Talk:Chabad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:
Judaism Portal
Chabad 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:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Archives

Contents

[edit] Tanya

The main idea of the Tanya is not "the idea that virtually all people belong to the moral category of intermediates, rather than that of base sinners or, inversely, that of unblemished saints". In fact, the Tanya shows the extremely lofty level of the intermediate (no sins in thought speech or action) and explains that this is the level most people must strive to achieve (aside from those souls whose mission is to reach the level of a tazaddik: one who has transformed his natural animalistic impulse to good, either in whole or in part). I will change the article to reflect this. Gavhathehunchback 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is in charge?

This entire article has been hijacked by the Messianists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.254.57 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

No split. And Chabad does not "remain leaderless." All Chassidim, both non-messianists, and the messianists (who are not accurately or adequately presented here) believe that the Rebbe is still Rebbe. Paradoxically, the non-Messianists believe that he is still Rebbe despite the fact that he is no longer alive. Messianists (perhaps more consistently) believe that the Rebbe is still Rebbe because he is alive. --Meshulam 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It is quite common for Hassidim to follow their rebbe after death. For example, Nachman of Breslov's sect.
Also, not every Messianist believes the Rebbe is alive. Some believe he is dead but will be resurrected to be Mashiach (during the time of resurrection or a little prior to that, like many other tzaddikim), since he earned to be Mashiach during his lifetime and pushed the world close to Messianic era. Some believe that he was Mashiach in his lifetime, meaning that as a direct result of his actions, all the things that Mashiach was supposed to do will be done -- albeit after his death. Still others believe that he is alive, but not in the obvious physical way (that his body functions in a biological way), but that he is "present" in this world, in the way all tzaddikim are.

[edit] The Links

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

Is this a problem? If so Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Time to archive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. etc...

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

[edit] 220.233.48.200

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

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

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

Mr. JFW, There's always a person behind every source. I hate to break it to you, but there's no encyclopedia of life and human history. Elakhna 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok then lets do what others have been doing here, I will open up an blog to count as a "reference." This is just plain stupid, you can ask anyone in Sydney to back it up. I shouldn't have to go up making online references so that it could be counted. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rebbe and the Shtreimel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Chassidus

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

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

[edit] Source for statement by Riemer and Neusner

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proof: Actual quote by Rabbi Jack Riemer

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

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

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

[edit] Removal/changing of links.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Soloveitchik

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Give me a break"

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

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


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

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

[edit] Removal of Messianic links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Chabad pioneered the post-War kiruv movement

Here are some sources I found. "Hapardes" journal (Hebrew), August 1945 pages 38-41 [1], and March/Adar 1946 (not online). Extensive 2 part article on Chabad outreach activities from that time period. Also Hakriah Vehakedusha journal V.10, Tamuz 1941 (Hebrew). It's also very clear form the book: Toldois Chabad b'Artzois Ha'bris (Hebrew) (History of Chabad in the United States of America). (ISBN 0826653332). It brings hundreds of letters about the activties from that time.

[edit] Origin of the term "Mitnagdim"

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

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

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

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


[edit] Origin of the name Misnagdim

Pasted from the talk:Mitnagdim:

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

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

[edit] Origin of the name Chasidim

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

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

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

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

[edit] Missing Link

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

[edit] Teachings of Other Hasidic Dynasties

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

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

[edit] Rav AhronSoloveitchik's real view

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Over-titling

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

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

[edit] The name Chabad-Lubavitch

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

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

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

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

[edit] Eleizer's reversions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Philosophy of Chabad

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

[edit] 200,000 adherents?

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

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

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

I think 200,000 is undercount. Because as of June 2007, there were 4,340 Chabad institutions worldwide. In addition to that there were Chabad majority localities like Kfar Chabad in Israel and Crown Heights. 4,340 Institutions itself will require atleast 9,000 adults (Rabbi and his wife, but some institutions have more than one Rabbi). Add to that their children and the followers. Axxn 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
How big do you think the Kfar and CH are? CH is a small area, probably no more than 10K Jews. The Kfar is, by definition, a village (though it's actually bigger than a village is allowed to be, which is why there are technically two separate Kfar Chabads), but even if you add up both Kfarim, plus Nachlah, Shikun Chabad in Tzfat, and the communities in Y'm, Lod, etc, you still don't get all that many. 200K worldwide is really nothing but a guess. -- Zsero 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

it's true CH is no more than 10-15k jews. i have changed the sentence to "there may be as many as 200,000 adherents" from "there are over 200,000 adherents." i however think 200k is a gross overestimate. satmar is universally regarded as the largest chassidus in the world, with the majority living in the US. in eretz yisroel, gerrer is the biggest. affiliation with other chassidic groups is more easily defined than with chabad as there are many people who spend time at their local chabad house; chabad has varying degrees of affiliation, whereas if you're a gerrer or satmarer or bobover it's different. my guess is that all over the world there are many 100,000 followers if not less. --129.64.143.32 (talk)jonah —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You guess it's an overcount, Axxn guesses it's an undercount, the truth is that nobody knows. It's all guesswork. So we have to go with what the sources say, even though they're guessing too. Or just omit any numbers at all. -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.171.136 (talk • contribs)

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

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

[edit] Falsely

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Veggie26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(at the end of "Mitzvot campaigns")


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

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


The Problem of Succesion

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

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


Controversial involvement in Israeli Politics


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Article length and splitting

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

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

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

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

[edit] Chabadusa.com

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

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

[edit] News Sites

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

What about: http://www.770EasternParkway.com ?

[edit] Chabad-Steinsaltz???

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] merge from|Hasidic philosophy

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

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


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

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

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

A Hassidic philosophy article that focuses exclusively on the Baal Shem Tov would be like a Western Philosophy article that focuses exclusively on Plato. The article should address the origins, history, commonalities, and varieties of contemporary Hassidic philosophy. The Baal Shem Tov's philosophy should be under Baal Shem Tov or similar. --Shirahadasha 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I've heard the name but I don't know who Plato or anything about Western Philosophy, lhavdil, and you make a good point about what the article should do, but it seems to me that Hassidic philosphy IS the Baal Shem Tov as proven by everyone saying they're following the Baal Shem and this is what he said. The Baal Shem Tov's philsophy shouldn't be just under the Baal Shem Tov, since his philosophy WAS Hassidic philosphy by definition. I understand what you say about later developments and contemporary philosophy but I don't know if it would be managable or doable to include all the other schools or dynasties, and a lot of them don't speak openly about it anyway so it would be very spotty and incomplete, but maybe links should be made to them in this article. Unless you get rid of this article entirely and put Hasidic philosphy under the Baal Shem Tov and all the rest under theirs. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
ChosidFrum Birth, perhaps you should look into it (Greek philosophy). :) A lot of Chabad philosophy's language is based on Rambam's logical approach (pretty much, Chabad = Kabbalah x Rambam's logic + gilui of new concepts), and a lot of that is based on, lehavdil, Greek philosophy of Aristotle and Plato. Read, for example, Mittler Rebbe's Shaar Hayichud, Ch-s 10 and 11. As to the topic: Chabad philosophy is quite distinct from the Chassidic philosophy of other groups and Chassidic philosophy "in general" (Baal Shem Tov's philosophy). Joining them together is (almost) like joining Chemistry and Physics, or Neuroscience and Biology. As long as it is noted that Chabad philosophy is part of Chassidic philosophy, and Chabad is mentioned in the Chassidic philosophy article, no joining is necessary, as far as I see. -- Aflyax
So you're saying don't merge -- I agree -- that why I suggested that Chabad stay "pure" Chabad and separate from the general Chassidic philosophy article which should focus on the Baal Shem and perhaps just refer to others. --ChosidFrumBirth 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Holy Days: The World Of The Hasidic Family

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

  • Chicken Soup to Warm the Neshama

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

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

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

  • The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia

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

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

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

  • The Israelis : Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land

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

  • Major World Religions

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, it was not chassidim but the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Joseph Isaac himself who explained that in Russian this name means, “city of love.” See Sefer Ha’Zichronot, Vol. 1, ch. 1. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
There are 8 (!) footnotes proving that this name means “city of love”! This is completely redundant. One reference suffices, and the record on this talk page will serve as testimony for those who require more proof. I'm removing all the other references. Yehoishophot Oliver 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chabad.info

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

[edit] otzar770.com

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

The entire site is copyright violations. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think so. --Shlomke 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The site is composed of scans of books copyrighted by Kehot Publication Society. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I will send Kehot an email asking them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime please do not remove it again. --Shlomke 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pinchas, what was Kehos' response to your question? Yehoishophot Oliver 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
They did not respond, however as Shlomke wrote below, it is mainly the copyright of Vaad Lehafotsas Sichos... --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I think otzar770.com does not seem to be a copyright violation and should be linked:
  • otzar770.com seems to be a big and organised project with 10 people on its board, including rabbi Mordechai Ashkenazi, head rabbi of Kefar Chabad, and Prof. Yirmiya Branover, so it seems like a pretty ligitamite org..
  • The 38 volumes of Lekutei Sichos are published and copyrighted by Vaad Lehafotsas Sochos, not kehos. [I think its abovius that they had permision to scan it, since two menbers of VLS are on the board of otzar770.com.]
  • The 50 volumes of Hisvaaduyos are published and copyrighted by Lahak Hanochos, not Kehos.
  • The 14 Maamorim books are also published and copyrighted by Vaad Lehafotsas Sochos and Vaad Kisvei Kodesh, not kehos.
  • The English section books are published and copyrighted by "sichos In English", again not kehos.

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

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

  • Another point to consider is that the (non- meshichist) weekly Dvar Malchus chita"s booklet has the otzar770.com website listed on its back cover every week. This boklet is given out internationaly and has people affiliated with who are not at all against kehos.
  • Finaly, Kehos has (to my knowledge) never voiced it opposition to this project and website since its founding in 1998.

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

[edit] 3RR + Please engage in constructive dialogue

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

[edit] Edits by shlomke

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

You need to start discussing why you are changing the article in the talk page. The edit summary's you gave do not explain your edits. saying "minor accuracy update" is misleading and not explaining. Additionally you can not just explain your edits, but they have to be NPOV. What you call "corrected description of link" is rather biased and POV. As you are well aware, a number of editors here do not agree with your edits and would like the article to stay as it was. If you think something should be changed (in adherence to NPOV) you should finally start using the talk page, thats what its made for. Shlomke 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I corrected it so it should be accurate. So that is an accuracy update. My description of the link is neutral and accurate. I believe that your edits are biased and POV. --TrachtGut 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I redid some of the wording (which was unclear).I also replaced an entire section that had been removed, with no explanation whatsoever. I found that strange, and replaced the section. However, some of the wording in the section was unclear (and probably wrong). So I replaced that with clearer language. Finally, I corrected the misquoted Sichah from Shoftim 5751. The language does not indicate "in a spiritual sense." I understand that some might interpret it that way, Wiki must present the facts, not interpretation. --Meshulam 15:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Never died

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

[edit] Keter

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

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

Zsero 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Use either G-d or HaShem

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

[edit] About the merge tag on Yechi

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

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

I could support splitting this off and merhing Yechi into it, as I don't think it is notable in and of itself, but it is as a section of a controvery article. -- Avi 12:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Yechi deserves its own article. Kolindigo 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason it can't be together with the other controversies? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The obvious reason is that it is bigger, more current, and more relevant than the other controversies. Besides, Yechi is more than a controversy. It is a point of view that is gaining popularity in Chabad, and already has a large following (perhaps the majority of Chabad). --Meshulam 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a joke right?

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

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

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

[edit] Unacceptable POV fork to be repaired with summaries

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

[edit] Links to news sites

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

Agreed, however I think that the link to the chabad.org news should stay as another official chabad site news. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Lubavitch.com is a resource for other news services, they update less then once per day, and Chabad.org merely RSS list of what Lubavitch.com publishes. As relevant as it is to having a messianic news service linked, therefore IMHO all of them belong. --IzGut 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Shlomke and PinchasC are correct IMHO, wikipedia is not a web directory and as long as "both sides" get a fair mention that should be it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
So you say it isn't a directory then none of them belong, yet they are relevant so they do. Now the argument stands, why Shmais not CrownHeights.info? Why Chabad.info and not [Chabad.fm?--IzGut 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont know - I just know we cant have them all. Which are the biggest ones? We could check on Alexa. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to an alexa graph comparing the size [13] David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Manipulating Alexa is an easy thing to do, their entire formula for calculating hits is flawed 'Article explaining the flaws'. That cannot be what the deciding factor would be. I would better rely on a rank in Google search. --IzGut 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed Chabad.org as a news site and replaced shmais and added col --IzGut 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be only one link to one major news site, and that is shmais. The others are there either to relate news from a meshichist pespective, or because it's there official news source of the movement. These are only news sites and do not add much to the Chabad-Lubavich article. Shlomke 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Shmais is in no way to be considered a 'major' news site, if we were to base it on alexa's flawed ranking system, they say that chinfo gets a significantly grater amount of traffic versus shmais, and a simple google search puts chinfo on top of shmais in the chabad news front. On a obvious note, chinfo is updated many many times a day vs shamis which is updated once. Based on all this i think chinfo deserves to be there over shmais, if not side by side. --IzGut 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Shmais is the oldest and most established Chabad news site, founded in 1996 (vs. CH.info founded in 2005). The news on Shmais is central, while CHinfo has news about car crashes home robbery and the like. As it's name say's it "Crown heights" Info. I dont see any evidence that CH.info is bigger then shmais, only that shmais is bigger. This is why I linked to shmais. Remember there is an effort here to cut down on the links. It was ridicules to have links to seven "news sites" on a ecyclopedia article about Chabad. Also according to wikipedia policy you should not promote your own site, and it seems all your edits are connected with linking to crownheights.info, this is against wikipedia policy Shlomke 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Shmais is undoubtedly the oldenst news site but that alone does not give him any supraceeding rights should a new site (i.e. CH.info) and outdo Shmais. Shmais's news is just as 'central' as CH.info's, just read the site, remember CH.info has a turnover of 20 articles per day wheras shmais has a mere 5 to 10 plus half that number in paid advertisements, CrownHeights.info is a name which is synonymous with Chabad as it is the 'home' of Chabad Chassidus at the present time, which makes it still a Chabad 'central' news site. You bring no proof that shmais is bigger, whereas I bring proof that CH.info is bigger and ill list them again a quick Google Search for the words Chabad News puts CH.info on top of shmais, and an Alexa traffic ranking shows CrownHeights.info way above Shmais.com in their traffic ranking. You statement "I dont see any evidence that CH.info is bigger then shmais, only that shmais is bigger." is compleatly out of line, followed by your other line "you should not promote your own site" you make a claim with ZERO proof supporting it and you say uim supporting my own site? Take a look at yourself my friend, you have a significant amount of edits just concerning shmais yourself.
Now since I bring support to my claim that CH.info is in fact bigger and more popular I am going to make the edit, and until you bring PROOF otherwise you shouldn't make any edits regarding this matter.--IzGut 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The links you provided prove the exact opposite of what you ay. Do you know how to read alexa traffic rankings? the lower the number, the higher the traffic. Traffic Rank for crownheights.info: 103,848. Traffic Rank for shmais.com: 59,833. This is all in addition to what I already explained above. My edits to the external links are a mere fraction of the rest of my edits, however all you edits focus around CH.info. So please stop promoting your own site. Shlomke 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The above is not true at all. Where do you get you info from? Shlomke 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Take a look a Shmais NOW, look how many Classified it has up there, trying to shove it in as news. Then the NEWS. What news? I dont see anything in there worthy of making it a NEWS site to begin with, first of all it has to be NEW, most of the things up there has been reported on like a week before by Chabad news site including CH.info. Secondly, the 15% to 25% (being generous) of new news up there, is just plain empty articles, that you can find anywhere on Chabad news sites including CH.info. What new does Shmais bring to the table? Do you still think Shmais is a news site? Id so, then you simply dont know what else is out there... Zpinson 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary. The fact that Shmais has so many ads on their site tells you something about their traffic and popularity. In any case lets look at the facts again. Shmais is the oldest Chabad news site, thats undisputed. Alexa traffic ranks show shmais much higher then Crownheights.info. Your argument that shmais has no "new" news is not true, just take a look at their site. in any case, this is not the place to analyze web sites and give reviews and opinions about their content. We simply cannot have links to all chabad news sites, so I picked shamis which is arguably the most central news site. Another point to consider is nearly all other chabad news site rank higher then CH.info. See chabad.org Shturem.net Col.org.il 0 Chabad.info. Even if we were to say that Alexa is not an absolute measuring stick and not 100% accurate, it is still my general understanding that shmais is the most central news site (not that I really care about any of them, but we have to pick one). Shlomke 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Changes by User:David Spart

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

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

[edit] Revisions

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

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

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

[edit] Naming

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

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

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

Page moved, per request at WP:RM. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think confusion arises when the movement is sometimes called "Chabad" and sometimes "Lubavitch". This is the case on wikipedia too. Therefore perhaps it's better for the article to go back to "Chabad-Lubavitch" and "Chabad" and "Lubavitch" redirecting to "Chabad-Lubavitch". We'll still have the disambiguation on top of the page for other uses of "Chabad". Shlomke 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chabad should be blanked

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

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

[edit] Controversies?

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

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

Much of what you are saying is valid. However, instead of merely discussing the faults of the article in a general sense, you should be bold and help to actively improve the article by editing it in the places in which you find fault.--DLandTALK 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well you can't have an article called Controversies of Chabad and also have the same controversies in the chabad article. Which controversies are not in the controversies article? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The real question is how could there be a Controversies of Chabad article? That article surely deserves speedy deletion. If there are "controversies" they surely should be handled in the Chabad article. Bus stop 13:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoever was covering the controversies saw fit to compile them neatly in a separate article for the sake of clarity. What's the problem with that? And if kworki thinks that certain parts of the article are not neutral (and much material from the article has already been edited and removed based on this claim) then it behooves him/her to point out what and why. A general dismissal, however, is simply not helpful. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

That quote is sourced. But if you think it sounds like a sales pitch, then (as other editors have done) instead of suggesting that the whole article be removed, simply make the slight changes that you deem necessary, leaving all the facts intact. TIA. 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I don't see why the controversies article itself can't be NPOV. There's a criticism of this religion and that religion article, and everyone seems to consider that legit. 2. And here you go again, with wild, general, unproven assertions that the article is POV, when it has undergone numerous edits by numerous editors to prevent just that. Please be constructive, and simply make specific edits pointing out specific problems, thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Kwork -- OK, I have rewritten the above paragraph that you cited as being problematic. This is the version I have changed it to. Tell me if it is still problematic. It has already been posted. This is it:
"Chabad Lubavitch is an international educational and outreach movement of Hasidic Judaism. The organization has been in existence for 40 years during which time they have sent out emissaries (Shluchim) who have as a mission the bringing back of disaffected Jews to a level of observance consistent with basic Judaism. They are major players in what is known as the the Baal Teshuva movement. Their mandate is to make nonobservant Jews more Jewishly aware."

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

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

[edit] Section break

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

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

It is important to take note of the fact that Chabad does not proselytize. I don't know why there is the great concern with their "promotional approach." Nor do they even charge money. They do what they do out of religious conviction. They merely exist to try to educate Jewish people about basic Jewish observance. It is basically a selfless pursuit. Nonobservant Jews often don't know the details that constitute basic Jewish observance, and it is to that lacuna that Chabad addresses itself. It is almost impossible for the description of such a selfless pursuit to be considered "promotional." Bus stop 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. They are, in fact, pre-eminent fund-raisers, and their efforts, while often quite self-sacrificing, are geared towards bringing Jews towards Chabad observances, with the ideal of them becoming Lubavitchers themselves. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg -- They happen to be Lubavitch. Do you expect them to not bring their own identity to their efforts? Is their identity greatly at variance with other identities within Judaism? I think that by and large the differences are minor. What may appear to be outlandish attire is actually of minor importance. The knowledge learned at a Chabad house can easily be transferred to whatever Jewish community a person may live in. The differences are minor. And is there any group of such a nature, within any religion, that does not engage in fundraising? As concerns the article it is a very relevant point that the person walking in the door of a Chabad house does not pay a fee. Fundraising addresses people who are probably already observant and probably already personally predisposed to want to support such an effort. Activities at Chabad houses are actually completely free on a long term basis to the person who walks in the door. I think part of the problem we are wrestling with concerning this article is that it is hard not to sound "promotional" when describing something that is basically a freebie. Bus stop 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways; your argument is now that they do it, but its perfectly reasonable for them to do so. The differences between Lubavitch are other Hasidic groups are already fairly wide; between them and other Orthodox groups even wider, and between them and other Jewish groups substantial. The fundraising is quite often from the non-observant, and many Chabad synagogues charge for high holiday tickets. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg -- That they do what? Raise money? I am assuming you know what you're talking about. I don't know whether they do, but it is reasonable to assume they do raise money, and you are asserting that they do. What difference does it make? Are they raising money from the people who chose to partake of the services at the Chabad houses? I don't think so. They are trying to entice nonobservant Jews into greater involvement with Judaism and I don't think they want to introduce obstacles to that process.
I don't think we can argue how great the differences are between various groups of Orthodox Judaism because that is subjective. You say that,
"The differences between Lubavitch are other Hasidic groups are already fairly wide; between them and other Orthodox groups even wider, and between them and other Jewish groups substantial."
First of all we should be comparing Lubavitch to other Orthodox groups. That is the purpose of Chabad -- to bring Jews to Orthodox observance. Can you tell me what differences you observe between Lubavitch and any other Orthodox Jewish groups?
If a person chooses to learn Hebrew with the Lubavitch, do you think that acquired skill might not potentially have wider applicability?
I don't know what you are faulting them for -- having to pay bills? I think most synagogues try to receive income at the high holidays. Is that particular to Chabad? No one is required to contribute money to Chabad. All do so voluntarily. And I doubt your claim that the nonobservant are large sources of support. Why would they support financially something that they don't support in their life's activities? Bus stop 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not faulting them for anything; I'm pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If they ask for money, then they ask for money. And they have, indeed, been remarkably successful at raising money from non or minimally observant Jews - that has been a key to their success, and one of the things that distinguishes them from other groups. As for the differences from other Hasidic and Orthodox groups, they range from smaller appearance related items, like wearing fedoras (other Hassidic groups don't), not wearing payos as adults (other Hassidic groups do), to larger observance related items, like effectively banning the eating of bread at Seudah Shlishit and sleeping in the sukkah, to the elephant in the room, their posthumous elevation of Menachem Mendel Schneerson to messiahship and, in many cases, a near godlike status. It's hard to find any but the most learned among them that even bother quoting anything besides "The Rebbe's sichos". It doesn't mean that Lubavitchers are bad, or evil, or even wrong; of course, some people think they are all of those things, but perhaps these people are entirely correct in everything they do. However, these are simple facts, whether you approve or disapprove of the group. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As a general statement, that's not true. The object of Chabad outreach to the not-yet-observant is to bring them closer to observance. Each additional mitzvah that they do is seen by the shliach as a success, even if they never progress to full observance. If a mekurov becomes fully observant but not a chossid, the shliach sees that as an unqualified success. Of course it often happens that the person does become a Lubav, and naturally the shliach is happy to see that, but it is wrong to describe that as the goal, or shlichus as being "geared towards" that. It isn't even an aspirational goal.
It is true, however, that Chabad does reach out to already-observant Jews to bring them to become Chabad chassidim, and it has always done so. But that is not on the horizon of the average Chabad House nowadays, because most of them are dealing with people to whom this isn't appropriate. This sort of outreach is done nowadays by specialised centres such as Hechal Menachem in Borough Park.
In any case, none of this is relevant to Kwork's complaint about the article itself. He claims that the article as a whole is simply an ad for Chabad. That is plainly not the case. If he were to focus his complaint on specific paragraphs or phrases, and point out how they are not neutral or factual, perhaps his concerns could be addressed. Zsero 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messianism Section

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

He is not a senior chabad rabbi, in fact he is not listed as a chabad rabbi at all on www.chabad.org/centers which is the official listings of chabad rabbis. The page numbers for the researchers are already listed in the ref. And the Columbia Spectator article has the date. And the source is not from the Jewish Press, rather it is a book researching chabad messianism. There is also the Jewish Week article with a date that says the same. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The sources you give, a college newspaper, Jewish Press Op ed, and book on Christian messianism seem a little out of place as "research". What page numbers in your sources support whitewashing the senior Chabad rabbi's statements? Also, the quote accurately referred to the Ohio rabbi as "former," so it makes sense he would not appear on the Chabad listings. The chief gabbai at 770 Eastern Parkway also rebuts the college newspapers' sweeping claims. He is still the chief gabbai. The fact that direct quotes given in affadavits are being blanked on authority of op-ed's, college newspapers, and a book on Christian messianism is troubling behavior for an admin. Where are the quotes and page numbers to support these sweeping claims? Abe Froman 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
So a former rabbi trying to promote his cause says something, and there are current rabbis among others saying the opposite. This Gabbai is not an authority on the subject and is quoted from the same court case where they are trying to promote their cause and not be evicted. As I wrote above the quotes and page numbers are already listed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There is also the Sue Fishkoff piece and the Zalman Shmotkin quote in the messianism article that agrees with these researchers. This is supposed to be a short summary not a full elaboration. Kalmonson's views are in the full elaboration section of the chabad messianism article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am finding it hard to take your removals with good faith. The forward article says a banner at 770 Eastern Parkway proclaims the rebbi messiah, and Yechi is recited to this effect, yet you removed that piece and replaced it with boilerpolate saying "Chabad centers do not claim he is messiah." This is a direct contradiction. Abe Froman 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To wit:
During services at 770 Eastern parkway, most worshipers join in ::::a spirited prayer that celebrates the Rabbi Schneerson ::::as the messiah. On the northern wall of the sanctuary is a long ::::banner that says “Live Our Master, Teacher, Rebbe King ::::Moshiach Forever and Ever." ::::[14]
As you would know from reading the forward article, that the downstairs 770 shul(which is not a chabad house is controlled by the messiansts. And they are in the process of being evicted, which this court case is about, and where you have a quote from the current messianist gabbai and his supporters trying to bolster their claims. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The Chabad headquarters shul does believe he is the Messiah. This is an important fact that should not be removed from this article because you disagree with it. I also find your labeling of the two rabbi's as "messianist" to be suspect. Where did you come to this conclusion? What source? Why does it disqualify them from appearing in this article? Abe Froman 03:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not the chabad headquarter shul. The chabad headquarters is in a four story building above a basement which contains the shul. The fact that they are messianist does not disqualify them from appearing in the chabad messianism article, however they should not be a prominent part of the summary of chabad messianism. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
About finding more sources saying what I'm saying, there are many of them. Two more example,(which still need to be added to the chabad messianism article) are an article written by David Klinghoffer (author of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History ) who wrote in the forward on March 31, 2006 "some followers of Chabad's late spiritual leader, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, let it be known that they expected he would return and reveal himself as the Messiah. Thankfully, that fever dream has subsided." (A copy of this article can be found at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3392) and in the latest version of ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 18 p 149 "Schneersohn’s death punctured the messianic balloon, though it is estimated that about a quarter of the hard-core believers in Crown Heights and Kefar Ḥ abad continued to maintain that Schneersohn might yet be the Messiah, despite his death, a belief that became a lightning rod for criticism from the rest of the Jewish community, including fierce criticism from the Rebbe’s emissaries as well." which is a quarter of two communities and the emissaries which compose of most of lubavitch oppose it.
I am sure that you can dig up a few article saying what you are saying, and I am sure that I can dig up many more reports saying what I am saying, what is important here is that the summary say what these researchers like then Encyclopedia have found that it is a strong minority that believe this, and then you can have a few self promoters say what they want to say in the chabad messianism artile. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Look guys, there is much debate about everything, however that debate should be in the chabad messianism article; in the chabad article there should just be a summary of what messianism is. I agree with pinchas. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of Sources

After digging into the sources used in the Messianism section, I believe they are being incorrectly summarized at best, deliberately distorted at worst. I will quote the sentence, the source, and the problem with it.

  • Article text: "While some have believed during the Rebbe's lifetime that Schneerson had the potential to be the Messiah" Source: Columbia Journalist [15]
problem - The source does not say "some". In fact, it quotes Orthodox scholar David Berger saying "The vast majority of Lubavitcher emissaries believe that the rebbe is the Messiah." [16] Abe Froman 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The part that you are quoting is a quote from Berger about beliefs nowadays. As readers of the messianism article would know he is one of a few people that say this. This source however does say that Some believed this during the Rebbe's lifetime, and some believe this nowadays. a point which is separate from the Berger quote. To make myself clearer, he is not saying that he found Berger to be correct, rather he is quoting Berger regarding Berger's beliefs nowadays. And he is also presenting his findings regarding the time during the Rebbe's lifetime and some believe this nowadays. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Article text: "only a minute fringe group still believe that he is the Messiah" Source: Rachel Elior in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco
problem - The source does not say this. In fact, the source says a generational fight involving the entire movement is underway. To wit: "The split in the movement is between mainstream messianists and younger messianists. The mainstream messianists tend to be older... The younger messianists tend to be younger... They believe the Rebbe was moshiach..." [17]
I did not see the text that was originally quoted in this source. However, this does not speak about current numbers. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Article text: "and today, those beliefs have decreased within Chabad" Source: Jewish Week June 18th, 2004 [18]
problem The article does not unequivocally make this statement. In fact, the source notes the continuing belief among many in the Chabad community that the Rebbe was the messiah. Also, when speaking with non-chasidim, the article notes Chabad is not forthcoming with what may be their true beliefs on the topic. From this source:
"A decade later, Chabad leaders said only a small group of vocal messianic activists remain, though they continue to control the basement synagogue at Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Others, however, said the messianists are more prevalent than Chabad leaders admit. “Within the Lubavitch community, you still have a schism,” said Bryan Mark Rigg, an adjunct professor at Southern Methodist University who has been studying Chabad for several years. Chabad members often deny being messianists when speaking with non-chasidim but are part of this faction within the community, Rigg said." Abe Froman 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
From this article "There are still some incorrigible messianists concentrated in Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad, the Lubavitch village in Israel, but their dwindling influence can be seen at conventions when Chabad emissaries gather in New York. The non-messianist shluchim fill the largest Brooklyn Marriott ballroom; the messianist emissaries fill a relatively small room in Crown Heights." --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
At best, we have inaccurate summarizing of these sources. At worst, they are being deliberately misused. This messianism passage cannot stand. It is untruthful, and paints a false picture that even its own sources oppose. Abe Froman 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Besides for the Rachel Elior quote which I cannot find in the listed source, each one stated what it was said to be stated as I wrote above. Furthermore, there are the following source which also state what was said before
I am not sure why you are posting these additional sources. My beef was with the misuse of the sources I originally described in this section. Not these new sources. Abe Froman 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Abe Froman 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
These additional sources are many sources that say that the messianic group is a small vocal fringe group. This is not currently reflected in the article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Messianism Passage

I offer this passage as a compromise. It uses the same sources misused presently in the existing passage. it also adds the Forward article, but only uses its content as an example.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and is still causing a rift within Chabad. [1] Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, and reached its apogee among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death, and shortly thereafter. [2] [19] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. The dispute over his status has become a generational rift, with younger Chabad members more likely to believe Schneerson was the messiah. Older members are less likely to hold this belief. [20] [21] Current Chabad leaders publically discount identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. However, according to Chabad researcher Bryan Mark Rigg messianists are more prevalent than Chabad leaders admit. The true scope of the trend to identify Schneerson as the messiah is also obscured by Chabad members who often deny being messianists when speaking with non-chasidim, but are part of this faction within the community. [1]

Abe Froman 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on my comments above and the new sources which I brought above, this will not work. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit of the compromise passage because it removes the context of generational conflict over Schneerson within Chabad. The dispute over Schneerson's status is linked to a generational conflict in sources you used yourself. A cardinal problem in this messianism section, until I edited it, was sweeping statements about Chabad. It is incorrect to make generalizations about Chabad's belief in Schneerson's status when we have verifiable sources that attest to the variegated nature of Chabad's membership opinions on the matter. I also think Bryan Mark Rigg's material should be included. You used this source previously, so I think it is fair to use it again. I think the passage should be amended to read as follows.

Menachem Mendel Schneerson placed special emphasis on one of Maimonides 13 principles of faith in Judaism: to believe in the coming of a Messiah. Schneerson, especially towad the end of his life, expressed his yearning for his imminent arrival. [3] Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and is still causing a rift within Chabad. [1] Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, and reached its apogee among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death, and shortly thereafter. [2] [22] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. Academic researchers have reported the dispute over his status has become a generational rift within Chabad, with younger Chabad members living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel more likely to believe Schneerson was the messiah. Older members are less likely to hold this belief. [23] [24] Current Chabad leaders publically discount identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway.

While Chabad does not officially endorse the view that Schneerson was the messiah, Chabad carefully hedges the topic by not explicitly denying it either. According to Chabad researcher Bryan Mark Rigg, "Messianists are more prevalent than Chabad leaders admit... Chabad members often deny being messianists when speaking with non-chasidim, but are part of this faction within the community." [1] Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah.

Abe Froman 15:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They have explicitly denied it. See the quote from zalman shmotkin (the chabad spokesperson) quoted in the messianism article and you have all these articles quoted above contradicting Brigg. since 25 percent of crown heights and kfar chabad is only a few thousand people and all sources place the number of chabad members worldwide at at least 200,000, this fringe group is over represented. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Your puzzling "denial" is classic example of non-denial denial. Like I have found with every one of your other sources, the content has been mis-summarized. Like Bryan Riggs has written, Chabad hedges on this issue. Your source, Zalman, actually says "People don't actually believe the Rebbe is the Messiah," questioning the definition of "believe." They say they believe, but really they want, they hope, they pray. But believe this, no." [25] This is Zalman questioning what it is to "believe", according the Washington Post which characterized his comments in their interview with him. This is not a denial. You are again using distorted summaries to trump the third party sources you yourself happily used until someone actually read them, and found they say something completely different than what you originally summarized.
2. Your other alleged source, Fishkoff, has written of the very beliefs you claim she denies for the Jewish Telegraph Agency. To wit: "...a vocal minority of Lubavitchers who, against the wishes of the Chabad leadership, publicly declare that Schneerson is the Messiah." [26]
Until you whitewashed my entry, the passage accurately reflected the fact that a vocal minority believe this. Now nobody knows what your sources are saying, since your own distorted summaries of their findings are in the article again.
3. Removing the messianist poster without comment was wrong. It labels the Rebbe Moshiach 3 times, and was plastered all over Crown Heights. Yet somehow a chabad spokesman's non-denial denial must make us pretend it does not exist?
Since your own sources disagree with your tendentious minimization of this well documented trend within the community, I can only assume you are mis-using these sources for some tendentious end. I cannot support this. Please address why your own sources disagree with your summaries of the messianism dispute. Abe Froman 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1. here he says it clearer "Of those who agitate for the belief that the rebbe was or is the messiah, Rabbi Shmotkin, the Chabad spokesman, said Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have “repeatedly condemned them in the strongest possible terms.”" http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9558
2. correct against the wishes of chabad leadership, you have just proved my point in #1.
3. nobody says that it does not exist. A poster by individuals is not a way to represent this section.
My own sources do not disagree as much as you attempt to twist and distort them. Either way, this should not be the place of this 'debate', rather it should be in the messianism page. Here should just be a short summary of what chabad messianism is, as I had edited in my last edit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out why your actions are inappropriate. Your replies, 1, 2, and 3, assume this page should carry only the opinions of official Chabad spokesmen. Wikipedia is not censored by organized religion. As I have shown, and you yourself acknowledge, using your own sources, 25% of Chabad believes Schneerson was the messiah. Your whitewashing of the article to conform to 'official' Chabad opinion is, admittedly, censorship of wikipedia. Abe Froman 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that, do not twist my words. 25% of crown heights and kfar chabad which is a minute fraction of chabad believe this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)e
* You replied "Rabbi Shmotkin, the Chabad spokesman, said Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have “repeatedly condemned them in the strongest possible terms.”"
* You replied "correct against the wishes of chabad leadership"
* You replied "nobody says that it does not exist."
yes and I sourced this. and the messianist ar against the wishes of chabad leadership as shown that they have condemmed it. They condemmed it so it must exist, however at the scale that all the sources say which is a vocal fringe group. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How does a poster "plastered all over Crown Heights" indicate the size of the faction that produced it? How many people do you think it takes to put up 100 or so copies of a poster? Now if you cited a well-sourced turnout for the event the poster was promoting, that could be a valid indication of its influence. Zsero 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The poster was in reply to a passage in the section claiming material linking Schneerson to moshiach is not available. Here we have a poster that makes this link three times. Abe Froman 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody ever said that there was no link. The sources have said it is vocal fringe group that link it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Since crafting this page to conform with what Pinchas's "official Chabad spokesmen" claim Chabad members must believe is a form of censorship by organized religion, I propose my compromise passage be reinstated. It uses the exact same sources Pinchas used previously. It accurately shows the dispute is generational, and that the belief as become less popular with time. Abe Froman 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again you are distorting my words. I listed many many sources from non chabad sources that said this. The chabad spokesperson source was brought due to your claim that chabad leadership did not condemn the messianists. Your version should not stay for the reasons that I listed above and in my edit summaries. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The Washington Post says your "chabad spokesmen" was "questioning the definition of 'believe.'" [27] This is an example of non-denial denial. Your sole other source, Sue Fishkoff, has also written that a "vocal minority of Lubavitchers who, against the wishes of the Chabad leadership, publicly declare that Schneerson is the Messiah." [28] Will you please stop censoring Wikipedia to conform to what "official Chabad spokesmen" claim Chabad must believe. My compromise passage covers all of the bases. Abe Froman 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That is your interpretation of his words, however my next quote from him makes it clear that they condemned it in the strongest of terms. Sue is agreeing with the above by saying that the chabad leadership disagrees. I brought many others sources above regarding the extent of the messianists, which you are conveniently ignoring. And as I stated above and in my edit summaries, this is not the place for debate over this, the messianism article is. Here should just be a summary of what messianism is as my last edit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Pinchas's new passage is still whitewash. It uses weasel words (some, etc) when even Pinchas agrees a numerical approximation of messianists in Chabad is available ( 25% according to Encyclopedia Judaica). I propose this new passage:

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. [1] Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. [2] [29] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [30] [31] Current Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Abe Froman 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the 25% figure is for crown heights and kfar chabad which are the bases of the messianists. As I had brought sources above regarding the rest of chabad, the total percentage is much much smaller.
This new version is better but still not good, because it gives partial numbers and contains too many items which there are disagreements abouts which is the the place in a summary of an entire movement. A side point is that this image could not have been from 2007 as it states on it the 102cd birthday which was several years before. The version that I gave in the article explains what messianism is without going into the nitty gritty of the endless debates as to numbers which is best left for the main article.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Pinchas is right here. We should not list debates regarding the prevalence of Lubavitchers that believe that their Rebbe will be the Messiah. Rather it should just explain what Chabad Messianism is and leave the rest of the material for the Chabad Messianism article. Chocolatepizza 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There is not a debate. This messiah business is a fact, conceded by Pinchas and Encyclopedia Judaica. This belief is a fact among many ( 25% in two areas ) Chabad members. I disagree with hiving this off the the Messianism article. It should be covered here, not in multiple linked articles. I propose the following:

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. [1] Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. [2] [32] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [33] [34] Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

One paragraph is not unreasonable, given this topic has caused a rift within the movement. It is unreasonable to whitewash it. Abe Froman 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Abe, you are missing the point of a summary. Instead you are including select commentary and opinions without including the sources saying that it a vocal fringe group for example. Additionally, your summary is leaving out some very important information.
  1. They believed he was the potential to be Messiah (see the Columbia Spectator article)
  2. Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad is only a minority of Chabad. And a 1/4 of Crown Heights is 3000 people, a fraction of the 200,000 members of chabad, thus making that number a fringe or minority group, as the source brought by Pinchas show.
  3. It should read has declined to a vocal fringe group according to the sources brought by Pinchas.
  4. You write oppose "publicly", that is a false statement, as no one makes that distinction in the above quoted articles.
Therefore Pinchas's version is correct. Chocolatepizza 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This is laughable. My paragraph uses the same sources Pinchas used, but apparently it does not say what you two desire. The whitwashed Pinchas/Chocolatepizza approved paragraph I just replaced carried not a single source. Explain to Wikipedia how removing sources improves the product? I replaced the wash' with my paragraph, one lonely graph', that uses the same sources Pinchas and the other whitewashers on this page happily used previously. Admins should not behave in this tendentious manner. Abe Froman 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No Cabal's Allowed!
No Cabal's Allowed!
We only exist if you want us to.
We only exist if you want us to.
Don't forget to include Yehoishophot Oliver [35] in your conspiracy list of WP:CABAL members. But seriously, I just gave a number of reasons why your version was wrong. You did not respond to any of the concerns. Plus this article is not the place for your version. Chocolatepizza 01:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*According to the text of the Columbia Spectator source Chocolatepizza just quoted, "a vast majority believed Schneerson was the messiah." Columbia Spectator's reporting on this is notable, and verifiable, as conceded by Chocolatepizza. Yet he does not allow contrary facts from the same source to be included, as it does not meet his tendentious notion about how this matter should be presented.
* Please source your statement that only 3000 Chabad members live in Crown Heights. I hadn't laughed that hard all day.
* Finally, how do you define 25% as a "fringe group"? Do you call a quarter the "fringe" of a dollar?
Abe Froman 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • According to the Columbia Spectator sourcs, Berger says a vast majority (not that you need that article to tell you that), but as Pinchas pointed out above, the writer finishes off that 'some believe.
  • Read the Encyclopaedia Judaica source, 1/4 of crown heights believes that the Rebbe is Moshiach. I did not say that the entire chabad community is 1/4 of itself like you just attemted to quote me.
  • if there are at least 200,000 lubavitchers and only a few thousand meshichistem, then they are a fringe group, that is besides for all the sources brought that use that term. Chocolatepizza 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting you are violating policy along with Pinchas. Your own Columbia Spectator source indeed says the "vast majority" believed Schneerson was the messiah. On what basis, other than pure POV of course, may parts of your own sources be used in this article, and not others? Abe Froman 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No, thank YOU for admitting that you are violating policy along with... wait there is nobody else that agrees with you. Your own Columbia Spectator source concludes that some believe it. On what bases other than pure POV of course, may parts of your own sources be used in this article, and not others? Oh, so we should include both, and what about the sources that say that it is a vocal fringe group? As everyone has stated until now, this discussion is best left for the full article and here should just be a summary of what messianism is. Chocolatepizza 02:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also I am looking for a name for my cabal to add to the Wikipedia:List of cabals, since the name I really wanted was ruled out as being an anti-semitic code word. Chocolatepizza 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
All I see here are two editors who nearly exclusively edit Chabad topics, disrupting what should be a sectarian free presentation of Chabad's beliefs. The fact that only "chabad spokesmen" ( according to Pinchas ) and apologist quoting ( according to ChocoPizza and Pinchas ) may be used in this article fuels this belief. The messianism passage is a mess. It has:
* Standard Rebbe boilerplate in the intro that doesn't belong.
* A nonsensical messianism sentence that carries not a single source, but don't try to add any. Pinchas and Choco own this article.
* A concluding paragraph that is answering some charge one of you probably deleted during some past whitewash.
Abe Froman 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To show other editors the absurdity the two of you are going to, please point out what is wrong with this compromise paragraph. Bear in mind, every source has been used by Pinchas or ChocoPizza before in this article. Parts of this paragraph, in fact, were written by Pinchas himself.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. [1] Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. [2] [36] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [37] [38] Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Abe Froman 02:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you forgot Yehoishophot Oliver[39]. As a senior member of the cabal he is sure to get offended, and Zsero didn't like your poster[40], so I guess that he is also a cabal member. Meshulam didn't agree to help you after you canvassed for his support[41] and David Spart just ignored you completely after you canvassed for his support[42]. Wait I just got an urgent message that Meshulam and David have joined the cabal! It must be lonely going against consensus. All I see here is Abe Froman repeating the same things over and over again, after being explained over and over again why he is wrong. Chocolatepizza 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not my fault whitewashing made this article a pain to edit, and drives away editors. Please respond to the questions I asked above. Abe Froman 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't joined any cabal. I was sitting this one out. But I see that some of you are determined to drag me into this one. Since the Chabad article was split, I see no need to make a big deal out of the Messianist issue in the main article. There is a time and a place for everything. Nonetheless, the current version (and I don't know whose version it is) is terrible. There are bigtime grammar mistakes, bigtime ambiguities. Also, I dispute the implication that Chabad "leaders" are against this. Surely, some of the leaders are against it. Still others are for it. It all depends on who you think is a leader. And it isn't up to Wikipedia to make that decision (which would be POV in the extreme). But I can see that a consensus has already formed here. There is no reason for me to get involved, because there are already many qualified editors who are handling the situation. --Meshulam 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The current messianism passage does not make any sense. It is answering arguments that are no longer there, uses zero sources, and presents a distorted summary of the sources that have been used there in the past. Please point out what is wrong with this compromise paragraph. Bear in mind, every source has been used by Pinchas or ChocoPizza before in this article. Parts of this paragraph, in fact, were written by Pinchas himself.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. [1] Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. [2] [43] Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [44] [45] Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway. Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah. Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Abe Froman 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I put this paragraph into the article. It uses the same citations used before, and at one paragraph compared to three before, is more brief. Abe Froman 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As was explained to you above by multiple editors, your version is not good. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Multiple? You mean yourself, and one other. Meshulam supports the assertion that the current passage is a topical mess. I offered a compromise, you refuse to engage it. Try editing the passage instead of blank reverting to a passage that doesn't say what your own sources claim. Abe Froman 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Lets go through compromise line by line.

Rabbi Schneerson's status as messiah in Chabad has evolved over time, and created a rift within Chabad. [1]

The source used by this sentence was put into this article and defended by Pinchas.

Belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah was widespread, reaching its peak among members of Chabad during the years leading up to his death in 1994, and shortly thereafter. [2]

The Matthew Hirshberg article used by this sentence was put into this article and defended by Pinchas.

Since then, belief that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah has declined, but not disappeared. [46] [47]

Again, the sources used for this statement were used and defended by Pinchas.

Chabad leaders oppose publically identifying Schneerson as the messiah, going so far as to sue to evict a messianist synagogue in the basement of Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway.

This sentence was actually written by Pinchas, and it is sourced by a Forward article which pinchas concedes describes a lawsuit at Chabad headquuarters over the messianism issue.

Encyclopedia Judaica estimates 1/4th of Chabad members living in Chabad strongholds such as Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Kfar Chabad, Israel, believe Schneerson was the messiah.

Pinchas is the source for this statement. He concedes the content of this sentence.

Adherents to this belief are termed Meshichist in Yinglish.

Pinchas wrote this sentence.
This collection of sources are from Pinchas. He has inserted and defended these sources in the past. 1/3rd of this passage was written by him. If this isn't a compromise to him, I am not sure Pinchas would ever accept anything.
Abe Froman 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with Pinchas' new sentence in the passage "Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have repeatedly condemned the Meshichists in the strongest possible terms."
The problem is, in no place in his source is this statement made, or implied. In fact, the source states: "Though Rabbi Schneerson rejected the idea that he was the moshiach, or messiah, supporters of the idea continued promoting it in his final years, especially after a stroke limited his ability to communicate. Nor did his death quiet the fervor, with the messianists saying he would return from the dead as King Messiah." [48]
This sentence should be altered to fit what the source says, or removed. Abe Froman 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As was explained to you with sources, this issue is far more complex to summaries what is happening in a summary. Therefore there is the separate article. Here should just be a summary of what chabad messianism is. And as others have pointed out, there are serious issues with your version and the way you are twisting things. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChabad&diff=148573873&oldid=148513551 this diff] where Chocolatepizza pointed out many flaws in your version.
And the chabad leaders paragraph that you are misquoting says "Of those who agitate for the belief that the rebbe was or is the messiah, Rabbi Shmotkin, the Chabad spokesman, said Chabad-Lubavitch leaders have “repeatedly condemned them in the strongest possible terms.”". Sure you can quote other parts not related to chabad leaders. However when quoting chabad leaders, please quote the part that speaks about them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As I have said before, rewriting this article to only agree with what "chabad leaders" say is censhorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Your own sources disagree with your version. Your inability to compromise will only get you reverted once again. Abe Froman 14:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You are misquoting me out of context and twisting things. Your behavior is verging on disruptive editing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my interpretation of your mis-summarization of sources in this article. I find your accusation of disruptive editing a red herring. You are not addressing your contradictory actions in cherry-picking quotes from your sources to support POV. I am not the only editor to have a problem with your misplaced ownership of this article. I casually counted at least 12 other disputes involving your edits on Chabad. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Abe Froman 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Misdirecting the attention to other discussions is not going to help you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After a quick glance over this discussion, it seems User:Abe.Froman has some very valid points, one of which is how sources are used. Shlomke 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that I've been away for a very long time and thus have not participated in this discussion. Shlomke 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN situation?

We know there have been some edit conflicts in this article. However, I am curious to know if the other editors around here feel there is a WP:OWN environment around these edit conflicts. Please avoid accusatory tones, and remain civil... and be honest: Do you feel this a regular edit conflict or a WP:OWN situation? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There are definitely issues here, but OWN is not one of them. Nobody here is rejecting edits simply because of who made them, which is a minimum definition for OWN. Zsero 04:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Own may actually be one of the issue's involved here. Shlomke 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since Schneerson's death section

Some mention of the groups that split from Chabad. In their eyes they are the true heirs of the chabad idealogy. 202.161.29.254 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What groups would they be? You're not talking about Shimmy Deutsch and his dozen followers, if that many? Zsero 17:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad IZAK 11:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seder hishtalshelus

In the article on Seder hishtalshelus, the name of the article and some of the spellings in the article should (I think) be changed. As in the title, change to Seder hishtalshelut. I would like to make the changes, but since the article is obvious a Chabad article, I thought it best to ask here first. Experience has shown that sometimes people get angry when surprised by changes. So if anyone has objections to that, let me know on my talk page.

By the way, the article, Seder hishtalshelus, is very good, but has no sourcing. If anyone here knows Shaar HaYichid will enough to insert at least some sourcing, that could prevent someone from blanking the page. Kwork 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think it's a chabad article? And why do you think it should be changed to Seder hishtalshelut? Yehoishophot Oliver 04:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason I think it is Chabad is that is seems based on Shaar HaYichud, and the history of the article showes it was originally written by user Spollen770 - Spollen being a Chabad rabbi I know of, and 770 being Chabad central.
From what I have seen the Chabad article itself, uses also the "t" to replace the "s" endings, as does the Kabbalah article, and many other articles also. For those readers who might do not understand the difference, it can lead to search problems: for instance Daas links to an Indian movie, and Daat to the correct Chassidic and Kabbalistic term. But I would not describe the problem as an emergency, and if you think it best not to make any changes to the Seder hishtalshelus article I will leave it alone. Kwork 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the sfardi pronunciation has been formally accepted according to the wikipedia rules, so I think the spelling can be left alone. This would appear comparable to the rule that if an American originally writes an article, it is allowed to stay with its American grammar, and if a Brit. originally writes an article, it is allowed to stay with its British grammar. --Yehoishophot Oliver 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
okay. I will not change it. Kwork 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

The statement "He was at the beginning criticized for starting the Baal Teshuvah movement" needs a source. As far as I know, nobody opposed outreach completely; it's just that certain gedolim held that a person shouldn't be involved in it until he has enough of a background in learning (is well-grounded himself in Torah). Also, it's possible it's not for everyone; cetain people should be sitting and learning in the beis medrash because their rosh yeshiva sees in them the potential to be future gedolai Torah. I'm erasing this line until someone verifies it. Yonoson 06:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies of Chabad [In main Chabad article]

Message for Netzach: If you look under Controversies of Chabad, you'll see that the controversies their are divided into a number of categories: Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Joseph Issac Schneersohn, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Chabad messianism, Public Menorahs, Satmar-Chabad disturbances, Control of 770 Eastern Parkway. The main Chabad article should briefly mention these controversies. Why should the controversies about the Alter Rebbe and the last Rebbe be mentioned but not the controversies about the Rebbe Rayatz? [I'm thinking about also adding in a brief line about the "public Menorahs" topic.] Next time please give a reason for undoing my addition. Yonoson2 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OH MY REBBE

What are you doing? WHy are completely reverting all my careful changes without discussion? This cant be allowed! Stop it. Put my changes back please, stop edit warring and we can discuss this! Lobojo (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps make one or two changes per edit, instead of bombarding the other editors with many controversial changes all at once? Thanks. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was making one or two edits per change. until he reverted everthing. Then he made loads and I reverted that, so you cant blame me for that. I'll show you how it was one last time, and can people please no auto revert but consider the changes on the diff page please. Lobojo (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have explained my changes in my edit summaries. Your title of this sections shows a lack of seriousness and can be taken as trolling. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chabad/Lubavitch and problem with the lead

There are big problems in that Chabad and Lubavitch are extensively confused in this article. While I think separating them would be too much, it need to be fixed. EG: "There have been seven Rebbe's of CHabad" NO there have be dozens of Chabad rebbes, but only seven Rebbes of Lubavitch.

The lead is no good. The lead should be a praise of the entire article. As it stands it simply talks about the naming. I will try to reword it in a satisfactory fashion. Lobojo (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chabad and Lubavitch are not two separate entities. The movement is Chabad-Lubavitch so I'm not sure what you mean differentiating them. I can support many of your changes which I believe are improvements. But there are problematic edits as well, such as calling Shneur Zalman "Liadi". Liadi is the town he was from, no one refers to him as "Liadi" as if that's his surname. It would be like referring to "Joe of Chicago" as Chicago. --MPerel 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it is a misnomer. Chabad was the revolution in Chassidus started by the alter Rebbe. There were 6 or 7 different branches on Chabad, the last one to die out was Lubavitch. Indeed, most of the people who helped bring the sixth rebbe to NY were not Lubavs, they were Chabad, but followers of the other branches that had died out. But the issue is tricky in the naming of the wikipedia article since from the non-historical perspective, based on mere common usage they are the same thing. So while the article should remain the same, it must carefully point out that Chabad is the philosophy while Lubavithch is the major extant grouping of followers of that philosophy. Sadly all the work I put in, making careful edits has been completely wiped 4 times now, and I hesitate to make any further edits since I will either be working on the bad version that PinchasC keeps reverting to, or I wil keep having to revert it just to keep working on it and get banned. Dosen't wikipedia have an answer to this kind of thing? Lobojo (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Chocolatepizza was the one that reverted your edits, not myself. When you correct it, feel free to remove this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting ready to travel and have limited time to address now, but when I return (in a week) I'll try to help on this page. We can walk through and discuss the edits at a slower pace. --MPerel 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Editors are asked to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the subject matter before making vast changes to the version refined by hundreds of editors. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Look PinchasC, you don't need to patronise me. If you think that Chabad=Lubavitch you certainly are in no position to. you reverted every single change I made, both here and on the other article I edited. You have failed to engage on the talk page. You have now completely reverted my edits (every single one) four times now. This article is in a serious state of neglect. It will not do. I did not make major changes to the article, I made minor ones. The ownership by you of Chabad related articles has already gone to mediation, yet you and ChocolatePizza and Shlomke are becoming ever more brazen. Lobojo (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that MPerel and Yehoishophot Oliver left the above comments, not myself. When you correct it, feel free to remove this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, sorry PinchasChocolate, I mean PizzaC, I mean PinchasOliver. hahaha Lobojo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not good enough

I spend time making a lot of small improvements to this article. I added numerous sources and fixed many small errors. You do not OWN this article, do we have do a RFC to get these true believers under control so we can edit here? You need to discuss the changes here one by one. Lobojo (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY. "Discuss the changes here one by one" before you make them. Thanks in advance. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, you do not own this article, on wikipedia people are alowed to make improvments, you need a reason to remove sourced info. I can see we are simly headed towards another RFC here, since you wont even pretend to play fair. Lobojo (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been owned for years by a few select editors. If it needs an RFC, I am game. Abe Froman (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite so. I'm going to have one more go at repairing these articles, and removing all the crap that keeps creeping back in. If the 3 or 4 Chabad POV editors continue their shameless display that has continued since the inception of wikipedia, we should certainly make some strides in the direction you suggest. Th evidence is utterly compelling. Lobojo (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Give it your best shot. I estimate that they will revert you within hours without explanation, or bogus reasons. Best to have a fresh set of evidence for the RfC. Abe Froman (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A million Lubavs!!

Ridiculous. Totally absurd. This nonsense claim is sourced to the Winnipeg Free Press, where that number is postulated by some local nobody chabad rabbi and some non-scholarly fuzz-book about great Jewish men. I dint have a copy but the google books clearly implies that at the very least the page reference is wrong.

Simply from common sense this is clearly untrue, the article on Haredi Judaism finds about 850,000 Harderim maximum worldwide, so the idea that there are a million lubavs is insane, and the person that keeps adding this knows it.

Bold claims need the best sources around, clearly false claims need superdooper ones and these don't count. Lobojo (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lead (Again, Sigh)

The lead needs to be a consise summary of the rest of the article, this is composition 101. All the stuff about the names needs to be cut down to a minimum, and all non english charachters must go, as most people cannot read them or even display them properly, and it looks super ugly and puts people off. Lobojo (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Care with sources

Someone removed the lead to the philosophy section and replaced it completely with apparent OR, the only thing they kept was the reference which of course is now a false reference!!

Please be very careful in future, whoever did that. Lobojo (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Again somebody has completely changed a section (the first paragraph of "Bringing the messiah" but kept the source!! This is a disaster if this happens! It all has to go back. Lobojo (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The differnce between Chabad and Lubavitch

As noted elsewhere, Lubavitch is merely ONE OF the branches of Chabad, so when listing the Rebbes of the main branch we need to be pedantic about calling them Lubavitch. Lobojo (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to lobojo’s edits

1. Why do you remove the fact that Lubavitch is from the town by that name? seems relevant to me, but you didn’t see fit to explain 2. why do you remove the years that the Chabad leaders lived? That’s relevant info., , but you didn’t see fit to explain that removal 3. why do you remove the Hebrew "חכמה, בינה דעת – Chabad is a Hebrew term, so it’s relevant so those who read Hebrew can see the meaning of the acronym in the original 4. how can you removed sourced estimations of the movement’s size? Because they’re not correct in your POV? 5. Why do you remove this line: “The philosophy guides the individual in their daily life and recognizes the importance of the individual deed.” 6. Here you refer to the Hebrew and Yiddish forms of the adherents to the Lubavitch movement as “ugly”, when it’s merely factual. You also see fit to remove the internal link to Hasidic philosophy, when it is clearly a legit. explanation, and you again remove the years of a well-known personage (the Baal Shem Tov) when that’s accepted enclyopedia practice. You disagree with the statement that Chabad customs are heavily lurianic, and change that to a reference to the philosophy of Chabad, that it “incoproting (sic) some” Lurianic Kabbala – why do you change this, when the topic of the sentence was the customs, not the philosophy. 7. Here you strangely see fit to remove the sourced and relevant phrase that Chabad methodized an understanding of “the purpose of the world's creation, and the importance of every individual person.” Why don’t you explain this removal for us? 8. Here you see fit to change a sourced statement, and you instead state that Chasidus is only “partly” based on Kabala. What’s your source for this, when there’s already a source stating otherwise, that it’s based on Kabala, period? You also for some strange reason think that quoting a few relevant lines from a book may be copyvio, why is that exactly? 9. Here you demonstrate a) your unbelievably stupendous ignorance in the most basic info. Related to Chabad by referring to Rabbi Shneur Zalman az “liadi” as if that were his last name, when in fact it was the city in which he lived. This makes it highly surprising that you are making any edits in the Chabad section in general, never mind of such number and frequency. 10. [Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad&diff=next&oldid=176483463] you remove a section explaining the Rebbe’s advocacy of usage of modern technology, saying “this is not philoposhy (sic) it is utility”. Weiner, the quoted source, in the quoted reference, explained it as a philosophy (as did the Rebbe himself, of course, many times) so your POV on the matter is irrelevant. 11. Here he sees fit to insist that it’s not correct to use the term The Rebbes of Chabad and insists on changing it to The Rebbes of Lubavitch when he knows (or does he?) that neither expression is entirely accurate, as the Alter Rebbe never lived in Lubavitch. 12. Here he removes relevant information abou the Baal Shem Tov, saying “no no, besht not a part of the lubavitch chain” when the paragraph didn’t claim that he was, but rather stated that “Chabad traces its roots back to the beginnings of Hasidic Judaism”, a patently ture statement, as the Alter Rebbe was one of the prime students of the Maggid of Mezritch, the successor of the Baal Shem Tov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehoishophot Oliver (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff is shocking. I cannot believe that you simply reverted 2 hours of careful work in one fell swoop. You have gone too far this time. Lobojo (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On number 3 above, chochma, binah, da'at are linked to other articles which have the Hebrew in them so I don't think it's necessary to include in this article. --MPerel 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Same with the Russian for Lyubavichi, that level of detail can be found in the linked article and is therefore unnecessary to include in this article. --MPerel 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full response

  1. I didn't, I just took it out of the lead, as it is a trivial fact and belongs in the naming section.
  2. I don't know what you are referring to, that information is still in the article.
  3. As I explained, I removed the Hebrew since 99% of people can neither read it nor display it, and again it belong in the trivia section, the Chabad is STILL defined in the lead.
  4. I explained above that I removed the "1 million" from the lead since it is silly and very poorly sourced. If you get a better source I would support putting it in the "numbers" section.
  5. I removed that line because because the first part it doesn't add anything to the article, although I wouldn't strongly object to you putting it back in.
  6. Again, lots of non-English script in the lead looks ugly, and cant be viewed by 99% of people anyway. I don't know what link you are referring to. I don't know why the Besht was in the list of Chabad rabbis, he doesn't belong there whatever you may thing.
  7. I removed that because it is enough to say the "whole world", the other two clauses are rhetorical in tone and don't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article.
  8. Again, the phrasing is rhetorical and needs to be summarised and contextualised for an encyclopedia article. And it clearly is only party based on Kabbalah, bible Talmud etc are also involved.
  9. I am not going to respond to personal attacks in any way. However, he is referred to as "Liadi" throughout academic literature.
  10. If you really think that "using computers" is some great philosophical idea, then you are free to replace that line, I just felt that it was silly.
  11. Sigh, yes but Lubavitch claim them as part of their tradition. If it says Chabad, then we have to add a dozen other names, and a complicated tree. I wouldn't object to that, but as it stands it is just Lubavitch.
  12. The Besht has no place in a list of the Rebbes of Lubavitch, it is mentioned elsewhere that Chabad is part of hasidism and is rooted in the Besht.

All these issues are entirely trivial and should be discussed. Your lack of respect for wikipeida process is a disgrace. Your behaviour is the most brazen I have ever seen on wikipedia. Lobojo (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The above enumerated issues and responses is a good start. Let's try to set aside any personal comments and rationally go through Lobojo's edits. Both pre-change and post-change versions have pluses and minuses, so can we agree not to edit war and instead take time to slowly walk through the edits? I don't have time at the moment to address every edit all at once, but I'll start with my first question for Lobojo. You modified the intro to read that Chabad is "the third largest Hasidic sect" and you gave two sources. Could you post to the talk page exactly what those sources state? And which two Hasidic sects do they claim are first and second? I just find it hard to believe they're the third largest sect since Chabad's oureach programs pull in large numbers of marginally observant or even nonobservant Jews that I don't see happening at the same level with other Hasidic groups. In general, I think Lobojo's version of the intro is cleaner and simpler. I'll comment on the rest after I have more chance to read through it more carefully. --MPerel 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
MPerel, thanks for helping out. While you are here, please take a look at my edit summaries from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad&diff=172401561&oldid=172299711 and the next 21 edits. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do. --MPerel 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of adherents

The 200,000 count comes from a book published 14 years ago. Are there any other more updated statistics? --MPerel 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the references there is also a reference from 10 years ago. I have now found http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12284821/ which is an AP story from 2006 which has the 200,000 figure, and http://www.shmais.com/pages.cfm?page=chabaddetail&ID=812 which is a copy of the text of a Jpost article, published in 2004 which has the million figure. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Also note that Lobojo has been removing alot of the references for example for the number of adherents or the number of camps. Check the articles previous version to see the sources. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the 200,000 figure, I removed the 1 million figure. The 200,000 figure is fine and well sourced. Lobojo (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I would not characterize Lobojo's edits as removing "A lot of references". If anything, he is improving this article from a promotional pamphlet into a real Wikipedia article. Abe Froman (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order and grouping of sections

Would anyone object to ordering the main sections according to something like the following? This would match the intro and appear more organized, imo.

History (subsume the list of rebbes under this and also move Naming to this section)
Philosophy
Customs
Current activities
Controversies

--MPerel 06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the article now in my view, is that it ignores the other branches of Chabad more-or-less completely. This and the fact that the Rebbes list and the history could really be merged without too much trouble. I think in the mean time the order is best left as is, since Chabad is primarily a philosophy and only later a group of sects. I think the philosophy section is just about OK, but the history section is very substandard due to the ommisions. Lobojo (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The article as it stood before Lobojo started editing reflected only the "official" Chabad spokesmen, whatever that means in a movement that has no "official" leader. Abe Froman (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Chabad Institutions Section

I fail to see how removing detail [60] about Chabad institutions worldwide improves the article. After this edit, the article is simply left with a number, with no context. I am at a loss to explain it. Perhaps the editor, Chocolatepizza, can explain why he thinks less is more in an encyclopedia. Abe Froman (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo's/David Spart's count is simply wrong as was pointed out back in April when David Spart introduced his original research number. See above Talk:Chabad#Revisions. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That discussion thread does not address my concern. The material you reverted was anchored by a link that broke out Chabad instiutions by type and country. It came from Chabad itself [61]. You swapped a detailed rendering of the worldwide movement for an out-of-context number ripped from the pages of National Geographic. I do not see it as an improvement. Can you please consider adding back the breakout by institution and country, as this information is readily available? Abe Froman (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The count by David Spart along with its "detailed" rendering is not accurate as was pointed out in April when the edit was first made. Would you like more sources for the 3,300 number and 70 countries? I mean is National Geographic not a reliable source? Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please address the matter I am actually talking about. I am asking for a return to a breakout of institution type by country. I don't care if the information comes from NG or Chabad, but it was wrong to remove it. The onus is on the removing editor to supplant or replace what they revert. Replacing the deleted content with a number lacking context like the prior numbers did does not serve the article. Abe Froman (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
When removing inaccurate information, I do not need to replace it with similar information. The previous numbers listed were clearly wrong and original research contradicting every published number given by anyone. It is not better to have inaccurate information rather than no information. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to compromise with you, but you are not being reasonable. Since I care about this article, I'll simply tally the institutions listed on the Chabad website and break out by country and institution, as existed before your edit. Abe Froman (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted David Spart by email, and he has just sent me a copy of a speadsheet where he talied the figures. I will go through it and make so checks, perhaps we could split it up and get the actual figures. Lobojo (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the 70 number is wrong, I have a count of 65 maybe 66 if you include Peutro Rico as a country. Lobojo (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Count again. However your count is original research. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous! Counting isn't research, the information is all on Chabad.org we just need to count up what is there. It is as ludicrous as arguing that you need a source to say that there are 48 contiguous states because counting them would be OR! Lobojo (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There might be different definitions of a center. Are you counting camps, schools, mikvahs etc.? Is their directory updated? Even Bill Clinton gave a number of 2,000 institutions in 1994. That is more that David Spart's count in 2007. Use published numbers not your own version of counting. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Chabad.org which is where David Spart claimed to have taken his numbers from it is written: http://www.chabad.org/global/about/article_cdo/aid/36226/jewish/Overview.htm Today 4,000 full-time emissary families apply 250 year-old principles and philosophy to direct more than 3,300 institutions (and a workforce that numbers in the tens of thousands) dedicated to the welfare of the Jewish people worldwide. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
David Spart's language was institution". I will clarify that with him, but I asume it means "establishents", including chuls and chadbad houses and mikvah and school and such , but excluding summer camps say unless they were actual physical places. I think that was explicit in the language. From what I have checked so far there are some mistakes. Spart extimated the number of Cities in Austarlia to be about 30 when infact it is only 15 since he didn't apparantly realise that all the establishments in Victoria are in Melbourne suberbs. Of the other ones I have checked so far, there are small errors, which may be his, or may be due to updatets. The reason I (and others) think this is important is because I have seen published numbers ranging from 1000 to 5000, so much for published numbers. The Chabad directory is by definition the most updated and complete guide to Chabad institutions in the world. Lobojo (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That number is nice but it doesnt give us any of the interesting detail that Spart's number gave. It is certainly approriate to have both versions we could even have a table. If the numbers dont agree we could offer explainantions. Lobojo (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While the chabad.org directory may be the most accurate of the directories currently online, it does not mean that it is complete. I see a notice on their directory that they are in the process of upgrading it. My definition of an institution or yours does not matter, neither does it matter if the online directory is complete or not, only published reliable sources matter. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A million Lubavs!! Revisited

The source you give only says that there might be up to a million Jews who use their services on Yom Kippur. This is not a number for adherents. The 200,000 figure is well sourced and pertains to adherents. This is an erroneous conflation of adherents and customers who drive to shul once a year to hear Shofar. This distinction must be clear and a journal would be a much better source for demographic detail that a sideways journalistic comment. Lobojo (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording has been revised. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Source?

CP you say that there is an incorrectly cited source? You made these edits, and reverted to them overriding a number of improvements. Which is the problematic source? People are not making up sources, it is too much work. If you are correct what probably occurred was a mix up along the way, or possibly on the part of the person who inserted it. We need to asume good faith. For the time being while we work it out (seeing as how the material is innocuous and has no BLP concerns) we can add fact tags.

It ceratinly was not a reason to revert the other edits I made, all the best. Lobojo (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure this is true

"Lubavitch is the only extant branch of a family of Hasidic sects known collectively as the Chabad movement..."

I don't think this is true. What about the Malakhim and Anshei Liozna? 212.179.254.142 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chabad source?

In the Kabbalah article there is this statement which refers to Chabad:

If improperly explained, such views can be interpreted as pantheism. In truth, according to this philosophy, God's existence is higher than anything that this world can express, yet he includes all things of this world down to the finest detail in such a perfect unity that his creation of the world effected no change in him whatsoever. This paradox is dealt with at length in the Chabad Chassidic texts. Kabbalah #Kabbalistic understanding of God

If it is a correct statement, could someone supply a source, and help improve the article? Otherwise I will remove the unsourced statement. (The Kabbalah article once had a number of sections that were not kosher. Those sections are now moved to their own articles, and it is now an article on traditional Jewish Kabbalah. But the article needs help to improve its quality.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave one source, I'll post some more sources soon. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chabad article AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House and if you can raise the quality of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words, passive voice in Messianism section

I repaired what I saw as weasel words (overuse of "some") and passive voice in this section. "Some Say," and "Some believe," is not specific enough, so I swapped "Some" with the more accurate noun, "Lubavitcher." Abe Froman (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some" is not a weasel word - it means significantly more than none and significantly less than all. You did not replace it with "Lubavitcher" (which would be a bloody stupid thing to replace it with), you replaced it with "most", which is unsubstantiated, and no more specific than "some". Your "was or could be" comes much closer to weaseling, for that matter. Your changes ramble and remove coherence rather than adding it. And you still haven't said which passive verbs you've changed into active ones - I can't see any. All you seem to have done is make the article less accurate and less readable at the same time. -- Zsero (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Some" could mean anyone. "Lubavitcher" accurately limits this section to adherents of the Chabad Lubavitch movement. That is why it was changed. Also, "some" is definitely lumped in with Weasel Words. Simply search for "Some" on that page. I feel my passage accurately represents a contentious topic. The previous passage left the subject unclear and confused. Abe Froman (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Oy vey. Context, context, context. The paragraph is discussing a division within the movement. "Some" Lubavs believe one thing, some believe something else, and some believe something quite different. It seems that you've read WP:WEASEL but haven't understood it, or you'd understand why "some" can be a weasel word in some contexts (there's that "some" again), and why it's not here. And why, in those contexts where it is a weasel word, "many" and "most" are just as bad. Meanwhile, "the spectrum...is wide" is just bad.
Meanwhile, I'm still looking for an example of passive voice that you've changed. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Here's an example from the passage I reworked: "While some believe that... others believe that..." "A few believe... while many negate..." A veritable passive voice, weasel word paradise. Who is "some?" Who is "A few"? "Others Believe," who are these "others?" As you can see, I was correct in reworking this passage to add clarity to the topic. Abe Froman (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. That is not an example of passive voice. I'm beginning to wonder whether you know what passive voice is.
  2. How is "many" or "most" better than "some", apart from being less accurate? Who is "some"? A portion of the population being discussed; substantially more than none, but substantially less than all.
  3. In any case, that is not what WP:WEASEL is talking about when it gives "some say" as an example of a weasel word. Read it again, because you clearly have not comprehended it at all.
-- Zsero (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I comprehend it clearly, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks. I think it would be best if an independent editor who does not frequent this page reviewed my edit. This is because I believe the objections to my edit are POV driven, rather than stylistic concerns. Shabbat Shalom. Abe Froman (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. You won't listen to reason, you won't point to examples of passive voice or actual weasel words, and it seems you don't even understand what they are or what the problem with them is. Your version is both less coherent and less accurate than what was there before, so I'm reverting it. -- Zsero (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. I listed why I believe the passive voice and weasel words were a problem above. If you have a better suggestion,please list a sample passage below. Abe Froman (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Chabadnicks

Should't there be a page on Chabad people? Most pages describing goups have lists of notable members.Thomas Babbington (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington

[edit] "Anti-Zionist=

The link claiming Chabad is anti-Zionist has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.66 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)