Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Judaism Portal Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do: edit purge Template:WikiProject Belarus/to do

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-21. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Local controversies 2 Series of issues with this page 2.1 menorah issue 2.2 reply 2.3 Gutnick-Feldman feud 3 Controversy about this controversy page

[edit] Local controversies

As all local controversies involve individuals, and not the movement, I am proposing that they should be removed. Chocolatepizza 02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Shlomke 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of them. It still requires further cleanup. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As Lobojo has seen fit to add them back, I have removed them again. The reasoning is obvious, if a priest is accused of going to a prostitute, then it does not go into the controversies related to Christianity article. If that is obvious then this is also. Chocolatepizza (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked this over, and this reasoning for removing over 70k of information does not seem at all sound. To begin with, many of the controversies described are not about various Chabad members "accused of going to a prostitute", but rather of issues between official Chabad organizations and other groups. For example, the Berel Lazar/Yevgeny Satanovsky controversy is about inter-communal conflicts, as is the Darkei Shalom synagogue controversy, the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine controversy, the Rabbinical Center of Europe controversy, etc. In addition, some of these items are about intra-communal issues, such as the Woodstock, New York controversy. Still others involve legal issues of Church and State, such as the public menorah court cases, which, in at least one instance, went all the way to the Supreme Court. This blanket removal of all this information and much more under the strange claim that "all local controversies involve individuals" is extremely troublesome; equally so is what appears to be an almost deliberate falsification of a translation with the edit summaries "correcting translation" - it's quite clear that the main effect was to remove the word "God" from the translation, even though the poster says "HaKodosh Boruch Hu" (God) on it. I'm highly tempted to simply revert this deletion, but I'm hoping that Chocolatepizza will reconsider his action and voluntarily add all valid material back, and giving him the chance to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the translation, my mistake, for some reason I did not see the hakdosh baruch hu (I don't know how), thanks for correcting it. Regarding the local controversies, if it is regarding a local chabad house and another group then it belongs in the local chabad houses's article. If a local church has a local dispute, then it obviously does not belong in the religion's article. Local chabad house disputes should be no different. You mention Beral Lazar, this belongs in the Berel Lazar article, not here as it has nothing to do with Chabad, and only with Berel Lazar. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

However I do want to improve Wikipedia as best as I can, and this page about Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies is ridiculously long compared to other groups, such as the Othodox-Judaism related controversies article, so if the idea of wikipedia is to find every negative news article remotely mentioning anyone that ever prayed in a synagogue of any particular group, or if members of any synagogue or their rabbi ever had a dispute with someone else, let me know, I need to roll up my sleeves and start writing. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see further discussion on this page at Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies#Series_of_issues_with_this_page and the rest of the page. Chocolatepizza (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolatepizza, I don't feel you've really addressed my points. It's clear that at least some of this material is notable, encyclopedic, and belongs in this article. You really need to provide a specific rationale for removing each section, and one which is within policy. And if you feel a section should be moved to another article, then please do so, don't just delete it. I would appreciate it if you started by restoring the material, and then discussing each section on an individual basis. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, Most of this was discussed elsewhere on this page, see later on. It is the obligation of the person inserting the controversial material to show that it is relevant, and this has not been done. The Berel Lazar/Darkei Shalom synagogue/Putin Medal items are already in his article. The menorah dispute in Pittsburgh which went to the Supreme court is in County_of_Allegheny_v._ACLU. I don't think that this dispute should belong in a Controversies related to County of Allegheny (or the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania article) or Controversies related to ACLU article (or the American Civil Liberties Union article), and a local Chabad center, which based on my reading of that article was a minor party to the case, should not receive special treatment. If the other people are notable on their own right (which is doubtful) and there is no WP:BLP concerns (which there is) then you can create articles about those people and insert this content into their articles, I mean if this is what Wikipedia is all about, finding negative items and writing articles around them. However to characterize all of these local disputes as "Chabad controversies", is libel and disruptive at best as it is implying that the actions of these individuals represent the actions of the entire Chabad movement, not to mention the main problem that these local items are plainly not relevant to the general Chabad movement. Chocolatepizza (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ChocolatePizza, I second Jayjg in pointing out that your edits are unacceptable, and that you should have reverted yourself. That you and others removed information before does not justify repeating the errors. The material is all very well sourced. Have a look at Scientology controversy and many other examples that I have shown you before. There are over 200 articles on chabad in wikipedia, they are a small (8000 staff) org with tremendous prominence. I am only aware of 3 that deal explicitly with controversies within the movement. I am going to add the disambig from the Scientology article as it makes a valid point. If you object to material in the article, then we need to discuss them one by one before they are removed. I made the point below (indeed I convinced a doubter) that all the material on this page is only about the controversies related to chabad officials and rabbis and the chabad movement as a whole. Also included are controversies that relate to Chabad and the rebbe. If these are involved in a controversy then they are relevant to the article Chabad related controversies. If you can find anything on the page that does not conform to the strict criterion then it does not belong, otherwise it does, unless you can argue from some policy on wikipedia. Lobojo (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Series of issues with this page

Please let me know if there are any wiki terms issues with the following issues that I have with this page. Essentially, they sum up to their being items listed here that are not Chabad related and should have their own page, or items that are scandals but not controversies (in other words, they did not result in a lack on the part of Chabad, and the party involved suffered the penalty on part of Chabad). From bottom to top:
Moshe Rubashkin
aside from minor errors, this is not a Chabad community organization, this is the Crown Heights Jewish Community Center, specifically prohibited from affiliating with Chabad or using the Chabad connection in any way.
Yossi Engel
A scandal, not a controversy
Baranes
This had no relationship to Chabad, there was no dissaciation as he acted on his own.
Gaza withdrawal
Again, no relationship to Chabad.
Sholom Ber Levitin
A scandal, not a controversy
Mordechai Yom Tov
A scandal
Agriprocessors
Not a Chabad institution
Lew
A scandal
Armed Robbery
Not Chabad related
Importance of 770
not a controversy
I will hold on actively editing so extensively if someone comments on this soon.

You are mainly expressing the No true scotsman fallacy here. Scandals are controversial, if they were not controversial they would not be scandalous, so this is quite an arbitrary distincition. The title is "Chabad related controversies", (which is the standard wiki way of titling such articles) and there really can be no debate that all these issues are Chabad related controversies. When a chabad rabbi does something scandalous or controversial - like abusing kids, getting fired by Chabad for going to hookers or exposing himself to his maid; for money laundering while a senior Chabad rabbi and so on and so forth, you have a Chabad related controversy. When the movement's headquarters is embroiled in legal disputes between competing factions within the movement and one of those factions is led by a serial fraudster you have chabad related controversies. When a group of 500 CHabadniks move into a small town leading to a series of incidents including armed robbery committed by rabbinical students/shochtim, animals rights controversies and a series of critical books, you have more chabad related controversies. When students in chabad yeshivas are indicted and deported for involvement in terrorism and Chabad apologize, that is a Chabad related controversy. When people use the name of the Rebbe calling him God and so on, and get in the papers for doing this, this is a Chabad related controversy, and of course the article points out that he is disowned by CHabad. Lobojo (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we are down to the following: It was not a group of 500 Chabadniks, it is a mixed group of various denominations, the owners are followers of Chabad. IMportance of 770 is not a controversy. Baranes is not Chabad, CHJCC is not Chabad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I plan on proceeding with the following edits: Better categorization within the article so that it is clear who is presented as being part of Chabad institution, who is presented as an acknowledged member of Chabad rank and file, and who claimes to be a member of Chabad. Removal of importance of 770. Unless you have further points to raise I think that fits our current discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In order for there to be a BLP problem there nees to be a sourcing problem. Yediot and the NOTW are perfectly valid sources, especailly when they were on the front page. There really can be no question. You can refer to them as tabliods if you want, but the NOTW is a part of News Corp, like the WSJ, and their factchecking is perfectly good enough for wikipedia. There are ample sources for an article on Dovid Jaffe. Agriprocessors is a company founded by a Chabad rabbi and run by another Chabad rabbi. Note for example that Boymelgreen's stuff isnt here. That is because he is not a Rabbi. Neither are the nefarious practices of the Chabad oligarchs. Quite appart from that agriprocessors spawned a bunch of other controversies, so some intorduction is needed for context. Do you feel that chabad.info is not a RS? Lobojo (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A rumor started by a tabloid is not a good enough reason to include it. WP:BLP is very strict when it comes to this. Chabad.info is basically a blog, run by anonymous people with no editorial policy. It does not fit any of the criteria in WP:RS. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "No true Scotsman". An article on "Controversies of Scotland", or "Scottish-related controversies" would not mention every Scotsman who gets in trouble anywhere in the world, for any reason. And it certainly wouldn't include anything about Idi Amin, even though he called himself the King of Scotland. And yet that's what Lobojo and some others have been trying to do here. Every scandal involving a Lubav, or even a non-Lubav such as Baranes, but which would come up on a Google search for "Chabad", gets thrown in. That is simply not on. Baranes has nothing at all to do with Chabad, period. And while the Rubashkins are indeed Lubavs, that doesn't make their private businesss "Chabad related". If Lev Leviev ever gets into hot water for anything, that won't be "Chabad related" either, any more than it will be "Jewish related" or "Israeli related", or "Bukhara related". Nor are the problems of the CHJCC "Chabad related", since it represents the Jews who happen to live in the neighbourhood, even if they happen to be nearly all Lubavs; as the area gets better more Jews will move in, and they won't all be Lubavs, but they'll still be represented on the CHJCC. -- Zsero (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with Zsero. Lobojo has come along and unilaterally changed the focus of the article entirely, without consensus. Before it discussed controversies related to Chabad as a movement, e.g., the library controversy, which was related to ownership of the official Chabad library. This belongs in the article. Lobojo however has seen fit to include any misconduct of any kind ever reported of a self-identifying Chabadnik. E.g., the controversy over Kashrus in Adelaide is basically an argument between a board and their rabbi. It is peripheral to the controversy that he is a chabad rabbi, and thus this controversy does not qualify as a Controversy of Chabad. That's patently not what the controversy is about. If it would fairly belong anywhere, it would be in an article called "controversies of rabbis" or the like (not that I'm suggesting such an article should exist). The same goes for all sorts of misconduct that is not controversial because of the alleged offenders' identity as Chabadniks, but because of their identity is rabbis.

We need to sort this out and reach a consensus on the matter, and if necessary bring in an official mediator. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Adelaide affair belongs in an article on the Adelaide Hebrew Congregation, if such an article were to exist, and nowhere else. If the congregation is not notable, then certainly a dispute with its ex-rabbi is not notable either. And it doesn't become notable just because he happens to be a Lubav. -- Zsero (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] menorah issue

Getting down to specific examples, some of the claims that these are "local" issues are, I think, entirely spurious. For example, the Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies#Public_menorahs section relates a number of court cases regarding Chabad's international practice of lighting menorahs in public places. The cases were in many different jurisdictions, and had different outcomes. There is no one article that can hold all these obviously related issues, unless it is this one, or the Chabad article itself. Please explain why these cases that have, in some instances, gone to the Supreme Court, are not noteworthy, or explain what single article these clearly related cases belong in, if not here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The menorah disputes are certainly Chabad-related. Putting up menoros is an official Chabad policy laid down by the Rebbe, and shluchim putting them up, and in the process running into opposition, are acting for the Rebbe, not for themselves. Though as for which page could hold them, it would be just as logical to put them on a Chanukah-related page as on a Chabad-related one. Perhaps there should be a page devoted exclusively to the menorah issue, linked to from both the Chabad and Chanukah pages. -- Zsero (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would make any sense to put them in a general Chanuka-related page, since the lighting of large public menorahs is a uniquely Chabad practice. It obviously belongs in either this article or the Chabad article, more likely this one. It's certainly not enough of a topic to deserve a standalone article. Now, have we come to an agreement that people will stop deleting this? If so, we can move on to other sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. And it's a practise unique to Chanukah. How is it more related to Chabad than to Chanukah?

2. What's more, I don't accept that it is unique to Chabad. There are certainly plently of public menorot in Israel that have nothing to do with Chabad, and I'm not at all convinced that there are none elsewhere. Chabad is prominent in putting these up but they can't be the only ones.

3. I'm not sure how fair it is to characterise the practise as controversial. For one thing it's completely uncontroversial everywhere but the USA, and it's only controversial there because people keep defying the constitution and Chabad has to go to court to defend its right to do this. The courts have already ruled that there's no problem with privately-funded menorot in public places,

4. Chabad shuls and schools, like many others, often get into zoning fights. It seems there's always some shliach fighting with the local council over a permit for a shul - because there are so many new Chabad shuls being established in places where there were no shuls before. Ditto for eruvin - there are lots of eruv-related fights, and a good many of them are put up by Chabad. Should the ones that happen to be Chabad count as Chabad-related controversies? I don't see it.

-- Zsero (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside, perhaps, of Israel, the "custom" of lighting large public menorahs is both extremely recent and unique to Chabad - I defy you to find examples of any other group doing this. It is neither prescribed by Judaism, nor practiced by the vast majority of Jews. To claim that it is a "practise unique to Chanukah" is, frankly, perverse - rather, it is a practise unique to Chabad. In addition, it has become "controversial" precisely because of all the court cases - controversial, in this sense, doesn't mean "bad", or "wrong", but when a practice is taken to court so many times (including the Supreme Court), it can fairly be described as controversial. Indeed, since Chabad has won many of these cases, one can hardly claim that the inclusion of this interesting controversy in any way reflects poorly on Chabad. I'm having a hard time understanding your continued objections to having this described in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were only Chabad doing this (and at least in Israel that is not the case), it is only done on Chanukah (even in Israel). So how is it more unique to Chabad than to Chanukah? As for controversy, it's only controversial in one country in the world - the USA. So perhaps it belongs on Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which does give it a brief mention) or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (which doesn't). I'm not dead set against it appearing on this page, but I don't see that it's necessary either. At any rate it probably belongs on its own page that can be linked to from here, Chanukah, and the constitutional pages. -- Zsero (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've said my piece. It seems trivially obvious to me that it belongs here, and I haven't heard any convincing arguments that it is more suited to any other article. It's about a unique Chabad practice. Since you aren't dead set against it, and since I'm pretty adamant that it belongs, can we move on to other sections? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The menorah case that went to the supreme court had almost nothing to do with Chabad, other than the menorah being legally owned by a local chabad center. Read County_of_Allegheny_v._ACLU which describes the details of the case. It was a case of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania vs. the American Civil Liberties Union. So why does it belong here, anymore than it belongs in the County_of_Allegheny_v._ACLU or American Civil Liberties Union (as a controversy, don't forget)? If a local council does not let the putting up of a public menorah, then it is not a chabad controversy, as the town policies are against all religious symbols and chabad isn't the only organization that the town is saying no to. This really belongs in an article describing the separation of church and state, together with any newspaper article that ever mentions any local town council that ever did not allow someone to place something on town property. I am strongly against it being here for the above mentioned reasons. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any public menorah lightings not conducted by chabad and all the cases involve chabad and no other Jewish demomination. I include Israel in this, nobody else lights them, they always use the (mistaken) Chabad-rashi shape, they may deserve an aritcle of their own, but they certainly belong here. Lobojo (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That you are not aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In Israel you are certainly mistaken. Oh, and Chabad is not a "demomination", or even a denomination. -- Zsero (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset>Err, except that it was all sorts of cases, all about the same thing, and only involving Chabad. Theories that there are other "public menorah" controversies involving groups other than Chabad are all well and good, but in fact, in the United States, there have been ten separate significant cases, in all sorts of jurisdictions, all involving Chabad. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that all of these different cases in different jurisdictions and different courts, should be described in the article on one of them, Allegheny vs. ACLU. What they all have in common, of course, is that Chabad likes to light public menorahs, and various different people have taken them to different courts over it. Chabad has won some of the cases and lost others, but it's all one phenomenon. Now, where will it be going, in this article, or in the main Chabad article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Chabad is not the only group that lights menorah's. Check out these public menorah lightings all of them were not run by chabad: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

You have also not responded to my points about the involvement of chabad with County_of_Allegheny_v._ACLU and why local town council disagreements are notable. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if those menorah lightings are Chabad or not, but it's not really particularly relevant - all of the menorah lightings in public spaces that have gone to court have involved Chabad. Regarding the rest, I have indeed pointed out that these were over a half dozen cases in entirely different jurisdictions, brought before different courts - how could they possibly all be about Allegheny vs. ACLU? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

However it's enough to show that the practise of public menorah lightings is not unique to Chabad. That only Chabad lightings have ended up in court doesn't make it a Chabad-related controversy - every one of the cases was against the menorah itself, not the fact that it happened to be put up by Chabad. So it belongs under Chanukah, or perhaps under Chanukah-related controversies or something.

But really it doesn't even belong there, since the controversy only exists in the USA. It's not the menorahs themselves - whether put up by Chabad or by anyone else - that are controversial, it's the claim that they contravene the First Amendment. IOW the controversy is related neither to Chabad nor to Chanukah but to the USA. The entire section more reasonably belongs under Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which does give it a brief mention) or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (which doesn't), with a brief mention under Chabad as one of its hundreds of activities. -- Zsero (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It only exists in the USA, and only with Chabad menorahs. There are literally thousands of cases that involved Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, this material is obviously too specialized for that. It's either here or Chabad - take your pick. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not true, linked above are several example of non chabad public menorah lightings which were very controversial, so take your pick, those menorah lightings controversies which have nothing to do with Chabad, either belong in the main Judaism article or in an article about the First Amendment. Chocolatepizza (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really not true, for example one the links above is to the lighting on Boston Common, which you claim is not chabad, yet this is not the case. See here. You choose, here or Chabad? The Chabad article has room. Lobojo (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For those that want to look at the link that I brought, [9], the second lighting is with Congregation Beth El of the Sudbury River Valley a Reform congregation, unaffiliated with Chabad. So Lobojo, I turn the question to you, does that belong in Reform Judaism? Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The court cases are all Chabad. I'm going to have to assume you want it in this article, since you haven't proposed any reasonable alternative. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> All the court cases (that we know of) may have been with Chabad, but the controversy is not related to Chabad. The ACLU-types' objection is to the menorot, not to who's lighting them, and we've established that public lightings are not exclusively a Chabad activity. So why does Chabad seem to be involved in all these cases? 1. In the USA, which is the only place where it's at all controversial, Chabad is more involved than anyone else in doing them, so they're likely to be involved in any case that results. 2. Other people are more likely to do them in places where there are a lot of Jews and nobody objects, or where the objections have been hashed out a long time ago. 3. Other people may be quicker to withdraw at the first hint of trouble, so their cases don't get reported.

Here's another f'rinstance: Every other week some shliach somewhere seems to be involved in a zoning dispute. Does that make zoning disputes Chabad-related? Of course not. But Chabad houses are going up all the time, usually in places where nobody has tried to establish a shul before, and usually in residential areas because shluchim start out finding somewhere to live and holding services there. So while Shul-related zoning disputes happen everywhere, and to everybody, Chabad attracts a disproportionate share of them, as would any expanding movement of that sort. The disputes still aren't Chabad-related, they're synagogue-related, or religion-related, or first-amendment-related.

As for where this material should go, first of all it doesn't all have to go anywhere. There's a brief mention at Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and perhaps that could be expanded. Otherwise it should go under Menorah (Hanukkah). Not here. -- Zsero (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Zoning disputes are local; these are cases that have often gone to the Supreme Court. Chabad is, by far, the group that promotes public menorah lightings in public spaces, and no others seem to have gone to court at all, much less multiple times to Supreme Courts. As such, the practice of Chabad public menorahs in public places, combined with their uniquely and frequently taking the issue to court (even to the Supreme Court) makes it a uniquely Chabad issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Zoning disputes make it to the Supreme Court too, especially when they turn into 1A/RFRA cases. I'm not aware of any Chabad-related ones that have made it quite that far, but the recent Hollywood FL case made it at least part of the way, and only stopped because the city saw it was digging a hole for itself and gave in. That doesn't make the issue Chabad-related. -- Zsero (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the posting of public menorahs is definitely enough of a topic to deserve a standalone article, and not a uniquely Chabad one either, because as proven, totally non-Chabad groups have done so as well, not to the same extent, and copycat, to be sure, but enough to establish that this practice is not uniquely Chabad. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have any of these groups gone to court over it? To the Supreme Court? That is what makes it noteworthy; just lighting public menorahs is not enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not making sense. Menorahs are noteworthy only because some people in the USA object enough to them to bring them to court? They're Chabad-related because only Chabad cares enough about them not to cave when the ACLU-types object? The bottom line is whether the controversy is Chabad-related, and it isn't. Those who object to the menorahs don't do so because it's Chabad lighting them, they object because of their views on the 1st amendment, or occasionally because of their hostility to religion. Chabad just happens to be the ones lighting menorahs in places where objecters are likely to live, and don't give up at the first sign of trouble, so they end up defending the cases. But in the end it's no different than shul zoning cases, and doesn't belong here. -- Zsero (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Zsero, you are correct, it would be an outrageous idea to include Leviev in this article. He doesn't belong. He is nothing more than a Chadad affiliated Jew, who gives them money. I quote from above where I point out that

“

When a chabad rabbi does something scandalous or controversial - like abusing kids, getting fired by Chabad for going to hookers or exposing himself to his maid; for money laundering while a senior Chabad rabbi and so on and so forth, you have a Chabad related controversy. When the movement's headquarters is embroiled in legal disputes between competing factions within the movement and one of those factions is led by a serial fraudster you have chabad related controversies. When a group of 500 CHabadniks move into a small town leading to a series of incidents including armed robbery committed by rabbinical students/shochtim, animals rights controversies and a series of critical books, you have more chabad related controversies. When students in chabad yeshivas are indicted and deported for involvement in terrorism and Chabad apologize, that is a Chabad related controversy. When people use the name of the Rebbe calling him God and so on, and get in the papers for doing this, this is a Chabad related controversy, and of course the article points out that he is disowned by Chabad.

”

Chabad is a small org, with only 8000 employees (very liberal estimate, including wives). This article ONLY deals with controversies that involve chabad rabbinical staff and the organisation, along with controversies that relate to Chabad. If there is anything in the article that does not conform to this then I will happily remove it. I don't believe this is the case. you mention Baranes, who is the only person not Chabad. He isn't here because he is chabad, the section is there b/c he claimed to be a worshiper of Chabad's rebbe and got tremendous press and publicity for this, and Chabad were forced to respond, he ran down a chabad rabbi and claimed that Schneerson called on him to kill the Israeli PM and the pope. His actions are "chabad related" beyond doubt. The CCJCC is entirely staffed by Chabadniks, all of whom are messianists and most of whom are rabbis. Theyh ave been fighting for control of Chabad headquarters for 4 years now, and still control it. Rabbi Moshe Rubashkin qualifies as a controversy on his own anyway. A chabad rabbi who fights with his own non-chabad community and is involved in a number of other scandals is beyond argument a chabad related controversy. It is so controversial that it gets national press and chabad are forced to distance themselves from him. You don't become a chabad controversy by being a chabadnik, but a chabad rabbi does. When priests abuse kids they end up in Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, when a catholic does it clearly does not. There is a completely unambiguous distinction here. Lobojo (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre. It's like you're writing from another planet. You seem to measure people's connection with Chabad by whether they have smicha, which is about as relevant as the colour of their hair. The various Rubashkins' smichas, those who have them, doesn't make them any more Lubavitchers than Leviev. Nor is Leviev less of a Lubav just because he happens not to have smicha. This is so obvious I can't imagine having to explain it.

Engel's fight with AHC has no connection with his being a Lubav. It's an ordinary fight between a rabbi and a shul, just like hundreds of such fights all over. Communities and rabbis have disputes; it's a fact of life, and it's been that way for centuries if not longer. Engel is also no more or less of a Lubav than Leviev.

Oh, and contrary to your implication, shluchim are not employees of some central Chabad organisation. They don't get paid by any central organisation. They're more like franchisees or completely independent operators.

-- Zsero (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA You may think nothing of being an ordained minister of a religious group and that is fine. A Chabad rabbi involved in a scandal makes this a chabad related controversy. This article is only about Chabad and their staff, nobody else. Engel was a official part of the chabad movement until very recently and held a number of positions within Chabad of Australia along with his synagouge duties. Shluchim are ordained ministers of Chabad and constitute chabad representatives around the world, their actions in these roles are actions they take as a part of chabad. If they just had semicha but didn't use their titles regularly I could hear your point, but they do. The chabad organsation sends out emisiaries, and their are representatives of the movement. Lobojo (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again this is just so skewed from reality. Chabad isn't a religous denomination that has ordained ministers. There's no such thing as a "Chabad rabbi", let alone a "minister of Chabad"; there are many many Chabadniks who have smicha, but their smicha is no different than that of any other rabbi. Nor is Chabad a membership organisation. There are no membership rolls, or any central organisation that decides who is or isn't a member. People are or aren't, but there's no authority that can decide that by the stroke of a pen, like being a member of the Masons or the Rotary club. There's also no such entity as "Chabad of Australia"; it doesn't exist. Chabad isn't a "small organisation", it's a largeish movement; there are various organisations within it, but employment in those organisations is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a Chabadnik. To determine whether Engel's fight with his shul qualifies as Chabad-related, the first question to ask is whether it had anything to do with the fact that he is a Chabadnik; the answer is no. There's no way to distinguish it from hundreds of other rabbi/shul disputes, involving all kinds of rabbis and all kinds of shuls. -- Zsero (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Chabad give semicha, and there are Chabad rabbis, some of them are even in the news right now, many people are named as such on wikipedia, it is only a problem here because you are trying to invoke the no true scotsman falacy to whitewash any contorversy. It does not matter where their semicha is from. If they are rabbis and they have semicha from chabad or they are refered to as chabad rabbis of a rabbis of chabad institutions and so on, they are chabad rabbis. And you say that, but someone keeps removing Wolpo from all the templates based on the fact that official Chabad have somehow disowned him, so clearly there is so idea of what makes a Chabad rabbi. Chabad may be a large movement, but it does not have many activists - they are just very active 3-4000 rabbis is not very big in global terms. As far as Engel is concerned the issue is not the shul dispute, but the various criminal activities he is currently being investigated about. That is why he was fired. As a chabad rabbi, who maintained various chabad activies, to be investigated over kashrut fraud etc is a chabad related controversy. While the chabad movememnt may remove all trace of him from their websites as soon as he becomes a liablity to chabad, that is not how it works on wikipedia, that is again the NTS falacy. If you can show that he isn't and wasn't a chabad rabbi then we can talk, but right now we have sources that he is and was. Lobojo (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You demonstrate once more that you simply have no idea about the topic and shouldn't be editing on it. I don't know exactly what you think you mean by "Chabad give semicha". Please explain what you mean by it, in detail. I think you have some major misconceptions, that are not being addressed because we're talking past each other. The only way I can see any light being shed is if you explain what it is that you think happens when a Chabadnik gets semicha. What is it, who gives it, what does it signify, how does it change the recipient's status? -- Zsero (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the exact nature of the allegations made against Rabbi Engel are. All that's relevant is that they are in no way related to his personal identity as a Lubavitcher, or anything that he allegedly said or did explicitly in the name of the movement. The same principle goes for all the other non-Chabad controversies that you insist on posting on this page. And relative to the number of communal activists affiliated with other groups, Chabad is definitely large, if not the largest, Orthodox Jewish outreach group. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gutnick-Feldman feud

I'm at a loss as to how this qualifies for the article either. Yossel Gutnick is no more or less a Chabadnik then Lev Leviev, and you've already agreed any dispute involving Leviev, even with another Chabadnik such as Shaya Boymelgreen, would not qualify for this page. So why does Yossel's dispute with his sister and brother-in-law qualify? Don't suggest that the difference is that Yossel has smicha and Leviev doesn't. That, even if true, is irrelevant. (I'm not even sure that Yossel does have smicha; he's often called "rabbi", but that could just be a courtesy title that nobody bothers to correct because it's meaningless. Any adult male in Lubav tends to get called "rabbi" whether he has smicha or not.) Nor was the Yeshiva Centre in Sydney officially a Lubav institution; it was a Nusach Sfard shul and school that happened to hire a Lubav rabbi. It was the de facto centre of the Chabad community in Sydney, but I'm not sure that's enough to make a financial dispute involving it a "Chabad-related controversy". At the end of the day it took a loan and couldn't pay it back; if a bank had foreclosed on it, would that still be a "Chabad-related controversy"? -- Zsero (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again your assertion that you cannot be a Chabad rabbi is not valid. Yossel Gutnick is a major Chabad rabbi and is the virtual founder of Chabad in Australia, he has been fighting with his brother in law another Chabad leader and rabbi for years about Chabad institutions and Chabad finances. He is a rabbi, he is a major leader, Leviev is no such thing. Your constant reference to Leviev has be baffled. This is not even a straw-man, it is a imaginary straw-man. Chabad rabbis fighting over Chabad money not a Chabad related controversy, give me a break. Lobojo (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Almost every factual assertion in the above paragraph is untrue, and so far from the truth that nobody even casually familiar with the subject could possibly make them. In particular, anyone who could imagine describing Yossel as "the virtual founder of Chabad in Australia" should not comment at all on this topic, and should not make substantive edits to WP on the topic.

Yossel is a businessman, who happens to be a Lubavitcher, and who may happen to have semicha. Leviev is a businessman who happens to be a Lubavitcher and who happens not to have semicha. There is no other difference between them, and the holding of an academic degree isn't relevant to any issue in which either of them may be involved. Oh, and the money involved in the Gutnick-Feldman dispute is not, in any sense, "Chabad money".

-- Zsero (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please sir, no personal attacks. Your removal of the sourced information is unacceptable. You clearly have a tremendous personal knowledge of the founders of Chabad in Australia, people such as Zalman Serebryanski and so on, but I need to remind you that these people are certainly the two most prominent leaders of chabad in Australia at present, he does have semicha, he regularly uses the title rabbi and holds a number of senior roles in chabad orgs in Australia. Again, they are fighting over chabad monies and chabad yeshivas and so on. This will not wash. You say that I am unqualfied to so much as edit in these matters, but I merely remind you to be aware of WP:COI. Lobojo (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What personal attacks? I merely point out what you have made obvious - that you know nothing about the subject. Yossel Gutnick had no role whatsoever in founding Chabad in Australia. He is not at present a leader of Chabad in Australia, nor has he ever been; he is merely a businessman who has donated a lot of money. Using the title rabbi does not prove that he has semicha; it could be a courtesy title. I honestly have no idea whether he does or not, and it would be rude to ask, but it doesn't make any difference; semichas are a dime a dozen and don't add much to a person's prestige, and certainly doesn't automatically make someone a leader. He sits on the boards of several institutions to which he has donated money - just as donors do in all institutions everywhere in the world. If someone sits on the boards of several Ivy League Universities, that doesn't make him an academic leader! The money they are fighting over is not, in any sense, "Chabad money"; the fact that you think it is just shows once again how little you know on the subject. And people who don't know about a subject should not make substantive edits on those subjects. -- Zsero (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very tedious. The motive for this is transparent. More personal attacks. I am not repeating the same indisputable facts over and over. Lobojo (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? Where are you seeing one? The only personal attack I see here is yours: "The motive for this is transparent". You may want to look into a saying about mirrors. You may be a wonderful person for all I know, but your "facts" are not facts. -- Zsero (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)"

I concur with Zsero. No personal attack intended, but yet again you have no inkling of what you are talking about. Gutnick wasn't even born when Chabad was founded in Australia in the late '40's. His main role has been to donate money. That doesn't in itself make one a communal leader. He is not regarded as a leader and his opinion is not sought by the Australian Chabad community, he's only regarded as a person who should donate his money to worthy causes. The press quote him because he's wealthy and that makes him influential, and because of various controversial things he's said and done as an individual, not because he has any official Chabad leadership role. The Yeshiva Centre, both the shul that still exists and the former school, Yeshiva College of Sydney, were never officially Chabad institutions, just ones whose shul board hired a Chabad rabbi, and whose non-Chabad school was administrated by that rabbi. And the fight wasn't over the institutions per se, but only that he wanted the alleged loan repaid. That's all aside from the fact that the whole Gutnick-Feldman dispute does not relate to Chabad as a movement. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy about this controversy page

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