Talk:Chabad messianism

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: edit purge Template:WikiProject Belarus/to do

Judaism Portal

Chabad messianism 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:

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.

[edit] Mishichist and anti-Mishichist Sources

I want to add a section towards the begining of this article citing sources for this debate. The article is laughable in that it lists notable people that belong to either camp and brushes over their sources for argument. I think a section that discusses the sources for each camp and their reasons for rejecting the other camp would be very appropriate.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A very brief overview might be appropriate. Two or three sentences each, max. Not a whole essay. Point to external sources for detailed arguments on either side. -- Zsero (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I added some points of debate in the "yakov aveinu lo meit" camp and the "Resurected Moshiach" camp. There is obviously much more to write about this as at least three books have been written about the subject (Berger, Dalfin, and Student) however I let it stand here. Maybe more can be added later. Gavhathehunchback (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources

David, please help me find some of the sources that you are quoting. I have tagged the ones which I have not seen a source referenced at all.

1. "Within months however, messianism had regrouped and now is the major force within the Chabad movement." I was unable to find this in the source provided "Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe, Felsenstein, F., Criticism, 1999." Please let me know the page number.

2. "while others refused to accept that the funeral had been anything other than a sham." Is this from the Jewish Chronicle article? If yes, do you have the text or a link to it?

3. Do you have the text or a link to the quote from Simon Dein in the intro to the Expresions of Messianism within Chabad section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I built the article up from a few pages of notes that I took looking through journals, I have occasional access to various academic online compendiaLexus Nexus etc. I might have jumbled one or two of the sources up, I will check into 1 and 2 for you. I think 1 might be a pasting error on my part. Dein is a beautiful writer and conveniently that quote from him is actually in the abstract, so if the click the link it should be there. Thanks for the help. David Spart 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide a source for the first citation request. It is merely a lead to introduce unfamiliar readers to the topic. I don't think it is controvertial to say that this is a major post-war controversy in orthodox judaism. David Spart 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

There seems to be all the voices that have ever attacked chabad messianism however there aren't any of the voices that supported chabad messianism. I am going to copy in the current defense which is in the controversies article.

Another example is the halachic Christianity paragraph fails to quote the same person a few years later sort of backtracking see http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14234 . --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not set out to get all the sources who attack chabad - I would say most are simply anthropologists and are very detached. I put in all the academic sources that I could find in the hope of writing a NPOV article. Certainly I agree that there should be a section on Messianist theology where the messianist viewpoint could be elucidated and some of their arguments detailed. I wanted to do this but I couldn't find any sources. In that context a subsection detailing those academic voices such as Ravitzky and the other guy who argue that mesianist is not an anathema to Judaism should be quoted. However attacks on David Berger seem to me to be off-topic and POV since a) they attack him for his solutions and commentary - which is not the issue here and it would be much moree useful to have their arguemnts against Berger's position quoted and not simply their as hominem attacks on him b) Berger is not the only one and such quotes would imply that he is. c) Berger is not the topic of the article so attacks on him (and not a defence of Messianism) are tangential and belong elsewhere.

Including a list of minor Rabbis and Rebbes who have at some point come out in favor of messianism is also not appropriate IMHO. I would support adding a line saying Some non-Chabad individuals have declared their support for Messianism. These include a son of Ovadiah Yosef and some minor Rebbe in Tzfat and ..., with sources.

So, I propose:

"Messianist theology section containing a description of what messianists believe and why followed by a sub-section detailing the acadamic and rabbinic soucerces that defend the idea of Messianism in Judaism perhaps entitled "defence of messiansim from outside Chabad" or something. At the end of the section it would be appropriate to add a line about non-Chabad messianist supporters.

There are a few academics who discuss the christianity comparison but if one later backtracked that should be noted. David Spart 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

someone keeps on taking off any mention to the fact that the Rebbe openly encouraged "Yechi" way before the stroke, i posted a link to a video filmed on may 28 1991 (almost a year before the stroke) proving this, but this someone keeps on removing it. it is in my opinion that these so called Anti-meshechist are twisting history to fit there claim.

[edit] I made some changes

Some the fact templates were on sentences that were sourced at the end of paragraphs. Is there a way to reference the same source multiple times without it showing up multiple times in the citations section?

The terms Elokist and Boreinunik are simply shorthands to describe groups of positions. They are not referred to as such in academia - they are slang, but I think it is useful noting these terms.

I move the information from the bullet points into the new sub-section. I switched the quote from Singer to one that directly adresses the issue at hand rather than Berger, Berger is not the major theme here. I also added an accurate citation for the article.

Chaim Dalfin appears to have self published a 120 paperback page book on chabad "Attack on Lubavitch" which he also appears to market himself exclusively. I cannot find any review of this work, though it is mentioned en passant in an article as an illustration. Unfortunately this cannot be used as a source for such bold statements.

I removed some the honorific and "Joe Bloggsky chair of xxx" stuff as that is cumrebsome and not in line with wikipedia practice. David Spart 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms Elokist and Boreinunik imply a certain viewpoint which is not accurate. For example there has not been a single source stating about a single Lubavitcher that says that the Rebbe created G-d. These terms should be removed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case. Dein refers to the trend, Berger does in many places, as does the recent article in Haaretz. David Spart 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there Reliable source that uses these terms? If not, then they need to be removed. The Haaretz article referenced in the article did not mention them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections needed

There is much in this article that needs to be corrected. So I'll start with a few:

1) The book Besuras Hageulah was printed during the rebbe's liftime, not after his death.

2) Sentence on Rabbi Volpo does not have a vallid source. The link given does not work. When tried on archive.org it brought an unreliable source.

3) The general tone of this artcle is one that is trying to show how extreme this view is, and giving too much weight to the POV against this view.

4) I don't think you can give a name to this "trend" as Chabad messianism unless that is actually how it is referred to. If you want to say things like "Chabad messianism is a term" or "a phenominum known as Chabad messianism", then you need to bring sources to show that this is actually what it is called.

5) Words that fail to meet WP:WTA will be removed

Shlomke 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Shlomke. 1) Yes, I know, it just says that it was distributed after his death - it doesnt say when it was printed. I will make that much clearer. 2) Yes, i checked and the link is dead or broken. I will un-hyperlink that though the source is good. 3) I think the tone is an academic one - neutral and detached. 3) Look if you can bring good academic sources that will argue for michichism, I would be delighted - I looked but found none. But what would you like a section "Chabad defence of messinism" "Messianist defence of messianism" that is the problem, everyone is arguing here. So all the research is from detatched non-messianists including chabadniks. 4) Ideally it would just be called Messinaism or Mishichism. But the first is too vague and the second is in Yiddish - but I think I made a redirect for it. So it could be called "Messianism (Chabad)" or "Messianism in Chabad" or Chabad Messianism which means the same thing. It is not a neologism as google tells us. It is the natural English usage and is reference in two peer-reviewed papers. I notice that the M in Messianism is wrongly capitalised though. 5) Quite so. David Spart 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I appreciate you working together with me. The book was actually printed and distributed during his lifetime. Like all other books printed by chabad, it was naturally continued after his death. The sources that Meshichistim rely upon are much broader then this one book. They rely on all the talks of Rabbi Schneerson concerning moshiach (this book being a mere collection of some of them) Other chassidic works, the Rambam, Talmud and much more. This book is basically statements made By Rabbi Schneerson about the messianic age. If you are going to specify which sources the Meshichistim were/are relying upon, it would only be fair to list all of them. 2) The source is a private website, which is not a reliable source. Correct me if I'm wrong. 3) As I already stated the tone needs fixing to adhere to wikipedia standards of neutrality I will try to fix this slowly. I'm not sure what you are referring to by the second 3). 4) I think another name might be better, since it's not the place to coin a new term here. Shlomke 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this is referenced in an article which describes how the book was used. There are others that they use - but Besuars Hageula is central. Feel free to note that they also bring sources from all over Schneerson's writings if you can find a source for that. You are correct though, I will change it to make it clearer that these were not their only source of proofs. 2) The source is Besuaras HaGeula - the link is to a private website which is fine, it is just to help people out in finding the text. Besuras Hageula is fine as a source. Especially when just used as an illustration - IE a primary source referred to by a secondary source. 3) This is not a new term, though neither is it firmly established. It is the most established term in English being referenced in two journals. I would support moving the article to "Chabad messianism" as the capitalisation is an error. David Spart 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 770 replicas

The 770 replicas does not have to do with the rebbe returning as Moshiach, since there were replicas built even before he passed away (they were always built with special room for Rabbi Schneerson should he ever come and visit). They had to do with they signifacince given to the building. I'm removing that part. Shlomke 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but why did you also take out the quote with the refernce. I am putting that back in without the replicas list because until I find a source. David Spart 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not part of messianisim. It is an example of a chassids feelings toward his rebbe (which may sound a bit extreme to those unfamilier with Chassidus). At most this would be relevent to the 770 article (probably not). Shlomke 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a central part of messianist thinking, the the rebbe is the center of their plans, the messianist belief that his home is to beceome the beis hamikdash one day (as expressed in the quote that you removed). This is a firm illustrtion of messianist thinking - and does not predate messianism, though it predates gimmel tamuz. No other chasidus goes to such lengths as far as I am aware - this is unique to lubavitch and a literally conrete example of the way they think about their Rebbe that is discussed in journals. I will try and make in more palatable to you, but the quotes and refs need to stay. David Spart 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain more accurately what the 770 replicas have to do with messianism? which journals put the two together? Shlomke 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The replicas are an expression of the devotion of the Rebbe's disciples to him as a Rebbe. This may not be found in other groups, but so what? It's a commentary on the nature of the Rebbe/Chossid relationship in Chabad, period. This has nothing to do with messianism per se in the minds of the Rebbe's disciples, and no source was quoted to prove so. (No talk says that 770 will become the Beis Hamkidash; it just says that it will be attached to the Beis Hamikdash, as will all the other shuls in the world.) Yehoishophot Oliver 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The link is totally clear - and is summarised by the quote at the end. The construction of the replicas is directly linked to its status as beis moshiach or beis raboteinu she'bebavvel. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's strange that you'd think it's "totally clear"; when I read it I saw nothing of the sort. There is no reference in the quote provided to the concept of "Beit Moshiach". There is no reference made to identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach or the belief in the Moshiach in general. There is a reference made to a source that discusses a very strong devotion to the Rebbe as Rebbe. Period. I'm removing that paragraph as it's irrelevant. Yehoishophot Oliver 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to have a consensus before you remove good sourced material form an article. The replicas are a concrete example of the centrality of the Rebbe and Beis Raboteinu Shebegalus in messianist though - along with a quote from a messianist publication. This is directly relevant, A Chabad publication elucidates on the centrality of the building in messianic thought: "We Lubavitch chassidim believe that Lubavitch is Jerusalem, the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the covenant standing on the "Even HaShetiya" in which the divine being and essence rests. That is not a very strong devotion to the "Rebbe as Rebbe" that is a very srong devotion to the Rebbe as Atzmus E'Mehus and is borderline Elokism let alone Messiansim. If you do not recognize that then you may be a messiansit oyourself. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A quote has to be relevant to the subject of the article before it can be included, and the fact that it is sourced is irrelevant if the content itself is irrelevant. The replicas are a concrete example of the centrality of the Rebbe in Chabad thought in general. No argument there. So include it in the article on the Rebbe, if you like. Yes, it is "a very strong devotion to the "Rebbe as Rebbe"". It has nothing to do with the element within chabad that emphasises belief in the Rebbe as Moshiach per se, and no proof whatsoever was quoted to prove so. The quote there mentioned nothing about replicas. And it mentioned nothing about identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach. And the fact that this quote is from a publication where yechi is written does not in itself prove that there is anything inherently "messianic" about this belief, much in the same way that there are many other notions there that have no direct connection to the notion of identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach, because as Chabad chasidim they will speak about Chabad concepts.

The only possible source that would prove your claim that the making of replicas is somehow in the minds of some related to identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach in particular, is if you would quote an interview with the designer or sponsor of one of the replicas who said that this was his intention. But until then you have quoted no source whatsoever, and I will remove it. Stick to the article topic, thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Look you have to stop reverting like this without consensus. The quote is clearly messianist/elokist in nature and ties in the replicas and the centrality of the rebbe and 770 in chabad messianist thought. The quote is really the ikar davar - the mention of the replicas is in a way only background. Again: A Chabad publication elucidates on the centrality of the building in messianic thought: "We Lubavitch chassidim believe that Lubavitch is Jerusalem, the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the covenant standing on the "Even HaShetiya" in which the divine being and essence rests. That is not a very strong devotion to the "Rebbe as Rebbe" that is a very srong devotion to the Rebbe as Atzmus E'Mehus and is borderline Elokism let alone Messiansim. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, you have to stop posting material like this without relevance to the article topic. Again, the quote mentioned nothing about the concept of the belief in the Moshiach, which is purportedly the topic of the article. The quote doesn't become "messianist" just because you claim it so. You need proof of that. And you need proof that replicas have something inherently to do with identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach. That quote refers to the relationship of the Chosid with a Rebbe according to Chabad, something that you clearly have little knowledge of. And it is directly based on talks of the Rebbe and previous Rebbe accepted universally by all Chabad chasidim, not just so called "messianists." And it doesn't refer to the concept of the Moshiach in general or his identification. Stick to the topic.

In summary, Just because something is regarded as extreme by you, which is fine, that doesn't make it relevant to the article topic. If you think the Rebbe/Chosid relationship in Chabad is extreme, say so on the Chabad page. That has nothing to do with the concept of identifying Moshiach in Chabad, which is the topic of this article. And perhaps research the topic more using original sources and consulting with Chasidim directly who are learned in their Rebbe's teachings, instead of drawing absurd connections and conclusions, thereby demonstrating your ignorance and lack of coherent grasp of the subject matter to all those familiar with it from original sources. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK fine if you insist I will reword the paragraph, and provide the source that you require. The quote is brought down by David Berger in a recent artile in Yated Ne'eman. He mentions it at an example of Chabad messinaim. I simply thought this was so indisputably obvious that I simply refered directly to his source. But since you insist I will rephrase it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't insist you reword the paragraph. I ask that you remove material irrelevant to the article topic, until such relevance is proven. The fact that you have a source doesn't make the material relevant. Anyone familiar with the facts knows that replicas of 770 were made long, long before the controversy over identifying Moshiach that is discussed here, most notably the replica in Kfar Chabad, which was made with the Rebbe's full consent. No Chabadnik has any problem with the making of these replicas and there is nothing specifically "messianic" about it, and no source was quoted to prove so. If you think it's extreme and want to discuss that, then discuss it in the relevant article, maybe the 770 one, or the general Chabad article, because the value of 770 as explained by the Rebbe is universally accepted in Chabad, and not the province of a sub-group. And as in the Yoel Kahn article, I ask you to please do proper research, instead of jumping to baseless conclusions. I have removed the paragraph and will continue to do so until you provide a source (perhaps an interview) that proves that there is some sort of direct connection between making of replicas and identification of Moshiach in the minds of those who make or sponsor the replicas. Yehoishophot Oliver 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I said above. The link is expliciply made by David Berger in an article in Yated Ne'eman in June, and the reference is in the artice. I therefore rephrased to reflect the artibution - making that atribution direct. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. Lets work things out on talk page. I will past it here for now. Shlomke 19:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Full size replicas of 770 Eastern Parkway have been constructed in Kfar Chabad and in Jerusalem.^[1] Other replicas or near-replicas have been built in New Jersey, in Los Angeles, Melbourne, Milano, Rio and Buenos Aires. David Berger cites a senoir chabad mashpia in Kfar Chabad, Rabbi Yishvam Segal describing the messianist posiiton of the Rebbe in the world:^[2]

"We Lubavitch chassidim believe that Lubavitch is Jerusalem, the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the covenant standing on the "Even HaShetiya" in which the divine being and essence rests"^[3]

No, the material is sourced and I have adressed you concern amply. I strongly request that you dont take good sources out of articles. The link is made expliciply by Berger as an example of messianist thinking. If you want to remove it from the article you need a very good reason. I'm going to put it back - where it was before - until you can find a good reason to remove a valid and relevant source. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

David are you basically saying that if Berger sees something a certain way, then it can automatically go into the article? What if others dont see it that way?

Also perhaps you can post the piece from Berger where he links the the replicas to messianism, as I was not able to get it online. Shlomke 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was avaliable on that Shema Yisraol site (or something) last week. That is where I read it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Yechi

Is there any opposition to a merge and redirect of Yechi to this article? As the subjects are kind of overlapping. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. This article is already around the recommended limit of 34kb and the Yechi article is good. I see no need to merge these issues. There is no overlap of material as far as I can tell. Unless there is some overriding reason I don't see the point as the people who made that page will only get agitated. David Spart 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should the same topic be covered in two articles? merging in Yechi does not necessarily need to take up much more space in this article if we just put in the relevelt info from Yechi which is not yet here. I support the merge. Shlomke 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Chabad Headquarters refernce - is 770 not chabad headquaters? Does the Haaretz article not describe that occuring? David Spart 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why is the material in the yechi article repeated here? I also vote to merge the articles into one large article. As for the size, there is a lot of repetition and needless lengthy quotation. I'm sure some capable editors can cut it down so it's more readable. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any overlap of material at all. This article is alreally over 40kb - I can't see any possible reason for a merge, it would just lead to pointless strife. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it would lead to pointless strife? Is there any specific reason you think there should be two separate articles other then size? In any case the articles are overlapping and should be merged. Shlomke 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It just survived an AfD. They are both good articles. I dont see an overlap. Various suggestions for merging it have been mooted recenty and none have been accepted. This article is already 40kb+. Yechi has been a very stable article for 18 months. There is simply no reason to merge it, and a number of good ones why not to. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All that transpired before this article existed. Now that this article was created all the stuff in the Yechi article would belong here. Shlomke 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It remains the case that apart from the appropriate paragreph linking to the Yechi article (which has become a fork lemafreah) there isn't an overlap. So I just don't see the point. This article is 40kb+ as it stands, and the styleguide would recomend doing exactly what we now have. I just don't see any point and again see many reasons why not. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason is clear, There should not be two article on the same topic. We all feel the article is overlaping. Size seems to be the only concern left, but that can easly be taken care of. This article does not have to be as long as it is (remember who made this article so long). In any case theres discussion so I'll put back the merge tags. Shlomke 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Shlomke, I have given my position on this a few times. It is not possible to merge a 20kb into one that is already 45kb. There is also no need as there is no substantial overlap, the Yechi invocation is notable in its own right as was affirmed by a AFD only a few weeks ago. I you think that the Yechi article material is covered amply in this article then you need to nominate Yechi for deletion. You cant just keep adding merge tags to articles in the hope that you will get your own way in the face of every policy in wikipedia. Thus is not was merge tags are meant to do. There have been merge tags at the top of the Yechi article for most of the past 6 months - this nonsence must stop. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I've given you my reasoning too. and I'm not the only one who wants to merge, and there are good reasons for one as I explained already. Again, the AFD was way before the creation of this article.

If size is the only issue again that's not a big problem. You seem very bothered by the fact that there are even merge tags up. There is nothing to be afraid of, it's just meant to make people aware of this discussion. Shlomke 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple reason that this article should be merged with the yechi one, which is that all that the colloquial term "Meshichist" means in the minds of the people who use it is "one who believes that yechi should be declared today." It doesn't have any other specific meaning. (It certainly has nothing to do with the general chabad emphasis on the belief in Moshiach, as this article falsely implies.) WADR, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant of the way that this word is used. Yehoishophot Oliver 05:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for a merger and many reasons why not. There is not a signiicant overlap, If Na na nachman has an article as well as Breslov then Yechi can along with Chabad messianism. Oliver, that is an OR arguemnt and is another personal attack. Please stop that and calm down - it is not condusive to discussion. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is significant overlap, and I support the merge as well, as there are now 4 editors supporting the merge and only 1 editor opposing the merge I will merge it after passover. Chocolatepizza 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot merge an article that is 20kb into one that is 50kb. There is no overlap at all. What do you think the overlap is? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, I have merged the article. The main and most obvious overlap is Rabbi Schneersohn's response to those that wanted to proclaim him to be the messiah. Chocolatepizza 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OUTDENT. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We debate and reach consensus based on set policies. This article should not be merged as (A) it is already very long, (b) NOTHING is gained from the merger, (c) Yechi was recently affirmed as a valid article title (d) it is the no.1 google result for Yechi, (e) there is no significant overlap of material. Nothing could make point (e) any more forcefully than your actual merger, which simply copied the vast bulk of the material in one block and plonked at the end of this article. This aptly demonstrates what I have been saying all along, there isn't a serious overlap here. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above and Wikipedia:Consensus. Chocolatepizza 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no overlap that I could find, Yechi stands on its own, if you think it dosent add anything to wikipedia it can be nominated for AfD, but this artcile is long enough as it is. Lobojo (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

I believe that this article should be renamed to Messianism (Chabad) due to the need for standardized naming. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I feel leaving the name as "Chabad messianism" would be creating a new term. Messianism (Chabad) would be a good name for the article. Shlomke 15:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. It should not be capitalised though. Chabad messiansim is the only term I can find being used in academia. Messianism (Chabad) is a bit much - it is a much stronger way of describing the situation. It implies a strong link between this type of Messiansim and others, which is not really the case. Furthermore, michichism is not referred to as simple Messianism except in a very specific context - nobody is going to confuse this issue as in "oh! That type of messianism. I thought you meant Shabetai Zvi.

So, since (a) Chabad messianism is not a neologism and is the only academic term used to describe the trend and (b) simply means "messianism of the chabad variety" I support the name being changed to "Chabad messinaism". David Spart 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who vote for a name change, but for a different reason. I think that two issues are being confused throughout this whole article, creating a false impression. There is the Chabad emphasis on belief in the Moshiach, that began in an intense way through the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, and was emphasised to a far greater extent by his son-in-law. That can be classified as messianism in the simple sense, as it's classified on the messianism page. Then there is the notion of identifying the Rebbe as the Moshiach. And the discussion of the way that the Rebbe identified his father-in-law as Moshiach. And those who say that this concept applies after the Rebbe's passing. And so on. These are simply separate matters, and the vague term "messianism" (capitalised or not), with the implication that it's all one idea, is misleading and thus incorrect. And it makes no difference if some academics perpetrated the same confusion. Because they haven't studied the Rebbe's talks thoroughly, but selectively, to find the sources relevant to the controversy that they want to research. But the Rebbe discussed and emphasised the importance of the faith in the coming of Moshiach countless times, literally at every public appearance, but only discussed the concept of identifying Moshiach's identity a handful of times. So to call the concept of identification one and the same as Chabad messianism in general shows a skewed perspective.

So I vote not to use the term messianism altogether. If one wants to talk about the specific idea mentioned a handful of times in the Rebbe's talks concerning identification of Moshiach (which is clearly the intention of the creator of this article), and not about the meaning and importance of the belief in Moshiach in general according to the Rebbe's teachings, then for the sake of clarity call the article something else, perhaps Chabad identification of Moshiach. Please respond. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am (one of the) creators of this article and I dispute your assertion that my motive was to "about the specific idea mentioned a handful of times in the Rebbe's talks concerning identification of Moshiach", indeed this is demonstrably untrue if you read the article. Simply my motive was that there should be an article on a subject that in discussed in dozens of academic papers and books and about which there was a dearth of reliable information on the Internet. Chabad messianism, lubavitch messianism, michichism, habad messianism, lubavitcher messianism are all terms that have progeny back to the 1980s and this article is composed of some 70 sources that discuss this theme. The mentions of the rabbe's father etc. are not even one line - maybe there should be more discussion about that. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read my list posting above. Put simply: The intention of the article creator, whoever it was, was to discuss the idea of identification. This is conceptually distinct from the idea of the emphasis that the Rebbe laid time and again on the importance and the reasoning for emphasising the belief in the coming of the Moshiach. The former is found very rarely in the Rebbe's talks, and is the subject of this article. The latter is found countless times (something that you oddly did not research and see fit to dedicate any article to). Yet this article takes the former and calls that "Chabad messianism"--as if the concept of identification encompasses and defines and summarises the Chabad belief in Moshiach, when that's simply not so to anyone who can read Hebrew, or even the translations of the Rebbe's talks printed by Sichos in English. Yehoishophot Oliver 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I read it, it was a strugle but I read it. Look, this is just an article about Chabad messianism. So stuff to do with Chabad messianism goes into in. You say these things are distinct, but a number of sources listed in the article make a clear connection between the Rebbe's comment and messianism in Chabad by the way. But again - this is not the subject of the article - it is only mentioned briefly. This article is NOT about "chabad's identification of moshiach".It is about the trend within chabad to identify one guy as the messiah and the history that lead to this. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You actually rather explain the issue. We have an article on "Chabad messianism" b/c chabad messianism is more that the sum of the words "chabad" and "messianism". The rebbe's focus on bringing moshiach is amply coverd here, in the Rebbe article and in the Chabad article. This is why the article isnot called Messianism (Chabad). Then why not Messiansim (Bobov) and so on. Do you understand? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rebbe's focus on beinging Moshiach is not covered here at all. If you can make such a claim, it shows nothing but your ignorance of the Rebbe's words. What is covered here is the specific topic of identifying the Rebbe as Moshiach, and the name of the article doesn't reflect that. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is, but again that is not the prime issue discussed here as I explain above, the topic you are talking about is dealt with at length in other article where Chabad messiansim is barely touched on. And again, this is the term that is used in academia to describe what is discussed in the body of the article. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Exaclty my point, that's not the prime issue discussed here, so the name of the article should be changed to reflect the nature of the article. Where is the topic of the Chabad emphasis on the belief in Moshiach in general discussed? As for what academics say, then they're also guilty of vagueness. Maybe it makes sense to them, but it's confusing to others who think you want to talk about one idea when in reality you discuss another. Either way, clarity is necessary, so the name needs to be changed. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am at a total loss to understand what you are saying. The article is focused entirely on Chabad messianism, a term used in academia do describe a major trend. There are dozens of references discussion the trend and many of them are brought down here. Again, I suggest you read the other articles where you will see the the rebbe's focus on bringing moshiach is discuused at length. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, the name has to be changed, you cannot use wikipedia to help creat this new (yet to be) term. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms which states: Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities.

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia.

The question now is only what the article should be changed to. Shlomke 19:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No that is not the question at all, as I have stated many times this is not in any way a neologism, as you would know if you were to search google. Chabad messianism, Habad messianism, Lubavitch messianism, are the terms used in academia to describe this phenomenon, so that is what the article is called. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, a neologism is: words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. So yes, this is a neologism. Shlomke 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shlomke really, I can add nothing but to point out that this is the term used in academia to describe the situation, the rule you quote above is refering to acticles which are about new words and phrases - this article is describing a trend that is discussed widely in academia - and academia si more than a "certain community". David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defence of messiansim

The section can't be called support, because a number of the people mentioned explicitly do not support messianism. There should be two sections if you like one called Defence of messianism and one called support.

Also - if we mention the letter we need no note parenthetically that its authenticity has been questioned, seeing as it is such a controversial letter. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with having both defense and support if you prefer it that way. Shlomke 23:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mantra

The word is Mantra. There is nothing POV about the word. Declaration on the other hand is not neutral as it implies a certain force that Yechi does not posses. Look here [1] "a slogan or phrase often repeated" - that is what Yechi is. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course declaration is neutral. That's what they do, they declare it. It implies nothing about its powers; if anything, the term mantra carries that implication. On the mantra article it states "They (mantras) are primarily used as spiritual conduits, words or vibrations that instill one-pointed concentration in the devotee." No one will say that this is an accurate definition of yechi, that yechi is said to increase concentration. They'll say that it's said to declare the Rebbe as king. Nothing to do with concentration. I have changed it back. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the third definition, it is an oft repeated slogan. Decleration is just not the right word. It is not used that way in English. I dont know why you think mantra is POV. Right exactly, they will say it is to declare the Rebbee King but that is their POV. A NPOV must note that these are merely words and have no declarative force. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no such definition on that wepbage. Please point it out to me. A declaration is simply when someone gets up and says something. It doesn't imply that it has any "force." (And it definitely is relvant what those chasidim who say it say that they mean when they do so, something that you oddly neglect to discuss.) That's just the way the word is used in English. Whereas the word mantra implies a process of meditation, or "religious ceremonies to accumulate wealth, avoid danger, or eliminate enemies," and "are intended to deliver the mind from illusion and material inclinations." No one makes any such claim about declaring yechi. So it's a false comparison. Please use terms correctly. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from wikitioary a Mantra "3. slogan or phrase often repeated" - that is the primary modern use of the word. I don't see any POV problem here and it is by far the best word to describe it. Declaration simply wont do - because it has overtones of legal force and establishment and so on. If you can think of a different word we might be able to have a constructive debate about it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And the word "proclamation" is worse, neing defined as "something that is proclaimed; a public and official announcement." It really is hard to think of a better example of a mantra than Yechi. I am at a lot as to why you keep replacing it with words that are not applicable. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we compromise and call it a statement. That is the most neural word in the world OK? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. On second thoughts, it occured to me that the ideal word is invocation. How does that look to you? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see anything POV about the word "Decloration". it's abou how they use it, not how it's seen by others. Shlomke 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not happy with that word. Granted, Yechi is said by some as a prayer of sorts, but it means many other things in the minds of those who say it that the word prayer doesn't express and conceals. In any case, the word invocation has all sorts of secondary implications that are not correct in this context. Statement is fine. Yehoishophot Oliver 02:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we all agree then on the word statement? Shlomke 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

invocation is much much better. It is exactly the correct word. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you think so, but you must respond to the concerns of others and reach consensus, which you are clearly making no effort to do. It has been pointed out that both words, mantra and invoation, carry associations inappropriate in this context, and this inappropriateness has been explained. You need to address these concerns in order to reach consensus. Yehoishophot Oliver 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oliver, could you please stop with the cheap personal attacks. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, like I said, address the issues. I seeyou persist with using invocation despite lack of consensus. Yehoishophot Oliver 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for support

I tried to find some sources for these poeple: Here is how it went:

Aaron Laufer - appears to be a doctor in New York. Searching for "Nadvorna-Safed" -wiki -wikipedia -arikah -mbceo. "aharon laufer" does no better. It is bizare that a current (within the last decade) rebbe should get NO ghits.
Yaakov Yosef appears to be the oldest son of Ovadia Yoseef - who had a falling out with his father over some halachik issue. He was an MK for 3 years in he early 80s, and has not done anything of note since and I can find no source to say that he supports messianism.
Eliyahu Shmerler gets no ghits that do not refer back here ("Eliyahu Shmerler" -wiki -wikipedia)
I can also find no source for Pinchas Hirchspung saying the rebbe was still moshiach. Though I don't doubt he did. However he was a lubavitcher himself so this is not really notable even if it could be sourced. ("Pinchas Hirshprung" -wiki -wikipedia)

I spoke to Rabbi Hirshprung's son-in-law and he told me that Rabbi Hirshprung did indeed sign a letter saying that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was moshiach because he was told that it would make him feel better when he was quite ill, but he signed it on condition that it not be publicized and he did not mean that he was THE moshiach, only that he was a moshuach Hashem in the same way that others have been called that. His son-in-law also said that Rabbi Hirshprung also said that he believes in moshiach and that he is 99% certain that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not moshiach. But at the same time Rabbi Hirshprung did think highly of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and consider him the manhig hador because he was the only one who actively cared about all of klal yisroel instead of just his students and chassidim. --Ezra Wax 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Any tips? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Attack on Chabad by Dalfin, Jewish Enrichment Publications. Shlomke 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Leifer+Nadvorna+-wiki+-wikipedia for Aaron Laufer. It should be Leifer and instead of Safed attached to the word Nadvorna you should consider that it is spelled by some tzfas. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any materail justifying the claims made in the article at present. Dalfin is not a reliable source having writen a self published paperback which he then distributed himself on request. The idea that some of the non-notables mentioned as supporters of messianism is very controvertial and needs a very good source. If no sources are forthcoming we are going to have no choice but to remove all the unsourced material in the article. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Many writers publish their own books there nothing wrong with that. Moreover, He written some 20 + books some of which have been published by third party publishers. He would be considered and expert in his own field of chasidic pholosophy. He is definitly notble. Shlomke 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of that. He is self-published sources are not reliable exept in exeptional circumstances - and certainly not in this case where the statements are so contravertial. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of what? Shlomke 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No evidence that he is considered an expert, or that he wrote 20 book on the subject. It appears he only wrote one, which he ptinted and distributed himself. Not that it matters - he is certainly less reliable (and notable) than Gil Student who you correctly argue below should not be used as a source. Basicly, of we are going to write that private people such as Yosef and Hirshprung etc. are messianist - which is a controvertial position - we need a damn solid source due to extreme BLP concerns. And by the way, if it is true, that will not be hard to find. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I removed a large number of links from the see also section, since they are not topics of messianism, and it was also very long. Took out necessary "undisputed" from Shach, added in a few words about shach's other attacks on chabad. NPOV about the RCA. A word about the Jewish's community's original opposition to chabad's outreach - Kiruv. Gill students book self published. I took out the part about Yaakov kaminetzky, also something not related to messianism (does everything that attacks chabad go into this article?). Removed "mantra" as already discused. took out "ostensibly" on the soloveichik letter, and put in more info from the letter. I made it clear that the alleged letter from Soloveichik in 2000 is something that Berger claims, but that Soloveichik himself never repudiated his 1996 letter publicly. Removed a word in acordance with wp:wta. The Halachic ruling was signed by many non chabad rabbi's too, corrected. Shlomke 00:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shlomke thank you for your edits, many of them are entirely valid. Thankyou also for spending the time to report me for a 3rr violation - you must have really enjoyed that bit of mesira. But really, thank you for the edits. I am not going to revert you edit since many are very good - I am going to take the time to merely replace the sources you removed, since that is not beseder, but I will leave out the Kaminetsky source if you really like. Gil Student is a notable source of criticism on Chabad so it should be noted that he wrote a book, though if you insist he is not used as a source. OK with statement, but invocation is really much better, genuinely.

Soloveichik: Er no. You see that letter is the repudiation you say he did not make, also the letter continues to say that he didn't go public on the matter for the sake of not creating a controversy, but if it continued to be used he would - he then died a few months later, but that is only by the way. Nobody disputes Bergers' reliability or handling of primary sources - and there can be no caveat in the article about the authenticity of the letter unless you have a source for that. The letter was "ostensibly" signed, since the signer subsequently claimed that he had not seen the whole text when he signed it - though I will try and reword to your satisfaction. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope we can work together on this. I put back the 770 stuff until you give a good reason why it should be removed, I left out the Kaminetsky stuff as per your edits. I reworded the Soloveichik stuff, I hope to your satisfaction. But your description of the new letter in Berge's book was highly POV, implying that was unreliable and so on. We don't care whether or not it was true - in wikipedia we only care that there is a reliable source, Berger is such a source - we cannot question his honesty here. I added a few citation needed tags. But thanks for your input. We can discuss the "see also". David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The accuracy of this article

Anyone who really knows about the movement and knows about what goes on should know that the Messianists are a minority and not the majority, as stated multiple times in the book "The Rebbe's army". It is known that the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself threatened to walk out of 770 if a group of people did not stop singing the "yechi". Please make the changes necessary to the article so that this is clear or I will have to do it myself on a later date. --24.79.155.111 23:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and accuracy

There are multiple NPOV and accuracy problems with this article. The following is a sample of those problems:

This article is 98 percent criticism and only 2% support of the chabad messianism. This is very unbalanced.
It does not discuss the significant view withing chabad that Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not the messiah.
It does not speak about the times that Menachem Mendel Schneerson threatened to leave 770 if people continued to sing Yechi.
It does not speak about the responses that stated that people should not say that he was the messiah that Menachem Mendel Schneerson gave to individuals who asked him.
It does not speak about the fact that the messianists rely on hand motions that took place after Menachem Mendel Schneerson had a stroke and could not speak.
It takes the views of a few people and implies that these are significant beliefs in chabad.
It leaves out all sources which state that the messianst are a fringe group.

There are many more problems, however this is a start. Chocolatepizza 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not criticism or support, it is simply a discussion. If you can add sourced material from reliable attributable sources that support Chabad messianism that would be great, there are even sections ready for that information to be added.
It does, it quotes a few people like Shmotkin. If you can add any information on people within Chabad who say that he is certainly not the messiah that would be fantastic it was reliably sourced and so on.
Find a source for that and add it in - it does mention his attack on Wolpo for writing the book and noted that he sometimes discouraged Yechi.
It notes the Rebbe criticism of Wolpo - check and you will see - if you have more sources add them.
Again, find a source, that makes this point - no that he couldn't speak - but that the have misinterpreted him as a result, and add it in.
There is a section on prevalence where all the verifiable sources that we have found that discuss the numbers, if you have more, add them.
This argument is mentioned in fact. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BeKitzer, add more sources, but there is no POV problem here, the tone is very neutral. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soloveitchik again

Why do disputes about Chabad always come back to Soloveitchiks? We are not going to have a letter whose authenticity has subsequently been denied by its author quoted in full - put it in a note if you really want. If we have the full text of the fake letter, we need the full text of the real letter too. Here it is from the Hebrew version of Berger's book, pp. 74-75, and the English original on p. 75 of the Hebrew book, note 7. It is dated April 22, 2000.

“

To my great dismay, I was recently informed that certain publications affiliated with the Lubavitch movement have persisted in stating that I validate their belief that a Jewish Messiah may be resurrected from the dead. I completely reject and vigorously deny any such claim. As I have already stated publicly (The Forward—Dec. 2, 1994 and Dec. 23, 1994), such a belief is repugnant to Judaism and is the antithesis of the truth. My intent in signing the original letter cited by these publications was merely to express my opinion that we should not label subscribers to these beliefs as heretics. I believe that they mean well, but unfortunately, they are nevertheless misguided. Any statements in that letter which imply an endorsement of their view were not shown to me at the time I signed and I once again repudiate any such ridiculous claim. I am not releasing this letter immediately for I do not wish to stir up any unnecessary controversy in an already divided Jewish community. I hope that the aforementioned publications will cease to use my name for their purposes and that I will not find it necessary to publish this rebuttal.

”

Having so much material on one man's position is undue weight, which is why i didn't put the full quotes in. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps we can cut down the text. But surely there is nothing wrong with quoting. Shlomke 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some points to consider: The letter he signed and was published in the Jewish press is totally valid as far as wikipedia policy of Attribution. If Soloveitchik did not write and sign the letter, then he would have came out in the public with a real letter repudiating and disqualifying the first. Obviously, this never happened. Now what we have is a letter published by berger supposedly (there is no way to validate this) from Soloveitchik (not signed) stating only that he does not endorse or validate the Meshichist view. Therefore this letter would rightfully be in the "defense" section (vs. "Support"). What I dont understand from you is why have you inserted quotes for a number of other stuff in this article but you did not quote this? In any case I think it fair to compromise and take out some of the letter and leave the main parts. Shlomke 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, and we summarise it, and we can put it in the notes. But if we put the full text in the body then it makes a very long section on Soloveitchik, and in the light of the subsequent letter, it is not really worth it. I thougt it was in the defence section. In truth, this is of historical interest only - Soloveitchik did not defend messianism as we now know, he merely said that they were not heretics.

You cannot question the academic integrity of David Berger - it is nothing short of criminal libel to suggest that this letter is somehow not "real" or question it in any way, it was signed and is genuine. This is a real letter - what could be more real. Any sentient person reading Soloveitchik's letter must at the very least admit that he didn't write the whole thing - do you really think that Soloveitchik would trot out the messianist party line on the rambam and so on? Anyway, you cannot question the authenticity of this letter. If you want to have the authenticity of this letter questioned you need a source that does that. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That Soloveichik did not defend messiansim (and Chabad) is your own interpretation. He did in fact, and there is a source. You must admit there is a big difference between the letter that soloveichick signed and was subsequently publish in a public paper during his liftime, and the one berger produced after he passed. I suggested shortening the letter not summarizing it. Shlomke 18:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look man, this is pointless. Chabad have been trotting out Soloveitchik as a defender for years. Now we have a document repudiating the letter and saying " Any statements in that letter which imply an endorsement of their view were not shown to me at the time I signed and I once again repudiate any such ridiculous claim". I can't put it better than that. It might be my own interpretation, but you need to find a source that responds to Berger's new find, and then you can add it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your still not answering my argument. This is all indeed your own interpretation. The letter is sourced. Much better then Bergers (third hand information about someone else from none other then, "a friend"). Just present the facts the way they are. You cannot say "this confusion is resolved by"... when there is no source for that. Shlomke 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot information about why the rebbe cannot be Moshiach (Some ideas are even quotes from the Rebbe himself!): http://chassidusunlimited.com/goodresolution.html#NO2

--Hernano 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoel Kahn

In this article Yoel Kahn comes off as being anti-moshicist, but this may not be the case. The wikipedia entry on Rabbi Kahn says the opposite. Which is true? (Huberfamily 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

The truth is that Yoel Kahn changes his mind every couple of days. He provides some of the most convincing repudiations of his own arguments in existence (regardless of which side he happens to supporting any given hour of the day).--Meshulam 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He retracted once very famously, I don't know of other occasions, but if there were many other occasions, tell me; TTBOMK I think that's a very unfair characterisation. In any case, the confusion of Huberfamily lies in the utterly vague and meaningless nature of this objectionable neologism, "Meshichist" or "messianist". It is intentionally derogatory, and means, for all intents and purposes, "views that some Chabadniks hold that I think are wierd." But a Chabad Chosid by definition accepts everything the Rebbe says as absolute truth, and there are many, many things that the Rebbe said that without the proper background and context--and especially from a dry, analytical, rationalistic, secularistic perspective of the sort that permeates Wikipedia--seem highly odd, and reasonably so, just like anything taken out of its context can seem odd. The debate within Chabad is not whether these statements should be accepted, but only how these statements are to be understood, and also in what context they should be discussed considering the fact that those with less background will easily misunderstand them, or even seize them maliciously and use them as "dirt" against Chabad, in classic misnagdic style, as is so prevalent on Wikipedia, all in the name of sociologistic objectivity, of course (oooh, everyone pounce on me now for violating WP:AGF. In any case, the prevailing distinction, that there are two "camps", the ones who subscribe to all the supposedly crazy beliefs, and those who don't, is spurious. The reality is that most Chabadniks' views are far more nuanced and can't be so neatly, easily, and crudely pigeon-holed. And Reb Yoel, the more discerning person that he is, is one of these people. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-mosichist sources

I found them in the "Yechi" article.

Third footnote: ^ Sefer Hisvadus 5745 Volume 1 page 465 which corresponds to the Rebbe telling his Chassidim to stop singing the Yechi

Quote from the article.. "On Shabbas Parshas Noach 1992 when some chassidim started to sing a similar song, the Rebbe stopped them and remarked that it was strange that he should remain sitting there. He complained that he should have stood up and left the room, his only deterrent being a desire not to disrupt the brotherly atmosphere of a farbrengen"

The source: Sichos Kodesh Parshas Noach 5752

--24.79.155.111 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag July 2007

I added the tag because I don't have time to copyedit the article right now. I noticed several typos and inaccurate or missing punctuation, and the citation punctuation (citations after punctuation) need to be standardised. Please don't remove the cleanup tag until the deficiencies are addressed. Anchoress 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring Article

I am restoring the article to before the whitewashing executed against the David Berger passages. No reason was given for the whole sale removal of his content. Abe Froman 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality tag on this article? From what I can read, both sides are presented through voluminous direct quotes. Abe Froman 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There were plenty of reasons given for the changes by multiple editors in the talk above and in their edit summaries. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Over one day, with little or misleading edit summaries [2]or discussion, Pinchas wholesale deleted material from Chabad scholar Rabbi David Berger in this article. Please do not dissemble, the lack of edit summaries and discussion belie the intent. Abe Froman 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? I am sure that anything I did was for a good reason. I do not recall doing what you said. I did reorganize stuff, removed some stuff from the intro and reduced the material of some overly quoted people that were given undue weight. But wholesale deleting material from david berger was not one of them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You gave no reasons, or discussion, for the wholesale removal of the Berger and 770 Eastern parkway Chabad Gabbai material. You claim you did not remove this material, yet this is disproved by a simple check of the diffs. [3]This is simply whitewashing the page. You also removed the Sue Fishikoff citations and quotes. Again, no reasons given. Behaviour like this from an admin is sickening. Abe Froman 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You have provided a diff of my reverting your mass changes. Please supply valid diffs. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other editors, just click history [4] and look at Pinchas's actions on 7.27->7.30. He did not provide any justification for his whitewash. There was no prior discussion on Talk, either. This is a simple case of whitewashing. Abe Froman 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN issues?

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 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yaakov Yosef claim

I have heard many claims that the Yaakov Yosef signature is a forgery. 202.161.29.254 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes is almost certainly is, but there are no sources that state this. Lobojo (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. IZAK 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Messianist Flag.JPG

Image:Messianist Flag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to article

I have made a series of changes to the body of the article, that primarily involve (a) Rewording some confusing prose (b) Adding some sourced material that has been removed from the article over time without any discussion on this page or elsewhere, but mainly (c) subdividing the sections to make great chunks of text more readable. Lobojo (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lead

The lead as it stands is very problematic. The lead needs to be a precis of the whole article, whereas now it merely talks about the "prevalence section". I am going to rewrite it, one sentence to each section to see how that looks. Lobojo (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the lead to 4 lines one line on each of (a) Expressions (b) Prevalence (c) History and (d) Response. Lobojo (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The only thing I removed was...

This line:

According to many researchers, while some have believed during the Rebbe's lifetime that Schneerson had the potential to be the Messiah, only a minute vocal fringe group still believe that he is the Messiah, and today, those beliefs have decreased within Chabad.

Based on these sources:

The Heart of Chabad, forgot this one, merely says "these views have subsided". Lobojo (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A movement embracing old-world Orthodox Judaism is alive and thriving in New York City. Merely says that "A small, vocal faction of Lubavitchers believe that Schneerson is the Messiah and revere him as such" but also "Critics of the movement today deride perceived restrictions on women and the cultlike devotion of the messianic faction." Simply not a substantial scholarly source and certainly fails to support what is writen above.

The Rebbe, 10 Years Later Broken link, can be seen here where nothing pertinent in mentioned.

Jewish movement thrives decade after 'Messiah' dies "Judging from a visit to the headquarters' basement synagogue, those proclaiming Schneerson as the Messiah today represent just a fraction of Lubavitch believers. Some who believe he was the Messiah hold he has not died. Others say Schneerson had messianic potential when alive but prefer not to speculate whether he was indeed the Messiah. Out of hundreds of worshipers on a recent morning, a couple dozen or so leaped to their feet to join a dance and chant to up-tempo music, with one man hoisting a yellow banner depicting a crown and the word "Moshiach," Hebrew for Messiah. In interviews, they said Schneerson was alive in body and soul. But Members of a larger group dismissed the dancers as fringe "messianists," adding Schneerson never said he was Moshiach." Again this fails to support what is said, and even the "best bit" minimises the authors own knowledge by admision, and cannot be used to support any such statement above. Apart from the fact that it shows that he has clearly failed to undersatnd what a messiansit flag is!

Hasidic Rapper Strives To Stay Atop the Charts Does not support the statement. Merely refers to people who chant "Yechi" as a fringe group, says nothing about messianism.

As far as I recall there was not much else substantial removed from the acticle, and I support the reinclusion of these sources in an appropriate way. If I removed anything else it was unsourced and I would have noted it in the edit summary.Lobojo (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to complete the move on the Chabad of US and Canada statement, that is now back in. Lobojo (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shach Quote

I removed the ref where Shach calls Schneerson names, and saved the ref in another sentence in the same passage so people can follow the link and make up their own minds. IMO, It also wasn't a very nice thing to say, lacked context, and was inflammatory. Abe Froman (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it off the topic somewhat. Lobojo (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rebbe on the bus.jpg

Image:Rebbe on the bus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chatzkel Sofer shunned?

For a long time the page has claimed, without a source, that Chatzkel Sofer is shunned for his "moderate" view that the Rebbe should no longer be considered Moshiach. This seems like an odd assertion. His articles appear regularly in Kfar Chabad, and COL has started posting weekly shiurim from him, which seems to indicate that he's hardly a pariah. I put a CN on it for a while but didn't get any response, so I've removed it. I'd also like some sourcing for the assertion that Adin Even-Yisroel is no longer a Chabadnik. When is that supposed to have happened? -- Zsero (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groupings

I've made an attempt to rewrite some of this very poorly-written article. The part about the groupings was a complete mess, with positions of some groups attributed to others, prominent people cited for positions opposite to their own (R Levi Ginsburgh is a radical meshichist, but was cited in the section labeled "anti-meshichists", and there was no recognition that all of these classifications are loose and unofficial. I've probably made some mistakes, which I hope knowledgeable editors will correct. But please do not make substantive edits if you don't know enough about the subject. Reading a few newspaper articles or outside reports does not give anything like enogh expertise - they are invariably garbled and confused.

Certainly each subgroup could do with a few prominent examples but I didn't want to put down names without being sure of their exact position. I think R Sholom Ber Levine should be included as a prominent anti- because of his pamphlets on the subject, and R Ginsburgh and R Wolpe should be in there on the meshichist side, and certainly R Yoel must be mentioned somewhere, but it's too much work to get sources for each of these attributions, and they will be needed. -- Zsero (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation and Misinterpretation of "Boreinuniks"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism#.22Boreinuniks.22 misrepresents my views compared to what is stated on my blog this subject : http://rebbegod.blogspot.com or at the article

Lubavitcher Rebbe as a God Haaretz, Saul Sadka, 02.14.07 which is mentioned as one of the references for Chabad Messianism page Besides the fact that I don't generally use the term "boreinu" - "Our Creator" (I fel it is overly theomorphic for my taste in spite various midrashic sources for it) in regards to the [Lubavitcher Rebbe] and thus shouldn't be included among the "boreuniks" it is very clear both from my site and from the haAretz article that I maintain that all theomorphic terms regarding the Rebbe or other tzadikim [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzadik#The_relationship_between_God_and_a_tzadik are meant as educational, or motivational metaphors see for example the FAQ on my RebbeGod blog: http://rebbegod.blogspot.com/2006/01/rebbegod-blog-faq.html or the statement in bold letters near the header at the top of every page of that blog or the haAretz article above for that matter. It also brings no evidence that I (or others mentioned in it) have been ostracized by all as opposed to some of other factions in Chabad. Both of these claims are intentional misrepresentations intended to defame me and other individuals and congregations they refer to and I demand this part of article to be rewritten to correspond to reality. I am granteed alias and treated respectfully at Chabad Synagogue I generally go to Shaloh House Beis Menachem Mendel Russian Jewish Community Synagogue and in many other places.

Including the amended Psak Din (Rabbinic ruling) by Rabbis Ashkenazi (Chief Rabbi of Kfar Chabad) R. Axelrod (member of the Beis Din of Haifa and R. Yurkovitch (a Rosh Yeshivah) stating that it is incorrect to automatically consider people who use theomorphic (see : theomorphism) titles such as "G-d" or "Atzmus" etc. in reference to the Lubavitcher Rebbe King Moshiach to be heretics. One should not presume that whoever uses such titles means them in any way other than a metaphor and even if that is not the case this still doesn't make one a heretic as Rambam's ruling was never meant literally for as we see he treated such people with respect answered their questions etc. see psak din # 1: and the Rebbe's letter thru Igrot Koidesh recieved by Rabbi Nachum Sarychev in response to a question about this psak din

http://bp3.blogger.com/_JJUhsQPYHhQ/R5Qx80UqnNI/AAAAAAAAADA/GQudbWGVbSI/s1600-h/originalpsak.jpg

See Psak Din #2 incorporating parts of the Rebbe's letter and denying that psak din number one was meant to be taken literaly: http://bp0.blogger.com/_JJUhsQPYHhQ/R5Q28EUqnOI/AAAAAAAAADI/E1kFB9JEm-k/s1600-h/Changed+Psak+Din.GIF PS. While I understand the desire of some of the editors to protect the image of Chabad and portray any people deviating too much from this image as crazy heretics believing in silly baseless bobe mayses with no backing in the Rebbe's teachings ostracized by everyone .this is not the case and Halacha , Wikipedia rules , law of the land and common decency (for G-d's sake!) demand them to leave their prejudices, hatreds and delusions behind while editing Wikipedia or find another way to spend time or risk getting sued for slander , libel and defamation of character. Ariel Sokolovsky (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and the sources you've cited. I hope my most recent edit alleviates your concerns. If you want to redeem your reputation, you need to do more to clarify your position . Many people are not up to the task of reading your voluminous writings carefully enough to find these subtle nuances, and it's often difficult to see them without a careful reading. -- Zsero (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)