichos of the previos Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn 5701 page 32, where he says: "The Baal Shem Tov Loved Jews and he was a Mufla at this. Until the year 5515 (1755) the Ball Shem Tov would call his students by the name Ahuvim or Ye'didim, Chevre Ahuvim Or Chevre Ye'didim (The loved ones). But the Misnagdim gave them the name Chasidim. This took about 21 years. (the name change) ( the Ball Shem Tov was revealed in 5494 (1734)).
  • See also Igrot Kodesh of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson V.8 page 504: When the Baal HaTanya was in the home of the Misnagdic leader Rabbi Nota Notkin, he was asked by Rabbi Notkin how Can the Chasidim take for themself's such a high name like Chasidim. the Ball HaTanya responded that the name was not taken by the Chasidim - generaly the Chasidim dont take things for them self's - The name was actualy given to them."

As for the Vilna Gaon being called Hagaon Hachasid on the cover of his sefer... It's in many other places also. In fact the Baal HaTanya himself also called him Hagaon Hachasid in his letters (he had much respect for him).

About the Misnagdim Calling themself's "The bad guy's" . See encyclopedia Judaica in the Mitnaggedim entry:

"...The name originally arose from the bitter oposition to the rise, way of life and leadership of the hasidic movement founded by Israel b. Eliezer Ba'al Shem Tov, but in the course of time lost its connotation of actual strife and became a positive description representative of a way of life..." Shlomke 08:39, April 2, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Link

I was surprised to find in this article no mention of the Crown Heights riots under the section on controversies under the 7th Rebbe, nor any link to the Wikipedia article "Crown Heights Riot."

[edit] Teachings of Other Hasidic Dynasties

This comment refers to the editing of articles regarding other Hasidic dynasties. As this article on Lubavitch shows, instead of focusing mainly on a dynasty itself and the lines of succession, we ought to say more about the teachings of the dynasty. Moreover, those entries shouldn't just be photo albums for Hasidic rabbis. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, check out User:Rickyrab/Hasidic nonsense :)... — Rickyrab | Talk 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rav AhronSoloveitchik's real view

I'm deleting this part of the article: "Rabbi Ahron Soloveitchik expressed concern for voices attacking Chabad. At the time, he had authorized publication of a letter [11] in which he urged respect for Chabad, expressed praise for its work and stated that its beliefs are not outside the realm of Orthodox Judaism." This is why: http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/ras.html . --68.218.126.77 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The letter signed by R' Soloveichik postdates these articles. Nobody is saying that he was a Messianist. However, he did sign a letter protesting the anti-Chabad sentiment and actions taken by the RCA in which he said that the Messianist position was within the pale of Orthodoxy. Beis Moshiach magazine (a more reputable source in my own opinion than the Forward or "moshiachtalk") reports in an interview with R' Greenberg that the letter is indeed authentic, and that R' Eli Turen of Chicago went over the text of the letter with the Rov himself. Wikipedia demands that facts written in articles have sources. My source is the letter itself (complete with R' Soloveichik's signature) that can be found in many places on the web. The conspiracy theories that assert the letter is a fraud have no such source. --Meshulam 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

From my reading of the letters he is just saying "leave the crackpots alone - Judaism doesn't care for such beliefs. There are many good people in Chabad and they shouldn't be given a bad name because of these recent crackpots." eeemess 08:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

While you're entitled to your opinion, it certainly isn't reflected in the text of the letter (which apparently you haven't read). But this is neither here nor there. He signed the letter. That's what is important. Trying to mitigate its effect by squinting and tilting your head is intellectually dishonest at the very least. --Meshulam 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Unapproved letters published in someone's name and subsequently rebutted don't count. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there are more than 2 letters but from the ones I have read it seems very clear to me that is what he is saying. eeemess 17:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Assuming he said it at all, which is in question, and not supported by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It seem like we have a signed letter from him saying one thing. This signed letter does not contradict anything he has written previously. This signature on the letter would qualify it as a reliable source. If there is a reliable source stating that the last letter was forged or whatever then that source should be brought, until then the last letter should be able to stay. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that in no place in this article or in the letter is it stated that he believes that the Rebbe is going to be the Moshiach. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
After further looking into all the letters that he had written, it seems that his views are that the views of those that believe that the Rebbe will be the Moshich to be incorrect, and although in a later letter he urges that one shouldn't attack those that believe so, wikipedia is not a place to go through all his views regarding this and therefore for now it should stay out. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Pinchas, it's in the section about the defence of Chabad. If we are going to keep the statements from David Berger, then we should have Soloveitchik's statment. Note that in this statment he uses the words "My position on the lubavitch movement vis-a-vis Its Messianic beliefs" Shlomke 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As requested a earliar on in this talk page, can someone point out when Soloveitchik's student published rebuttal in The Forward and Jewish Week? (dates please). Also, the letter was published in the "Jewish Press", which I think most consider a reliable publication. Generaly when something is published in someones name which he realy did not say, the person will himself come out and clarify his opinion (like the 1994 letter in the Forward). This apparently did not happen here. Shlomke 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It has been said before, but it bears saying again: One or another's opinion as to what the letter meant is, at best, original research (and outside the scope of a wiki article). The fact that the letter exists, and that it is signed, is a verifiable fact. The fact that the letter says that the belief that the Rebbe could be Moshiach is within the real of Orthodoxy is indisputable. If there is some evidence (other than the heresay of incredulous and biased people) that this letter is a forgery, then that evidence should be presented. But just because it is widely believed (among those who doubt the Lubavitch position a priori, and are subject to their own biases) that the letter is a forgery does not make that position verifiable. As I have said, the only verifiable facts I have seen are as follows: A.) The letter exists. B.) It was signed. C.) It was published. D.) It says that according to a number of sources (Rishonim), the belief that the Rebbe is Moshiach is not outside the real of Orthodoxy, and E.) That R' Soloveichik (presumably before 3 Tamuz 5754) believed that the Rebbe was probably the Messiah.--Meshulam 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's my two cents (I was that IP number btw, didn't have time to sign on):
Rav Zev Reichman, who was a student of Rav Ahron Soloveitchik, made it very clear that Rav Soloveitchik thought it was crazy to think the Rebbe was moshiach. Rav Reichman said that Rav Soloveitchik signed the famous document ChaBaD put out claiming the Rebbe could be Moshiach when Rav Ahron was quite sick. Meshulam reports on other rabbis who say otherwise...those rabbis are reported by "Beis Moshiach", a hardcore pro-messianist ChaBaD publication. You'll have to excuse me, but despite Meshulam's opinion on "The Forward's" and "moshiachtalk's" legitimancy, that's hardly a reputable source. However, that being said, I don't know about this specific publication's legitimancy (due to Meshulam pointing out that it postdates the articles I posted from "moshiachtalk", a fact I overlooked)and it should be brought up with non-ChaBaD students of Rav Ahron (I'll try to contact Rav Reichman, but no promises and don't wait for me). Shlomke's right, the "Jewish Press" is a reliable source, but because the claim that it's a forgery seems to be quite widespread--and the opinion that Rav Ahron didn't believe the Rebbe to be Moshiach to be even more widespread, and verified among his STUDENTS--I recommend leaving the section about Rav Ahron out of the Wiki until it can be verified. Rav Berger's opinions have nothing to do with this and should definately be left in the article. --Yodamace1 11:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Although there are rumors that it's a forgery, they are just that, rumors. It was published in a reliable publication so by Wikipedia standards it is good enough. Shlomke 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
He said clearly in his letter that Schneerson was a valid Moshiach candidate - thats all. There is no problem with this. From the whole letter he is trying to bring out a different point - and that is chabad does many good things and we shouldn't let this craziness ruin it. I see NO problem - as he isn't saying what is disputed. eeemess 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems I didn't really make my self clear. What Student is disputed is not problematic with the letter and defently not with what is written in the article. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over-titling

Encyclopedia articles do not continually refer to subject of articles by their title, but rather by their last name. Thus they do not continually say "Rabbi Schneerson" or "Dr. Berger", but rather refer to them by their titles once, and thereafter as "Schneerson" and "Berger". This holds true for all articles. And the references to Berger as "Dr. Berger" rather than "Rabbi Berger" or "Rabbi Dr. Berger" did not go unnoticed; please try to maintain one standard. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to write Dr. Berger every time his name is mentioned, then that is fine. However, when referring to a Rabbi, it is appropriate to use the title. If this is too controversial (something I can't fathom unless your motive is to cause problems), then just saying "The Rebbe" should do just fine (since that term, without further modification, suffices both within Chabad and even to some extent outside of Chabad).--Meshulam 03:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name Chabad-Lubavitch

Shlomke and I,in the Strashelye article, discussed the name Chabad-Lubavitch. When did that particular name (Chabad-Lubavitch, vs. Chabad or Lubavitch, or even Lubavitch-Chabad) come to use? Were previous Chabad schools similarly identified (Chabad-Kapust, or just Kapust? Shlomke stated his desire to form a consensus. This was my response at that time:

Heh, a consensus about R'Aharon HaLevi... That implies that more than the two of us are interested in him to begin with. Perhaps this comment belongs in the Chabad-Lubavitch section, but the truth is that even the name Chabad-Lubavitch is relatively new. In Illinois, for example, the official name is Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois. The reason is that there was no set name (either Lubavitch-Chabad or Chabad-Lubavitch) so their way made as much sense as any. Perhaps the Chassidus was just called Lubavitch (like Kapust, Nezhin, Bobroisk, Liadi, etc.) and it was a known thing that Lubavitch was a Chabad Chassidus. Since there is now a "Chabad-Lubavitch" article, and a "Strashelye" article, it makes it seem like Lubavitch was the rightful heir to the Chabad name (to the exclusion of all other Chabad dynasties). While that conclusion may seem reasonable given that Lubavitch is the only remaining Chabad dynasty, it is contrary to the specific and stated desires of the heads of all of the other Chabad dynasties. But, like I said, that's a complaint for the Chabad-Lubavitch page. I'm happy with the name of this article if you are. (And I would be interested in seeing what a consensus would decide).

Since this discussion page probably gets more traffic than that one (and since, as I said, this is a Lubavitch discussion just as much as a Strashelye discussion, I decided to ask the question over here: When did Chabad-Lubavitch begin to use that name?--Meshulam 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)#Name of article. Shlomke 10:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleizer's reversions

The Psak Din that was linked on the site says in Hebrew "[The Rebbe] is a Prophet," and later says "The Rebbe is King Messiah who will redeem us immediately." Yet, Pinchas keeps on mistranslating it in his creative revisions of this article. Futhermore, he insists on linking to the Hebrew PDF file which contains no links to the English translation. I wonder why, if he is so sure of the meaning of the psak din, why he is so afraid of letting English readers actually read a translation of it.

Of course, these reversions are political and irresponsible. There should be a consensus on this matter.--Meshulam 18:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite my requests for a consensus, EMS2 and Pinchas continue to revert. This behaviour is unacceptable.--Meshulam 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, never saw this. Maybe if you placed this at the bottom of the talk page we would of seen this as is the custom. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Shlomke. I believe that it is important to convey the entire truth. It is true that the heads of both the Reform and Conservative movements have condemned Messianism. If there is some compelling reason to keep their statements off this page, I have not offered it. But the same is true for material that supports the Messianist claim: The Psak Din is dated after 3 Tamuz 5754, and claims that the Rebbe is the Messiah (not that he was the Messiah or that he might have been the Messiah). Furthermore, I think it is obvious that linking to the Hebrew PDF file (that did not contain links) was an attempt to keep non-Hebrew readers from understanding the nature of the Psak Din. For an English speaking audience, it is only proper that the file be linked to the proper English website.--Meshulam 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Meshulam, The English site that you are linking to is full of mistranslations, misspellings and grammatical errors. Therefore instead of readers understanding the viewpoint of the Mishichistim they only leave more confused than ever. Furthermore I find your grounds for attacking me that you want your English site listed, misleading as you were the one that added the Hebrew site [6] and in two separate edits you reverted back to the Hebrew one.[7], [8]. Additionally you should learn to respect the rules of Wikipedia including the WP:3rr rule. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Reb Meshulam, to further elaborate, before the king is revealed he is not a king, therefore when they write in the psak din that he should be revealed as the king messiah it is still before the king is revealed and therefore they are not writing that he is already the messiah as they themselves write that he should be revealed therefore it is before the king is revealed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The English is full of mistranslations. However, it conveys the general message well. I think your diyukim on "before the King" and the "revelation of the king" are a little misplaced. The general import of the psak din is that the Rebbe is Moshiach, and that he should be revealed as such. The specific line that I quoted above is accurate, and says as much. Furthermore, the Psak Din demands that people recite "Long Live our Master, Our Teacher, Our Rebbe, King Messiah, Forever." That's hardly a line for someone who might be Messiah. As for my posting of the Hebrew site, it was an accident. I meant to post the English site. If needs be, I can come up with a translation. But the English works better than the Hebrew site without links. At least link to the psakdin site that has links so that people can choose where to go from there. The alternative is to offer English readers something that is meaningless to them (no doubt your intention). As for the 3 reverts rule: you did as much reversion as I did with your various incarnations and/or henchmen. The whole scene was rather childish on both of our parts. But I did post a discussion here early into the process that you did not utilize until someone else came to my aid. --Meshulam 05:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
How do you translate: ובכלל זה - שהוא המלך המשיח? I translate it as: The matter is such (or the rule is, etc.) That He is King Messiah. It doesn't say will be. The English, furthermore, correctly reads "He is King Messiah, who will be revealed..." Meaning that he IS Messiah. The "will be" is that he will be revealed as such when he redeems us, which he has not done yet. That is what the psak din reads. --Meshulam 06:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep on reverting or tweaking the link in ways that does not reflect the content of the psak din? The Psak Din does not place any conditions on the Rebbe's being Moshiach. It does not say: "If the Geula happens during this generation." It does not say "If the Geula happens on a Tuesday while it is raining." Etc. Furthermore, I thought we were going to talk this out on the discussion page rather than get involved in edit wars. I sense that you're very uncomfortable about the truth getting out, and that has lead you to bypass normal methods of resolution on this board.--Meshulam 12:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
How about the version that I just did? This is more accurate than your version. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Meshulam's version. The current version doesn't reflect what the text actually says and is ungrammatical. JoshuaZ 14:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
100%. The the psak din says that he is Moshiach who will be revealed. There is no conditional in the statement. (As in, its not "when" he will be revealed. The psak din is clear that he is Moshiach, revealed or not. Then it makes sure to say that he will be revealed.) I'll accept "The Rebbe is Moshiach who will be revealed," though I think that it is verbose and unnecessary. But as it reads now is incorrect (gramatically and factually) --Meshulam 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please make an accurate translation on wikisource. Please read WP:WEB. Until keep it the linked to the PDF upload. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: Halacha (a psak) assumes knowledge of the written law (the Tanach) first. Likewise, Rambam in his intro to Mishneh Torah says its impossible to learn halacha without learning the written law first. He actuall forbids it. He states that is why he call his work Mishneh Torah (second to the Torah). To be able to understand a psak - like this one - understanding of the written law is needed. Without it the Rambam says you will misunderstand it. Go ahead say this is orignal research because it is. Hopefully a translation will soon be made in wikisource accurately of the psak. Now how is psakdin site fit the notablity (web) policy? Which clearly excludes "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." which is what this is. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A reprint is differnt from a translation--Meshulam 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry quoted wrong policy. Updated. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
EMS, Don't confuse darshining halachah from the Torah with reading a psak. A psak is not torah m'moshe m'sinai so the comparison is ridiculous. Furthermore, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with such a comparison anyways. I also have to say that I find your Wikilawyering disturbing. You have simply moved from one argument to another all trying to get the link removed. To be blunt, that may work for a beit din but that sort of behavior is frowned upon here. Furthermore, WP:WEB isn't excluding external links in that phrasing, external link policies are in a separate category. WP:WEB is for determining whether a website deserves its own article. So you are not only attempting to Wikilawyer, but you aren't doing a very good job at it. To be blunt, you sound a bit like someone with no gemarah background attempting to argue a halachic point and not even understanding when one is quoting things wildly out of context. JoshuaZ 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
... ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Pinchas/PinchasC, There is no current wikipedia policy stating "Three is enough". Every Meshichist site in the External links has a reason it is there. The reason for linking to www.moshiach.net is because it is a collection of information partaining to Chabad mesianism belief's. The psakdin.net site that was added (and has been there before too, but kept on being removed) is being linked so readers can see the Halachik rulling that the rebbe is Moshiach. You seem to constanly try to keep out the meshichist links, and thats a violation of NPOV. With so many hundreds of links to chabad.org, there no need to be "cheap" for a few meshichist links.--Shlomke 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of Chabad

Nowhere on this page does it clearly state what the Chassidic philosophy of Chabad is, how it separates Chabad from Chagat, etc. The article focuses on socially relevant issue of Meshichism, but does not speak about the essence of Chabad movement. Agreed--69.114.174.131 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 200,000 adherents?

I doubt it. I'm fairly positive the number is much smaller.--Meshulam 02:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I added {{fact}} but I have no reason to disbelieve the figure outright. Ask User:Incorrect where he got the number from, or perhaps try to find a source yourself. --DLandTALK 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It came from a book published in January of 2005 called The Rebbe's Army written by Fischkoff, it was a look at the Lubavitcher movement, particularly the 2,000 or so emissaries who have opened up Chabad houses around the world. (and if you lived where I live, Los Angeles and London, you wouldn't doubt those numbers at all)!Incorrect 12:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Fishkoff is already cited as a reference, so you're ok. Unrelated question: you live in LA and London?? --DLandTALK 13:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to be completely accurate, I lived 2 years in London, now live primarily in LA, spend a month or so a year in London. Incorrect 13:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Fishkoff is not Torah m'Sinai, but I guess I'll let it go. --Meshulam 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends how you define "adherent". I'm prety sure Fishkof is counting many Ba'alei Teshuva also. It was always said that Satmar is the bigest, and I think their number is smaller. Shlomke 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That's part of my contention as well. I don't know that we should accept that number just because Fishkoff says so.--Meshulam 23:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"It was always said" is exactly the problem - who knows? This is actually one time when I think the Wiki policy of requiring a 3rd party source to verify a fact is reasonable. Not that I want to defend Fishkof 100%, but having read her book she obviously spent a lot of time with the Lubavatchers, seems kindly disposed towards them, and seems to have done an awfully large amount of research on the group. What we really need is a scouring of all the available literature to see if there are any other reasonable sources who can give us numbers on ALL the major Hasidic groups (Satmars, Belzs, Bobovs, etc.). Does anyone have any idea of where that information can be gleamed?Incorrect 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
She did research on shluchim and on the sociology of Chabad (for lack of a better term). She didn't take a census. --Meshulam 04:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A census is unheard of in those communities, why, that i dont know.--69.114.174.131 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why is there no proper mention of the study of chassidus

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.171.136 (talk • contribs).

so write something, but it cannot be POV. If you are confused about this, read the rules. --Meshulam 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It should be started already, it's long overdue, go ahead and start it (and read the rules first). --Shlomke 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsely

The point of this line is that Hasidim were accused of certain things, which illustrates the historical fact that Hasidism was entrenched in controversy at its inception. Whether or not these accusations were justified is a separate issue, which can be discussed in a separate paragraph if need be.

Furthermore, who is to say that the accusations were patently false? I would tend to agree that, as a movement, Hasidism may not have been characterized by laxity in halakha. However, to say that the statement is objectively false would essentially mean that no Hasidim were lax in halakha, which is impossible to prove (and probably not true either). Far better to remain NPOV, avoid subjectivity, and stick with simply that they were "accused." The content of the debate is for a separate discussion. --DLandTALK 15:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hasidim were accused however these accusations were false. This needs to be noted for NPOV. The mention on the page is not that there are individual Hassidim which are lax in Halacha, as there are many non Hasidim that are lax in Halacha as well, rather it is whether Hassidism in general is lax in Halacha which you agree that this is false. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is false, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively false. It is impossible to characterize a group with such broad strokes. Personally, I would have no problem saying that Hasidim in general are and were perfect yir'ei shamayim. But this is an encyclopedia, and there's no way to back that up in a scholarly way. I haven't reverted this time, but I still recommend it strongly. --DLandTALK 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the article refers to Hasidim being accused, not Hasidism. --DLandTALK 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made the correction to Hasidism. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As a non-Jew, I have no interest in whether the content of the accusations were true or false. As a Wikipedian, I do have an interest in NPOV articles, as all wikis do. It would be useful to know what the nature of the accusations were, and whether there was a response. However, no-one is served by simply asserting that the accusations were false. If there is some kind of objective evidence that supports or proves your conclusion, then include the evidence. Otherwise, your conclusion is unsupported by fact and of no value to anybody.

The sentence is clearly in violation of NPOV, here's why: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

-- Veggie26

This issue has been dealt with. But, suffice it to say, the interest of wikipedia is to present the truth (the theory being that enough contributors can arrive at the truth through consensus). If something is objectively true, and yet is disputed (for example, the existence of the Holocaust), then it is not the job of wikipedia to pretend that there is some conflict as to the realities of history. When there was a dispute about a factual matter, and that dispute has been resolved (as is the case here), there is no need whatsoever to pretend that the matters that were the subject of the dispute are still in controversy. Here we have the latter case: Nobody today contends that Chassidim are lax on halacha, etc. And, indeed, nobody contends today that Chassidim were lax in halacha at any time in history. Quite the opposite, in fact. Those attacks have been universally recognized as false. To pretend, for the sake of NPOV, that the untruth of the aforementioned attacks is in question is foolish.--Meshulam 03:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue has not been dealt with. In fact, what we are doing now is dealing with this issue. It is of no consequence that nobody today contends that Chassidim are or ever were lax on halacha...the issue is whether the mitnagdim's accusation of idolatry, false messianism, and laxity in observance of halakha was in fact a false accusation. It is my contention that, for purposes of an encyclopedia article, it is better to say "Chassidim were accused...". This is an objective factual statement. To say that "Chassidim were falsely accused..." requires some sort of explanation. Why is it true that accusations were false? Who has the authority to declare that an accusation of false messianism and idolatry is false? If it is simply the fact that today, "those attacks have been universally recognized as false", or "the dispute has been resolved" THEN THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE! We are not all scholars of the history and religious doctrine of Judaism. Support your contention, do not just assert it. How was the issue resolved? --Veggie26

Your edit is cool with me. Props.--Meshulam 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is supposed to be a Wikipedia page, not a Chabad propaganda site

I have looked thorough this article and found a lot missing and a lot writitne from a non-objective point of view. For a small example, the assertion that "Rabbi Schneerson often EXPALINED that such concessions endanger more Arab life in the long term as well". Expalining is what you do about something whose veracity is not in doubt. I have tried to change this to the appropriate encilopedia langugue, the he "expressed" his opinion. This was within a few hours reverted to the the original non-objective langugue.

There were very relevant issues not dealt with in the article. For example, that the history of Chabad as described in it is outdated, stopping in 1994 and not mentioning the highly relevant fact that since the death of Rabbi Schneerson Chabad had not chosen a succesor. Also, the very high-profile involvement of Chabad in Israeli politics is a quite pertinent subject, and I think that members of the movement should have the courage of their convictions and not try to hide it. There was no "original reserach" involved, everything which I wrote is a matter of public record in Israel, had been published in thousands of newpaper articles and went countless times into the record of knesset debates. Everything which I wrote was immediately wiped out, with the person(s) who did making no attempt, if what I wrote seemed to them inappropriate, to substitute a different text on the given subjects. That is unacceptable. This page is not the property of the Chabad movement. Chabad has enough websites of its own where it can publish what fits it and ignore what does not fit its convenience. This is a wikipedia page and it has to conform to the Wikipedia standards. Follows is my proposed text. I am quite open to discussion and changes in it, I will NOT accept a blanket removal and censoring of relevant subjects off a Wikipedia page. Adam Keller 12:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are familiar with our policies WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:NOR. Could you provide references? Thanks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the facts about Chabad invovement in Israeli politics and what some other parts of the population think of it are very well known in Israel, published constantly in the papers and known to any well-informed citizen. Similarly, the fact that Chabad has chosen no new Rabbe since 1994, becasue nobody is a fititng succesor for the Messiach, is a very well known public fact. Neither needs any "orogianl reserach" to describe. But anyway, here it is attested in some easiuly accesible english langugue sources: [9] [10] [11] [12]Adam Keller 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a section on succession in the article on Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Regarding the links that your brought those are regarding members of chabad involvement in the 1996 elections for Netanyahu. As can be seen from his article (Benjamin Netanyahu), there is not any mention of chabad. Therefore having more than a line about those elections here would be giving undue weight to a minor event in what chabad is. Feel free to add it in a NPOV fashion, just make sure to cite your sources and do not give it undue weight. Regarding the rest of the stuff that your original edit brought, there is still no sources for them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The section on succession in the Schneerson article is well-written, but surely it belongs at least just as much in the article on Chabad itself? And Chabad's involvement in Israeli politics was not just a one-time incident in the 1996 elections, though it was certainly the most blatant. The ads saying "The Rebber says it is forbidden to talk of any concessions in Eretz Yisrael" have appeared on numerous times before and after 1996 in front of my own home in Holon. I think it is a significant feature of Chabad activity in which the movement spent considerable money and resources, and deserves mention in Wikipedia - especially, as I noted, that is is quite exceptional among Hassidic and Haredi groups. And what Shulamit Aloni and other Israeli secularists had to say about Chabad efforts to convert non-religious people (and is on record of numerosu Knesset debates, and is part of the Meretz Party platform) is just as relevant for a has just as relevant in a NPOV page as the precise enumenration of commandments whose observance Chabad wants to instill in the secular Israeli public. Adam Keller 11:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ========================================================================

(at the end of "Mitzvot campaigns")


Secularist Israelis such as former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni often expressed resentment of the Chabad campaigns and espeically of the wide access given the movement's reperesntatives to IDF military camps and public hospitals, so as to systematically prevail upon non-religious soldiers and patients to perform some of the afoermentioned commadments of Orthodox Judaism. Chabad was also granted the right to have a regular stall at Israel's Ben Gurion International Airprot and at central bus stations, used for accosting by-passers - Chabad being the only movement of any kind granted such a privilege.

A long-standing demand by Israeli secularist groups and political parties such as Meretz is to place activities by Chabad (and by other groups seeking to convert secularists to Orthdox Judaism) on an equal legal and adminstrative footing with the activity of Christian Missionaries, and subject Chabad to all restrictions placed on such missionaries by Israeli law.


The Problem of Succesion

Since the death of Rabbi Schneerson, Chabad has not chosen a new Rabbe and there does not seem any sign of its ever intending to do so. Obviouly, whether the late Schneerson be considered to have actually been the Messiah or "merely" as having been "the best candidate for the Messiah in his generation", it would seem highly presumptious for anyone - however shcolarly, devout or popular - to put himself forwards as a fitting replacement.

Chabad seems, therefore, destined to follow the precendent of another Hassidic current, the followeres of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, who encountered a similar crisis much earlier in their history and found no fitting sucessor after the death of their founder in the early 19th Century. Nevethless, the Breslav Hassidim - nicknamed (by others) "The Dead Hassidim" - survived and have even seen considerable flourishing in recent decades. To judge from this precedent, Chabad is likely to develop some alternative kind of leaders, who would not claim the title of "Rebbe" but declare themselves loyal followers of Rabbi Schneerson's teachings and heritage, and reinterpret these teachings in the light of future developnments.


Controversial involvement in Israeli Politics


In the debate over the fate of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria and Gaza Strip, which forms the basic dividing line of Israeli poltics since these territories were captured by the IDF in 1967, Chabad had consistently and outspokenly placed itslef on what is reckoned the extreme-right pole, persistantly taking the "not an inch" position.

As mentioned, Rabbi Schneerson included among the main themes of Chabad campaigns "The importance of opposing any discussion concerning concession of territories in the Holy Land of Israel", to Arabs or anyone else, since "such concessions endanger the lives of Jews in Israel". Rabbi Schneerson personally reiterated this theme in his meetings with Israeli politicians who visited his New York headquarters, and his followers in Israel often organised extensive and expansive publicity campaigns throughout the country, mostly with Schneerson's photo and the words: "The Rebbe says it is forbidden to discuss concessions in Eretz Yisrael".

Chabbad's policy in this respect was in marked contract to that of most other Hassidic and Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) groups in Israel, who traditionally tend to shy away from blatant involvement in big controversial issues and concentratre their political lobbying and involvement to promoting the direct interests of their community.

Chabad involvement in mainstream Israeli politics reached its peak with the movement's intervention in the close-run Prime Ministerial race of 1996. On the last week ahead of Elections Day, Cahabad threw its human and finacial resources on the side of Likud Party challenger Binyamin Netanyahu against the incumbent Shimon Peres of the Israeli Labour Party. There was a high-profile presence of Chabad activists on the streets, with such slogans as "The Arabs want Peres" and "Netanyahu is good for the Jews". While denounced on the Left as racist, these slogans seem to have struck a chord with some sections of the public, espcially considering trhe wave of suicide bombings in Israeli cities shortly before.

Political analysts widely mentioned Chabad's last minute intervention as one of the main factors which brought about the surprising result - Ntahyahu's victory by a narrow margin of less than half a percent, when all polls had predicted a Peres victory. This caused a strong backlash of anger from the Left against Chabad. As a result, the movement's activists were for a considerable period banned from IDF miltary camps - under the reasoning that activities of political parties and their affiliates are forbidden inside the army, and that Chabad had become such. Subsequntly, Chabad avoided any direct involvement in elections campaigns and explicit sponsoring of candidates.

The movement still does reiterate its principled position against terriroial concessions, and some of its members took part in the 2005 settler campaign against Ariel Sharon's "Disengagment" from The Gaza Strip - though not on the scale of its past political campaigns. Chabad's statements of its political principles are hampered by some of its members also persisting in camapigns with posters bearing Rabbi Schneerson's photo and the wording "Long Live the King, Long Live the Messiach" - a theme which is often recived with derision in the general public and ridiculed in popular TV satirical shows, making whatever Chabad says be taken less than seriously.

Most political factions in Israel, even those reckoned right-wing, seem resigned to the need of giving up large parts of the West Bank - though the extent of withdrwal is still highly debated. This leaves Chabad among the last remaining adherents of the "not an inch" position, highly prevalent in in Israel in the immediate post-1967 period. Israeli political scientists who researched Chabad believe that - even had any of them wanted to - none of Chabad's living leaders would presume to contradict the venerated Rebbe on a point on which Rabbi Schneerson was so explicit and vehement.

[edit] Article length and splitting

The last time this came up was back in December, so I would like to discuss this again as since then the article has passed the 32KB cutoff level and has reason to be split as per WP:SS. The question naturally arises as to which section should be split off into a new article. As the article is about split between information about chabad and controversy, moving the info about chabad and leaving the controversy wouldn't be very fair, I am therefore proposing the forming of a new article by the name of Controversies in Chabad-Lubavitch. In the past it has been argued that this would be a POV fork, however as WP:POVFORK states in Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles the problem of having a criticism section is only when it is used to insert information which consensus does not allow to be put in a main article. Furthermore it has now become an accepted practice on Wikipedia to have such pages as can be seen from the list of pages listed here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Note I am not proposing the complete removal of the controversy section as that is not allowed, rather to summarize it as per WP:SS. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some chabad specific pages that already have their own page besides for their leaders are Gan Israel Camping Network, Mitzvah tank, Kehot Publication Society, 770 Eastern Parkway and Yechi. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Splitting. Everything in the article is gairly germaine. The other articles you have mentioned are fairly clearly separate subjects. But an article about Chabad that fails to mention the Moshiach issue is incomplete. --Meshulam 22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chabadusa.com

What's wrong with Chabadusa.com?--Meshulam 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is good about it? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It has a number of articles about different important issues in Chabad thought. Furthermore, it discusses Moshiach in greater depth than Chabad.org, and lists a number of Chabad Houses that cannot be found on Chabad.org.--Meshulam 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the site and it appears like it has not been updated in many months as can be seen from the Parshas on the homepage. Regarding the Moshiach content, this article is not about Moshiach and either way their nmoshiach content at http://www.king messiah.com/115/ is far less than chabad.org at http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=332562 and moshiach.com. And regarding the chabad houses, which chabad houses does it list that can't be found? Are you referring to unofficial chabad houses? Furthermore the site may not be listed as it contains copyright violations as its entire holiday section is take from sichosinenglish.com without it being attributed to them, rather it states "Chabad.AM Editorial Staff". --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know about the SIE violations. Thanks for bringing that up. But is it actually a violation of Wikipedia policy to link to a site that violates copyright laws?
The rest of the content on the site offers another perspective that chabad.org sometimes overlooks (read: purposefully ignores and attempts to stifle).
I don't know what you mean by unofficial Chabad houses. The Rebbe sent shluchim under many differeny umbrellas. Merkos was one of them. R' Goodman in New Jersey, for example, was sent by the Rebbe. He predates most of the shluchim in that state under Aguch and Markos. But he can't be found on Chabad.org (for their political reasons, I suspect). King Messiah lists them though Chabad.org does not. It is no secret that R' Goodman may be one of the most (if not the most) successful college campus shluchim. I wouldn't call that 'unofficial.' But regardless, it isn't Wikipedia's job to determine what constitutes official shlichus. It is wikipedia's job to provide the facts in a NPOV. That can't be done if only the Anti-Mishichist mosdos are linked to. --Meshulam 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing: Moshiachfacts.com (which is a great site, I believe) presents a rather luke-warm version of mishichism. For example, many would not go into a whole explanation of why Moshiach can come from the dead. Rather, they would point people out to sichos where the Rebbe clearly says that the Moshiach of this generation will not die (referencing the famous Gemara Yaakov Avinu Lo Mes... even if it looks like he died, he did not). That position is not represented by the links. We need to find some site that presents that position in a positive light. --Meshulam 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
From WP:EL "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." and see as well Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works therfore this should settle it without getting into the other issues that this site should not be listed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.--Meshulam 02:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == News Sites ==

I see that COL is linked, yet it leads to a Hebrew language site. Shturem is linked and is a dead link. I would like to add chabad.info because it is no less notable than COL. I would like to remove Shturem because it is a dead link (unless it is fixed).--Meshulam 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chabad-Steinsaltz???

Anyone know what Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz's chabad group is called? Neo-Chabad? Chabad-Steinsaltz? I have seen people calling him the founder of neo-hasidicism. 210.84.47.108 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? 203.166.255.47 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No. His chabad group has no official name. He techincally not Chabad anymore. He was shunned from the chosidus. --Shaul avrom 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of definitions what a Chabad Chassid is as far as Rabbi Steinzaltz is concerned I saw a letter of the Rebbe stating in answer to a question about his affiliation that he belongs to a Chabad community in Jerusalem What more does one need? see also: The Aleph Society, promoting the educational efforts of Rabbi Adin ...Homepage of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz and the Aleph Society. A comprehensive website featuring Rabbi Steinsaltz's prolific teachings, including the Steinsaltz ... [The Aleph Society http://www.steinsaltz.org]

Ariel Sokolovsky 08:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Chabad.info

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [13] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7EChabad-Lubavitch_7c22.html"