Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

[edit] Extremist messianists.

[Dear PinchasC]

Thank you for your input. However there are many reputable and notable sources attesting to the existence of numerous extremist messianists - also boreinuniks and elokists. Berger and others discuss them at length, as do the two notable sources (one from Haaretz no less which you removed.

I think it is fair to mention these strands in the article and certainly reasonable to do so in the light of the numerous sources. Certainly the sources should also be kept. This is all in line with wiki policy as far as I can make out.

I do agree that Yechi should be merged into this article and not the other way round. I notices the Yechi article and thought it quite absurd that there was a Yechi article but no Mishichist article. So I thought to rectify that.

Thank you again for helping out.

David Spart 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Hey please don't blank the article. There should definatly be an article on Chabad Messianism. If you dont want there to be one then have a discussion here or nominate this article for AFD. David Spart 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't blank the artlce I moved it to include other controversies per the discussion on the chabad talk page. The Haaretz article discussed the belief of one person and that person claims on lukeford that he was misinterpreted. Moshiachlisten is not a valid source. See the talk page of Yechi for a discussion of that. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pinchas I do claim of being misinterpreted but they way he originaly promised to print it sounds even more elokist see corrected version here:

http://rebbegod.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-readers-of-rebbe-as-g-d-new.html

Drawing on rabbinical sources, he attempts to show that this is not as revolutionary as it sounds. He concedes that there are few people like him who will openly call the Rebbe God. He claims, however, that many people believe it, but do not say so openly for fear of scaring people away from Chabad altogether.

I asked to be quoted:

"The Rebbe King Moshiach is the revelation of the essence of G-d in human image and thus is called by His holy name"

Instead he originaly wrote the quote bellow in quotation marks as if I would actualy say that:

he later changed it to: While he argues that the Rebbe and God are not the same thing exactly, he says that he does not object to people thinking that they are the same thing. out of quotation marks but still somewhat misleading as to what I actually told him as part of an hour interview . He also made two other misquotes in the original version of the article which were later corrected.

Ariel Sokolovsky£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should remain posted. Students of religion and of Chabad specifically need to see this material. It should not be buried elsewhere. Shmarya Rosenberg 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Yechi into this article.

Support merge of Yechi into this article. Yechi is a phraes and can be covered by the general subject of messianism. Shlomke 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I think Yechi is notable and major enough to deserve its own article. Kolindigo 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Support that the articles should be combined. User:henochz
Oppose Yechi is a very good article and deserves to be alone. It passed an AfD. David Spart 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up of this article

How can this article be cleaned up?

Why aare all the links attacking Berger back in the article? They are off-topic. If they should be anywhere they should be on Bergers' article or in the article about the book. Some of them not even then?
Why are obscure religious figures who signed the psak din saying "Yechi" quoted extensively?
Why do the only references relate to Berger-bashing and michichist propaganda - that list reads like a beis moshiach pamphlet by the way?
Why is it not clear what the actual controversy is in the first three sections?
Why do we need a whole section on general controversies of hasisism going back to the Besht?
Why have all references to Elokism and Boreinuniks been removed again? There are plenty of sources for the existence of such groups - and these people are very controversial and notable - indeed Sokolovsky is probably notable?
Why have the references that refer to these groups been removed again too?
Why have there been various tags at the top of the article proposing implausible mergers for months on end?

If these issues cannot be explained or resolved, I will start to remedy them. This article it totally crap and needs a complete root and branch rewrite. David Spart 01:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view and factual accuracy

This article is in serious need of a cleanup so that it complies with the Neutral point of view policy and is accurate. Some examples are:

The cause of the arrests of Shneur Zalman of Liadi is not elaborated upon. These arrests were because he had sent money to poor people living in Israel which was under Turkish rule. Not because he was trying to take over the Russian goverment.
Did Moshe Schneersohn convert or not, according to chabad tradition he did not, according to the documents uncovered by Assaf, he did. Was there a "coverup"? According to chabad the conversion was faked, therefore there would be fake documents as well. Either way, it is not a controversial matter that belongs here, because this is comparable to the question whether the Exodus took place. Jewish tradition states that it did take place and there is lack of scientific evidence which implies that it did not take place. This contradiction would not be in the controversies of Judaism article.
The "Strashelye breakaway" and the "Malach" was not a breakaway anymore than by any other Rebbe that had multiple children, which resulted in each of the children forming their own group of followers.
The involvement of Joseph Issac Schneersohn in saving the Jews from Europe is not discussed, only a critical quote with a referenced source which does not contain the quote is mentioned.
Unsourcecd quotes on Kotler's views.
The "A Rebbe as "the essence of God"" paragraph does not bring the other uses of this terminology by Hasidic and non Hasidic writers, which is well documented.
The actions of a person that was a follower of Lubavitch does not make it a chabad controversy. Therefore the Chana Gurary and many of the local controversies do not belong here.

There is much more, but this is a start. Chocolatepizza 03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal editing notes on Chocalatepizza's comments for my own future reference:

I think you're right. Find a source and you're good
I don't know anything about this, but in the Moshe Schneersohn article, the Tzemach Tzedek admits that Schneersohn converted. The question is, was he physically forced to or tricked? But for sure, either way, that section needs to be modified to reflect the details in the MS article.
I put in the part about the Malach, but I don't see anywhere anything indicating it was a Breakaway. see Jerome Mintz's Hasidic People for accounts of the Malachim-Chabad controversy.
wow, you're right. That's pretty weird.
The reason that isn't sourced is complicated and I'm too lazy to explain it right now.
emes.
no comment.

--Yodamace1 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So elaborate, with sources.
by all accounts he converted, was he forced, that it is doubt, I will clarify this.
Stashelye was a breakaway, the founder was a talmid not a son.
So add it, I didn't know he was involved in that, but if you have source add it.
Yodamace1 says he will provide sources soon.
If you can source that, add it in.
The controversies listed are either to do with Chabad rabbonim, chabad institutions and official parts of the Chabad movement, also noted are very notable events that became closely associated with chabad, and to which they had to respond to. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

K, so I couldn't find a source for the Rav Kotler thing. I was told by my Rosh Yeshiva, but in accordance with the whole "No Original Research" rule, I'm gonna delete it. --Yodamace1 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agriprocessors

This is not a chabad organisation and any controversies regarding it belongs in the article about the company, not in this one. Chocolatepizza 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is owned by a Chabad Rabbi and managed by another Chabad rabbi - its location has created a Chabad community around the plant, which has been controversial and sparked a number of controversies over 20 years. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is like saying that it is owned by a Jewish person and some Jewish people have been his employees, therefore it should be in a controversies about Judaism article. The actions by a company that is owned by a follower of the chabad movement does not make the company a chabad company. Chocolatepizza 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but they are not followers, they are ordained ministers and community leaders. It is also irrevocably tied to the Chabad movement, because of the community that built up around it. 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the employees are not members of chabad, and an ordained rabbi that goes into business does not represent the place that ordained him. Chocolatepizza 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is a community of some 300 Chabadniks living in Postville. These people are still Chabad rabbis to this day, and are senior chabad rabbonim at that. Chabad have had a terrible relationship with the town for 20 years, and there have a number of controversies. Those are ordained chabad rabbonim (and shochtim) shechting the cows in the videos that went all the way around the world. You are simply pushing POV here. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversy that I removed was with the company itself. And there are Mexicans and non chabad shochtim as well. I'm not sure what a pollution claim has to do with them anyways. Chocolatepizza 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversy was about the Shechita, both that it was cruel and that it might be treif. I hope to hell the it was the Chabad rabbis and not the Mexicans doing the Shechita. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversy of the Shechita, was regarding the actions which happened after the cutting which the Shochet does. And it was not only a Chabad Hekhsher. In fact only one chabad Hekhsher and multiple other ones. This is besides the point that the Shochtim, most which are not chabad, do not set policy, and it was not the chabad movement that set the policy in the factory. It was either the owner or the multiple kashruth organisations giving the hekhsher. Chocolatepizza 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ourdent. So you are arguing that "it not only a chabad controvesy", "not such a big controversy" this is no good reason to repeatedly remove 1500 words and 30 sources! By simply reverting over you are making a big mistake. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am explaining why it is not a chabad controversy, and twisting my words is not going to help. This is the third time today that you are threatening me. Any further threats will be reported. Chocolatepizza 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What threats! Whats wrong with you! This is a chabad contorvesy, all the people involved are Chabad musmachim. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if the owner got Smichah from chabad. The way he runs his business has nothing to do with Chabad. If there was a Reform rabbi caught shoplifting[1] would you put it in the Reform Judaism article? Obviously not. Chocolatepizza 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Chocolatepizza and David Spart

I'm not going to reply to every talksection. Here's my general idea: The Rebbe's article was originally Lubavitcher mythology, but Spart and I turned it into a somewhat enclyclopedic piece. This piece seems to have been taken over by the opponents of our Chabadnik friends. In fact, this article is so anti-Chabad I'm surprised that it has even been allowed to exist after a discussion of the matter. To the extent of my knowledge, no Controversies of the Roman Catholic Church, Controversies of Secular Humanism, Controversies of Satmar, or even Controversies of Islam etc. exist. I am personally of the opinion that this article should be deleted, but I doubt that's possible at this stage. Anyways, unless the schecting plant was officially affiliated with the Agudas Chasidei Chabad, we're simply talking about a culture clash between Hasidim and Postville residents, and that can be moved to the Hasidim article. My logic? Most "Hasidim" in the sense being used here are associated with their dynasties through an acknowledged relationship through their society and/or parents, much like individual Indian tribes. Therefore, the Chabad Hasidim can be considered a cultural group and you can't have a controversies article for cultural groups because it's POV and racist. Therefore, for all due intents of this article, we are forced to consider Habad as an organization; Habad does have an umbrella group, so that's the "Indian Council" so to speak; if you're not associated with them, you're not part of the tribe. --Yodamace1 07:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And how reliable is the NOTW, I've noticed that they've had quite a bit of lawsuit troubles...I think the NOTW thing needs to be asked to one of the big boys like User:IZAK. --Yodamace1 07:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm equivocal about the Agriprocessors, however the NOTW is certainly a reliable source as far as WP:RS goes. While it may have been sued in the past, the fact that it is still in business implies that it wins much more often than it loses. Anyway, we don't care about truth, we care about attribution. NOTW is owned by News International and Rupert Murdoch. If and when Jaffe sues and wins then that should be added, but it still wouldn't make the original false allegations any less notable. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that Chabad is a small organisation (whatever they say). 55 years ago, they couldn't get a minyan at 770 on Shabbat. They now run about 1000 centres around the world, and employ around 2000 emissaries. They are very controversial for many reasons. Remember this page is merely a split off from the main Chabad and Rebbe articles, something that PinchasC did a while back. When you see this page in isolation it doesn't look good for Chabad. When seen as an integral part of a series it is very balanced. If material is valid and sourced, it belongs in wikipedia.

It is certainly not a problem to have an article on controversies relating to an ethnic group and Chabad is a sect not an ethnic group it is a belief system like Liberalism. Here are some examples that demonstrate this point. Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies, Scientology controversy, Category:Islam-related controversies, Controversies related to Islam and Muslims, Category:Christianity-related controversies, and there are many many more. Essentially this page was created because Chabad editors couldn't bear to see any critique on the main Chabad pages. Chabad is a very controversial group, and this article merely brings together the controversies in one place and is completely encyclopedic. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article has gone to far. David Spart seems to think that anything controversial that ever happened in world history which can somehow be connected with the word "Chabad" should get mention in this article. This is wrong and against wikipedia policy. This is nothing short of an effort to try and slander the group. In it's current state I strongly support deleting this article. Otherwise We have to establish a firm criteria of what should be included here.

This article was originally created to document the different controversies that came up in the Chabad movement from its inception to the present times. This should be the criteria for inclusion of information in this article. Shlomke 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that Chabad is a very controversial group is wrong. With any large group as big as Chabad, you'll have a number of controversies come up. In any case, It's fine to document these controversies of the movement, but thats all. all the other stuff not part of the movement should now be removed. Shlomke 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No I don't; only things done by or to Chabad rabbanim, or that Chabad had to respond to in the press. Wikipedia intends to become the sum of all human knowledge and this is all part of it and it is very well sourced. You are a Chabadnik, and therefore don't like this article. This article does docunent some of the controversies that have some up in the Chabad movement, but not even close to all of them. This article was originally designed by Chabad POV editors as a POV fork to keep their Chabad and Rebbe articles "clean". OK, so Chabad isn't a controvertial group, whatever. Let the article speak for itself. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What Chabad has to respond to in the press is not an indicator that the incident is a movement incident. If chabad came out in the paper telling the world that so and so is not affiliated with chabad or somthing like that, that would in no way make that mans incident part of the movement. That would just not make sense. Only incidents part of the movement itself should be documented here. Finally, for you assertion as to what I or others are, please have a look at Wikipedia:Outing. Shlomke 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the fact that someone is a lubavitcher is a rabbi is very common in Chabad, the rebbe encouraged everyone to learn for semicha. You'll need something more substantial then that to establish an incident as part of theLlubavitch movement. Shlomke 18:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Mr. Spart: when it comes to NOTW, I have no idea how reliable it is (I was just speculating), and therefore will see my way out of that conversation. However, I'm happy we've reached an agreement about the Agriprocessors; I think this is important. I was comparing Chabad to Indian tribes inasmuch as...well, I outlined that above. The Church, Islam, etc. aren't cultural groups, but religions. Gypsies, Indians, and Hasidim are cultures with individual subcultures, Chabad being one of them. I outlined the similarities earlier. As for other religions having controversy categories, the difference between this article and those categories is that they are just categories, not full treatments (with the exception of Scientology). If it were possible, this would be my suggestion: delete this article and make a List of Chabad scandals, similar to the List of scandals of the Roman Catholic Church... --Yodamace1 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Shlomke. If Chabad isn't controversial, then I don't know what controversial means. Prominent Reform, MO, Litvish, and Satmar leaders have all attacked Chabad and quite loudly at that. But I definately agree that something seemed wrong with this article when I first saw it. --Yodamace1 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I don't know what small or big has to do with anything, but a sidenote: Chabad may be very small, but so's the Jewish world, so to the Jewish world, it's HUGE. Chabad is an international organization with it's own major enclaves and major populations in normative Haredi enclaves. It is also the second largest Hasidic dynasty in the world, bigger than Ger. Not to mention it's effect on the heterodox Jewish population and clergy! --Yodamace1 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baranes

I am removing the Meir Baranes paragraph as his actions are not from chabad, rather they are from a private individual. Chocolatepizza 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally his actions were condemned by virtually all of Chabad. Shlomke 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. That it why it is a Chabad controversy. This is just shocking POV pushing, and it wont work in the long run. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they condemned it does not make it a Chabad controversy. Shlomke 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chana Gurary

I am removing this paragraph as the assault on her was not by the chabad movement, rather it was done by a private individual that did not work for chabad. Chocolatepizza 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He somminted the attack following an emotive speach by the Rebbe himself, this all came out in the case. Would you rather have that episode in the Rebbe article? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Same as in the other sections, this was an individual, not something done by the movement. Shlomke 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodstock and prospect heights

These two places that had internal disagreements over who should be the local Rabbi, does not belong here as it is not a chabad movement controversy, rather they are disagreements between local individuals. Chocolatepizza 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. Basically anything that reflects poorly on Chabad you want to remove. It wont work. Two Chabad rabbis suing each other and battling through the press over who has the right to represent Chabad officially! You have a nerve! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gutnick-Feldman feud

I removed the Gutnick-Feldman feud since it is something pertaining to these two individuals, not the Chabad movement, as I explained above. All such other content that is not part of the movement should be removed as well. Shlomke 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about! The whole case revolved around the main Chabad yeshiva in Australia!! This is simply outrageous. You have not erased almost half the article in a drive to push your own POV, deleting 60 (YES SIXTY) good sources! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. It make no difference how many sources you have if the content is not relevant, and I already explained why it isn't. Shlomke 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riots in Vilnius

I have seen a video film showing completely the opposite of what is written in the article regarding the action in Vilnius, Lithuania. Rabbi Krisky was throuth out of the Synagogue while Rabbi Bronshtein conducts the actions of the guards. This video is public and show facts. All the rest of this articule is also full of lies. Please take it into consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.219.241.145 (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Can you provide a link to the video? Shlomke 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article lead

The lead was in bad shape. I made it more accurate and NPOV. Shlomke 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lew

I removed Pinny Lew. Understandibly, his persnal actions do not reflect those of the chabad movement. Shlomke 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levitin

I'm removing Sholom Ber Levitin. A scandal he was involved in should not be portrayed as that of the movement. Shlomke 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this article

This article is ridiculous. It should be deleted immediately. Its proper name is "What bad things can we say about Chabad?"

Any controversies belong squarely within the Chabad article. The Chabad organization is not primarily controversial. The very existence of a free standing article for "controversies of Chabad" gives totally out of place undue weight to what is basically a positive Jewish organization. Chabad is not known for its controversies. This article is doing its best to portray Chabad as being in some way "controversial."

If there are what some may think are controversies, let those editors work those "controversies" into the article on Chabad. That is the job of an editor: to write a well balanced article. Bus stop 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, please note that changes were made to my request for deletion, changes I could not revert. The present request explanation seems a little overheated. Also one of the article's editors seems to have removed the request for deletion, which action may not be entirely kosher. Kwork 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is problematic to have an article "controversies of Chabad" because there are no controversies of consequence in relation to Chabad. Chabad is basically noncontroversial. The article is basically a rambling journey through all events related to Chabad. The purpose of an editor is to whittle that down into material worthy of inclusion in an article on Chabad. Bus stop 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Chabad itself may not be fairly characterised as a controversial movement, but there have always been controversies directly related to it. We've already got rid of all purely local matters that don't relate to Chabad as a movement. The ones left on this page clearly do (if you don't agree, please point out the ones you dispute). Listing all these controversies on the main article would give them undue weight, so they're listed in a separate article. That is the standard way this is done on WP - see the article on any political candidate, for instance. Zsero 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no controversies deserving of a freestanding article. Chabad is decidedly uncontroversial. It is giving undue weight to the normal textures that a large organization is expected to to have, to devote an article to "controversies of Chabad." There is really nothing "controversial" listed on this page. Does anyone expect the history of a large organization not to have internal squabbles, or critics of some aspect of it or another? Or are there allegations of worse goings on? If there are not allegations of something worse than what appears in this article of "controversies of Chabad," then whatever is in this article can and should be edited into the main article. The fact of the matter is that there is simply too little negative information to warrant a separate article devoted to faultfinding. This is an article that is on a mission to convey wrongdoing where little or no wrongdoing exists. Bus stop 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad IZAK 11:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WOW WHAT A MESS

I have never sesen an article been kept in such a mess for so long. This is a very importatnt article as it essentially half of the main Chabad article, and it must conform to the highest standards of sourcing to avoid being a POV fork.

Going through the history I can see vast chucks of information being removed wholesale - something like 80kb over time without any discussion on the talk page.

This has in large part been replaced by huge chunks of unedited quotations, copyvios and other assorted POV statements from both sides in this debate.

I will try to clear up this mess somehow, but it is such a disaster area, that I don't know how.Lobojo (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact it was never a neutral article. You are correct it needs to be cleaned up, however please do not revert to old versions of pages like you have been doing on other pages as the old versions are definitely not good. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plan of action

I think that title should be changed to "Chabad related controversies", which is much borader. I will go through the various histories and the current version and try to salvage all the valid sourced information that is in there. Lobojo (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, this would be too broad. As it stands now it is too general. Imagine Judaism related controversies or Reform Judaism related controversies, there would be no end in sight. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But Chabad is not a religion. It is much closer to a large company of organisation. In fact, it isn't even that. Chabad claims about 4000 active "employees", 8000 if you include the wives. So to liberal with it there are maybe 10,000 chabad activists around the world. That is a very small organisation in global terms. Certainly smaller than say, Scientology, though maybe not by much. check out Scientology_controversy and note how the controversy section is flagged up with multiple articles in template here: Template:Scientology.

Compare also with Mormonism. Look at this category: Category:Mormonism-related controversies. Chabad is not as big and so a category is probably not apropriate since all the controversies could fit in one long page. See also Category:Christianity-related_controversies, "related controversies" appears to be the standard NPOV lingo, and I agree. To call Pinny Lew a "Controversy of Chabad" is probably fair, since he resigned in disgrace AS a chabad rabbi, but it is fairer to call it a "Chabad related controversy" I would argue.

And Hello Chocolatepizza, you ask Imagine Judaism related controversies, well there is no need to use your imagination, because here it is: Category:Jews_and_Judaism-related_controversies. Da Da!! Lobojo (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is category of article? Well, It should be very easy to split up a lond article into many and make a category and a section in the template. So I will work on that basis. If at a later date it is decided to split each controversy to give a category that will work too. Lobojo (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Speeches of the Rebbe

I wonder why Lobojo has removed these talks without consensus? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is copyvio, and totaly unwiki? Do you this unedited chunks of stuff should go in? We are heading towards a serious RFC here, if you carry on editing in this way. If you continue to eschew discussion and consensus building, it will come very soon. A lot of people are very frustrated about the way a few users don't allow change to Chabad articles. Lobojo (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't post the sources! I just wonder why you insist on removing them when other seem to disagree. Why is it coypvio? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is mainly unedited quotations which are not properly sourced or attributed. I have nothing against the informaiton, but it cant go into the article as it stands. Feel free to edit it down to something coherant and sourced and wikified and add it back. Lobojo (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead is pretty poor in my view, are there any suggestions about how to improve it? Lobojo (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dovid Jaffe

I removed the part about Jaffe as it violated WP:BLP as it was one source only which was from a tabaloid. See http://www.frumspace.com/news_details.php?news_id=92 for more details about how he was framed. Chocolatepizza 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To violate BLP there must either be a NPOV problem or ATT problems. The link you provide is interesting and should be added to the article even though the source is not the best. He was on the front page of the worlds best selling tabloid (published by News International.) They say he went to hookers; we say what they say; we don't (necessarily) print what is true, we print what is attributable. The story of the Chabad-hooker Rabbi was then reported in Yediot Aharonot, the Jewish Chronicle, the Manchester Evening News and others. I will add the article you note as a defence, to make it more neutral - I wasn't aware that anyone defended him. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that source, simply to defend the poor guy. The article defending him was wrtien by a Chabad hasid from Crown Heights who has recently set up some kind of weird website http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:MDdHJ-xE0ngJ:www.1888pressrelease.com/the-million-word-site-3621-company-pr.html+%22Itzhak+Schier%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8 which can be found here and has been spamming "press releases" all over the net for the past 3 months and goe by the name "ZiQui Million". But OK, it turns out that this is a "million pixels" website copycat, which he created in order to "make a lot of money, fast!" (See here). here is the Yechi page! This is funny stuff.

but anyhow I'll add the new source if no one objects. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 01:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

All the other sources are reporting about the tabloid, which is not a valid source. Chocolatepizza 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No no, tabloid is not pejorative and NOTW is owned by News International and News Corporation, IE it is the sister paper of The Times, and Fox News and so on. They are most certainly a reliable source. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to appease you by adding the defence. You cannot remove something with 10 sources - Jaffe could easily deserve an article all by himself. End of story. You cannot suggest that the NOTW and Yediot and 5 other papers that reported it are not reliable sources, sorry. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They are all reprints of the same tabloid piece. The tabloid piece is not reliable, as much as people do not have three heads and aliens did not kidnap half the country. Chocolatepizza 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reprints are fine, because that provides notability. They are not all reprints at all. One is a source defending him and attacking the papers, another is a source 4 months later describing the beit din being set up to investigate him. He could easily have his own article, and if you remove all this stuff again, he will. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reprints do not establish notability. Please do not create rules as you go, and see WP:BLP. Chocolatepizza 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Look you have no idea what are talking about, and again, they are not all reprints. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which one is not a reprint or not based on the tabloid? Chocolatepizza 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of extensive sourced information.

Is not acceptable. I am going to put it back in, and if you remove again, I will take action. I will also create articles on Pinchas Lew and on Dovid Jaffe, both of whom are easily deserving of their own articles. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have reduced the number of sources in this article from 140 to 109 in five minutes. This is totally unacceptable. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have placed inexcusable non relevant content into this article. I have removed the irrelevant content. Chocolatepizza 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact you hate it so much, kind of prooves that it is isn't irrelevant. You need a very very good reason to unilaterally remove sourced info. And you don't have one because this it very relevant. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to show how it is relevant. When you show how it is relevant it can be inserted. Otherwise saying that because I do not want irrelevant information in the article means that it is relevant defies any logic that I am aware of. Chocolatepizza 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have removed 31 sources from the article. There is no possibility at all that you can fairly argue that what you have removed are not controversies of chabad. Your are being entirely disingenuous. I am going to put the stuff back in. If you think it doesn't belong there you need to prove that, since you are removing 31 sources. If you continue removing sourced information that you feel paints your sect in a bad light, this is only going to be counter-productive for you. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have explained in edit summaries and on this talk page why the items that I removed were not relevant to this article. And the burden of proof lies on you for you to include them in the article. And regarding your threats, see WP:THREAT and WP:CIVIL. Chocolatepizza 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, If you are removing 1,500 words and 30 sources from an article, the burden of proof is on you to explain why these controversies are not connected to Chabad. And you developing something of a persecution complex, I have made no threats against you and have been entirly civil. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have explained in edit summaries and on this talk page why the items that I removed were not relevant to this article. Regarding my "persecution complex", see this edit and this edit. Chocolatepizza 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Why is that threatening? I am sinply pointing that blatant POV pushing on behalf of Chabad is only going to make the dispute worse. You have given hopeless POV arguement as to why some things that you really dont like are not to do with chabad, but this is no good, your arguements are not coherant. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have given very strong arguments in my edit summaries and on this page why they should go in. You have yet to give a valid argument how they are relevant. Chocolatepizza 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You again avoid replying to my points. If a senior Chabad rabbi gets into the press for doing someting controvertial, and this satisfies ATT it belongs on this page. You find this embarrasing for Chabad, and that may be, but this page is really part of the main Chabad page, but it just branched off because it got to long, so it isnt going to be peachy for Chabad, much like Criticism of Noam Chomsky isn't going to delight him. You are deleting 1500 words and 30 sources, on the most spurious reasoning. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put tags on the parts that you are disputing in the hope that this might focus the discussion. What you should do, instead of blanking sourced material you don't like is to find sources that defend Chabad in some of these controversies, or add the official Chabad responce. In wikipedia we are conservative about removing material, The idea that Lew, Jaffe and Postville-PETA are not Chabad controversies is not credible. Let me spell it out for you: Chabad rabbonim and people closely associated with the movement, involved in controversies = "Chabad controversies". Controversies where chabad are forced to make a press responce to the controversy also =Chabad controvesies. I don't see Krinsky or Brod defending Chabad in the press over the Iran-contra affair, but when one of their students is arrested on terrorism charges they do. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The parts that I am disputing are more than the parts that I am removing. I have removed some of the more obvious problems. You are not making sense as I have demonstrated above. Chocolatepizza 00:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons and Reliable sources.

From WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion".

I've deleted the entire Dovid Jaffe section[2] since it's built from an unreliable source: News of the World. If this information is verifiable and notable it will be published by reliable third party sources, and if that can be cited the information can go back into the article. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t14:22z

The news of the world is not actually an unreliable source it is a part of News Corp along with the WSJ and The Times. The story is corroborated by a further 8 independant sources including Israel's best selling newspaper. Lobojo (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If the controversy claims are in articles in The Times or WJS that would be reliable sources. Popularity does not mean reliable: NotW and Yedioth Ahronoth are both extremely popular, but neither comes close to being anything like reliable. Wikimedia regularly hits 50 000 requests per second[3], but that doesn't make it a reliable source either. The really reliable sources like the BBC were not about the controversy. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t18:02z

They are reliable sources for the purposes of BLP. BLP ensuers that we do not get sued. As long as we are quoting others we are covered. Yediot is a very serios newspaper, and the NOTW while it may be sensationalist is still subject to the British Libel courts, the most stringent in the world, as such we can asume that they do significant fact checking. These are also not the only sources. Factchecking is the crux of the matter, and the factchecking of these papers cannot be called into question. Lobojo (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dovid Jaffe: News of the World and Yedioth Ahronoth RS? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#News of the World and Yedioth Ahronoth for BLP?. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t22:04z

The conclusion at the RS board was that Yediot is certainly a reliable source though the NOTW probably is not. The text of the section is sourced in the Yediot rticle, not the NOTW article. The NOTW is just there as an illustration, one that infact printed in the Yediot article. There are also a number of other reliable sources quoted that corroborate the fact that the NOTW made the allegation and Jaffe intended to sue, and was subjected to a rabinical tribunal. That is all the artilce claims and none of this is controverisla. Lobojo (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lobojo, I've removed that section again for now since I'm not sure Yediot is a reliable source yet. From the searches I've made it doesn't look like it is, tho if someone can find a RS indicating that Yediot is a RS that would be an argument for putting the section back. What then needs to be shown is that that news item is notable. I've asked for more input at

For BLPs it's better to be sure. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-05t16:57z

Yediot is the most important, most established newspaper in Israel, by miles. It has 10% penetration of the entire Israeli population on a daily basis, compared to 0.3% for the NYT in the USA. There is no translation to explain the prominence of this paper in the Israeli news and political scene. The only comparison might be the BBC in the UK. Almost all major Israeli journalists have worked for the paper, it carries daily columns from major establishment figures in Israel. The Israeli government has a contract with them to print death notices and tenders and so on, not a week goes by without a Yediot story setting the new agenda in Israel, sometimes it seems like all the news stories on TV are sourced in Yediot.The Google news archive gives 25,000 results for "Yediot" almost all of them discussing the Israeli paper of record or its daily stories. As if to make this point the major Israeli story of the past few days is the interview that Yediot did with one George W. Bush, which became a news story around the world, (NYT article on the Yediot interview), and that is only picking yesterday. The importance of this paper eclipses that of any other in Israel or the Jewish World i general, I simply cannot see how this could not pass RS. If Yediot is not a reliable source, there are no Jewish/Israeli reliable sources. There really can be no doubt that what is the closest thing that Israel has to a "paper of record", is a reliable source for wikipedia's demands. Lobojo (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)