Talk:Chabad/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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)

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)

Edits to Chabad Institutions section

I fail to see how removing detail [1] 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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Translating into Italian

I'm translating this page into Italian and, let me tell you, it's not a simple task! Unfortunately most images are not transferable to the Italian commons (just the two main Rebbes are available) - I wouldn't mind having some photos to paste onto the translated page... Help anyone...?--Daubmir (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found other images in commons and I'm gonna post them on the Italian page.

One more thing- it's time for Chabad to choose another REBBE!!! --Daubmir (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

No reason to remove CrownHeights.info or Chabad.info (I linked to the English news site) Especially not on ground that it is not official. Since when does Wikipedia include only official sites? And please don't tell me they are blogs either, because that argument won't hold. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "there are 9 Chabad sites which is obviously too much to list all, so we just have to stick to the official ones" is

1. factually incorrect, since 9 external links - although being substantial - is not too much for such a big and central article
2. reeks of a violation of wp:NPOV in determining what are the "official" sites

Debresser (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "if it aint broken, don't fix it"! There are actually only 4 news sites listed at the moment, each lightening its own corner of Chabad and with its own points of view. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, that last IP edit you reverted was actually mine. In the past there has been edit waring among users with each trying to put in THEIR site. Some have been exceptionally obvious in their intent of coming to Wikipedia in the first place like user IzGut. The consensus was that what should be listed are the official Chabad news site(s) (if your disputing something about them being official, please explain) and ONE news site that reports more day to day happenings in Chabad. If your familiar with the Chabad news sites which you probably are, you would know that the first - and arguably the most mainstream - (non official) Chabad news site is shmais.com. I've been linking to shmais.com as that ONE site. But edit waring ensued as to which ONE site that should be, so eventually stopped linking to shmais.com all together, and frankly, I've come to believe that there is no need for it either. You need to think if the content of these sites are relevant to Chabad and Wikipedia I can find you many many sites that are somehow related but it would be abvious that they don't belong here. A site like crownheights.info that uses much of their space reporting car crashes and fires and other nonsense in Crown Heights is hardly related to Chabad. Would you link theyeshivaworld.com to the article Yeshiva or Haredi? See the above section "Links to news sites" for previous discussions about this. Shlomke (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You convinced me. Both the relevance argument as also the consensus you mention are valid arguments. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions

1. Remove the Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus from this page. Even the town Lubavitch lies in Russia, so the Belarus connection is just too far off.
2. I think we should move this article to Chabad-Lubavitch. That is the more encompassing name, which is also mentioned in the lead. Obviously Chabad would be turned into a redirect. One other advantage would be that that would allow for putting more emphasis on the movement there, and make an article about Chabad as a filosophical concept here, if somebody would one day decide to write such an article.
3. Since it seems logical for this page to be visited by Chabadniks/Lubavitchers, I'd like to advertise here the userbox I designed. If it's applicable and you like it, put it on your userpage. It will also add you automatically to the category Chabad-Lubavitch Wikipedians.

{{User:L'Aquatique/Userboxes/ChabadnikLubavitcher}}

This user is a Chabadnik
(Lubavitcher).

I've done #1 yesterday. About #2 I'd like to hear opinions first. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC) It turns out that #2 has been discussed before and the result was the other way around: to move from Chabad-Lubavitch to Chabad. I don't agree, but if this was consensus... Debresser (talk)

Image of Rebbe

The image Image:Rebbe.jpg is not a free-use image, and has been removed by a bot from my userbox Template:User ChabadnikLubavitcher. Isn't there a free-use image of the rebbe? Isn't it possible to get one? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Concepts of chabad philosophy?

Why is there no section on the philosophy of chabad, with separate wikis for each individual concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.85.19 (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This was my idea when thinking of moving this article to Chabad-Lubavitch and then making this Chabad article into an article about the philosophy of Chabad. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

This article needs to discuss the fact that many followers of the late Rebbe believed him to be the Messiah, to the point that some of them sat vigil by his grave waiting for him to rise. Even if this point of view has waned, it was a source of profound division within the Chabad movement, and was seen by some as outright blasphemy. It can't be glossed over. Also, succession after his death was very murky, and that, too, should be addressed. 47hinge (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It does discuss messiahship, etc. Do you have a source for this "sitting vigil" claim? Everyone knows that there was no succession, and the article makes that clear. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Chabad philosophy section

I have removed some unsourced statements and all the information that was not encyclopedic. The central plank of Schneerson (the most famous rabbi of the 20th century by miles) philosophy according to wikipedia is that "jews are not Amish and use TV and radio". This is frankly an insult to him it is so purile.

I am of the view that there is a need for TWO separate articles one on Schneerson's philosophy and one on Chabad's.

I have trawled through the talk pages and the histories and have found some good sourced material that am going to add in to replace this stuff.Lobojo (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Before looking at your edits, I'd like to make one correction. It is not Schneerson's philosophy, it is Chabad philosophy, which is over 200 years old. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I am considering expanding the sections on philoposhy significantly, I think there is room unlimately for spin off articles on Schneerson's philosophy and Chabad philosophy, one is a subset of the other but they are not the same thing. Lobojo (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at your edits, and made some changes as well, specifying my reasons in the edit summaries. Same thing at Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

(As the author (Matt Hirshberg) of one of the sources quoted (The Columbia Journalist article), I'm happy to see this discourse on the misuse of sources. My article was carefully researched and written to give as accurate an account as possible--I had no agenda other than reporting the truth. I did not enjoy seeing my words distorted to support one side or the other in a Wikipedia article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.203.167 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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 [3]

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." [4] 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..." [5]

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 [6]

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

• 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)
• 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.
• The National Geographic feature on chabad states http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature4/index.html "A small, vocal faction of Lubavitchers believe that Schneerson is the Messiah and revere him as such."
• http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=3509 "the messianist camp, whose influence is decreasing"
• http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040629-0500-religion-lubavitch.html "Judging from a visit to the headquarters' basement synagogue, those proclaiming Schneerson as the Messiah today represent just a fraction of Lubavitch believers." "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." --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• http://www.forward.com/articles/hasidic-rapper-strives-to-stay-atop-the-charts/ "fringe group of Lubavitch Jews " --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

The 'Goyim' in Lubavitcher doctrine / thought

I found this statement: "The founder of Lubavitcher Hasidism taught that there is a difference of essence between the souls of Jews and the souls of gentiles, that only in the Jewish soul does there reside a spark of divine vitality. As for the goyim... Zalman's attitude (was): 'Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever." Nunamiut (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did you find it (include sources), and what do you propose to do with it? Debresser (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted a verification or a disqualification by people who have knowledge on the theme, i.e.: people who write on the theme, so I thought this would be a natural place to find such knowledge or get in touch with it. I do not know where the quote originates from, but I guess a quick google would generate some hits. cheers. Nunamiut (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is what we have the Wikipedia:Reference desk for. But the information is almost correct. The only ammend I would make is to add the word "revealed". In Jews the Divine spark is revealed, while in non-Jews it isn't. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, disagree with this presentation of Rabbi Shneur Zalman's teachings. Rabbi Shneur Zalman says clearly (beg. Shaar Hayichud Veho'emunoh) that all created beings contain a divine energy that creates them. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While this worldview could potentially become naively narcissistic or even hatefully paranoid, its worth pointing out the Jewish concept of 'soul' (nefesh, nshama etc.) differs from the Christian concept. The Jewish understanding of soul is multifaceted and refers not only to ones own consciousness, but especially refers to a persons sense of self, that is, ones self-identity. Thus the 'soul' includes not only oneself but also ones relationships with friends and community, even job, and so on. In this wider sense, it is precisely by means of reallife actions, by doing Tora (biblical mitsvot), that a Jewish 'soul' reveals the divine light, via the actions and their altruistic intention. By doing Tora in reallife circumstances, it becomes part of who a Jew really is. In other words, a Jew only reveals the divine spark inherent in the Tora, by doing actions that show compassion for all humans, like Avraham did, and so on for the other mitsvot. All humans have access to divine wisdom, but only the Jewish people have access to the divine Tora, that reveals the divine presence in a distinctive, integrative and balanced way. Haldrik (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alienated Jews?

I have removed this section, and intend to do so again, unless it is re worded. 'Because of its outreach to even the most alienated Jews, Lubavitch has become the one Orthodox group to evoke great affection from large segments of American Jewry.' The word alienated is clearly not NPOV. What exactly are these Jews alienated from? The suggestion is that secular Jews are alienated from Judaism as a religion, rather than Judaism as the history and culture of the Jewish people. If the reverse was stated, i.e. that religious Jews were alienated from secular Judaism, then clearly this would be a value judgement. The section cannot stand as it is, but I am willing to discuss changes. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No reason to remove this. Let's simply discuss here how to rephrase. This phrase has been discussed previously, I seem to remember. But you have a point, so make a proposal. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Schneerson looked to Torah law for the appropriate view of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

I am not sure this is an accurate statement. Besides being uncensored, Schneerson would always say that his main concern was the safety of Jewish and Palestinian life. EhadHaam (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

He said that the safety of the Jews in Israel is dependent on approaching the issue of their safety in accordance with Jewish law. So both ways of putting it are true, because they are connected. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't belong here at all, it's not part of the 'philosophy of chabad', and chabad isn't a political organization, if anything it belongs on MMS' page.Larryyr (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have just come across an interesting letter in MMS'S Igrot volume 15 in which he writes that Chabad has no political affiliation with any party, in any country. I think this supports the above statement by Larryyr. EhadHaam (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It is part of the philosophy of Chabad to turn to the Torah for a Jewish point of view on all matters, including political ones. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, have you got a source for that? If you do, I think such information - together with the above mentioned quote from the igrot, should be included on either the chabad page or MMS page, in the politic section. EhadHaam (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Largest Jewish organization

User:Jayig, who has been recognized by me and other editors as having a pronounced anti-Chabad POV in his editing, has removed the claim that "The organization is believed to be the largest Jewish organization in the world today." This statement was in the lead of this article since March 16, 2011, and the request for a source was added only recently. Jayig removed this claim even though it is good practice on Wikipedia to allow for a reasonable timeframe to provide sources (unless the claim were slanderous in a BLP). Yesterday I had some leisure time and found two sources, which also allowed me to rephrase the sentence a little stronger, see this edit. Jayig, as expected, promptly removed the sentence again, because he doesn't like the reliability of the sources. In my opinion, he is showing unfair behavior (read: showing his known POV) in removing a claim that 1. is harmless, 2. is sourced, and 3. with a little effort can be sourced even better, all of this 4. without allowing for a reasonable time for his fellow editors. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment started with a personal attack, so I didn't bother to read further. Please review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES. That said, the relevant points here are:

1. This unsourced claim has been in the very first paragraph of this article for over 14 months now. One should never revert dubious unsourced claims into the lede of an article, particularly when they've been unsourced for over a year.
2. Your most recent revert edit summary included that claim that The guy wrote a book, so he is a RS. No, someone who runs a public relations company is not a reliable source for the demographics of religious movements. Blogs aren't reliable sources either. Please review WP:RS for more details.

If I see this material re-added to the lede without reliable sourcing, I'll ensure these actions receive appropriate administrative attention. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Apart from my arguments above, I'd like to point out that significantly only Jayig seems to have a problem with this information and its sources. In all of the 14 months it was here without a source and the 3 days it was here with a source, nobody else even said a word. That fact speaks for itself. Debresser (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the information and its source--a business directory and an online newspaper which simply state that Chabad is the largest organization without corroborating that at all. First of all, what do we mean by 'organization'--does that mean religious groups only (denominational organizations and Hasidic sects)? How are we tracking largeness? By number of synagogues operated, or by number of adherents, or what? The World Union for Progressive Judaism, which seems to me to be some sort of Jewish organization at least, claims 1,800,000 members as opposed to Chabad's 200,000; Chabad has more institutions with 3,600 to the WUPR's 1,200. Which is the 'larger organization'? CharlesMartel (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)CharlesMartel

I agree with you. The word largest should be specified. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chabad Holidays

There should be a section for Chabad Holidays: Yud-tes kislev. etc. Saxophonemn (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

For now, there's the sidebar and categories. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has no practical info

I might have missed it, but i failed to find anything about the organizational structure of this "movement", except that "it is based in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York" (the lead). What exactly is based in the Crown Heights, who heads it, etc. remains a mystery.Axxxion (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Info on structure are addressed in the organization section and in the main page Chabad affiliated organizations. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Renewal and Carlebach

I removed these two from the list of group that split of from Chabad, because it were only their leaders but not their followers who split of from Chabad. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, true. But the founders of these groups were Chabad shluchim before they started their own following. I think they should be included, though perhaps the emphasis should be more clearly spelled out. Makes sense? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, I have re-added Carlebach and Schachter noting exactly that. They were exChabad, becoming notable figures who founded their own groups. I also noted that the groups are not related to Chabad. I think I have addressed your concerns in the edit. Unless you have something else to add, please undo the revert. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The groups are not related, so these individuals shouldn't be there! The section is after all called "Offshoot groups". Debresser (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Debresser, perhaps I have not expressed my aim here clearly. Rabbis Carlebach and Schachter were formerly Chabad, later establishing their own groups. This fact is relevant within the context of a) Chabad's influence, and b) Chabad offshoot groups. I noted in the edit and the edit note that the groups are NOT offshoots, but that holds true for the Malachim as well. The Malachim were NOT Chabad offshoots, rather the founder was formally Chabad. Now if we are to keep mention of these groups in the Chabad article, we can either change the subsection header from "Offshoot groups" to Groups whose leaders were once Chabad (or whatever was used in the offshoot page) to clarify that these groups are not offshoots per se but the founders were once Chabad, or we can place a sentence or two about the founding rabbis (who are exChabad) in the "Influence" section. Either way this material is relevant as much as the Malachim are. If the matter is really the wording of the header, that should not stop relevant information to be posted.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, please consider that the Melachim are now a historical footnote, and yet, their founder's Chabad roots are cause to note them as a group who is a Chabad offshoot/group with leader who was exChabad. All the more so for renewal and Carlebach, groups active today. I think the average reader would benefit from the info of these groups founders having Chabad roots. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The malachim, to the best of my knowledge, pray with a nusach Arizal siddur, and learn Tanya. They are a legitimate Chabad offshoot. Carlebach and Schachter were just former Lubavitchers, and that can and should be noted in their respective articles, but there is no need to have it here. The same is even more true for their respective movements. No connection, no inclusion. Please do not try to confuse readers. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, the groups may not be related, but the leaders are. That was what you initially pointed out, and that is why I subsequently modified my edit so you would agree with the addition. Please don't take this as a personal attack of any sort. But I think the hesitation on your part to include these two references of former-Chabad-followers-turned-leaders-themselves has more to do with the fact that the groups who follow these former Hasidim are not Hasidic themselves. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Organization of page

There seems to be a lot of repetition on the page, and much could be summarized rather than written at length. I've done some editing toward that end, but much more should be done. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yoninah, any section in particular? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

I've done some work clarifying the language and adding additional estimates. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy section to new page

The current version of the article has a nice sized philosophy section but there's a problem. Any editor familiar with Chabad philosophy can easily see how more information can justifiably be added as Chabad philosophy covers a range of topics. At what stage do we create its own article? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Note I don't think it is justified right now. But what would qualify? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Update. I've added additional paragraphs, and due to the section's size and range, I've created Chabad philosophy. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Chabad holidays

Chabad holidays were recently removed from the main Chabad article to Chabad customs. I think that is not a good idea, since I for one would not expect to find holidays in an article about customs. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking Debresser's comments into consideration, Chabad customs was changed to Chabad customs and holidays. The reason for the join is twofold, a) neither "topic" is fully explored and warrants their own article, b) both topics are closely related and makes sense to join.

In the main Chabad page, sections follow one another and follow a logical grouping. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new term

I propose a new synonym for Hasids, Chabad, Lubavitch, Breslov, Neturei Karta, "orthodox", ultra-orthodox, frum, whatever - all these nice people are FUNDAMENTAL JEWS--24.203.108.54 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar usage

For those who use the chabad sidebar, what's the best way to make collapsable sections? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Opening section

I made some edits to the opening section. There were numerous repetitions -- there still are some that need to be worked on. I ask other editors to please comment. In general, I think the page needs some work, and it seems like a lot of the information is old and dated to 2006 and 2007. TM (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Shabtai Bloch

Should this article mention his name? From a WP:BLP point of view, I mean.

Also, I remember that situation. Another Chabadnick with an opposite political agenda gave (what is likely to have been false) information to the Israeli Shabak. He was released after a few days (I remember 2-3, but I read somewhere it was 5 days). No charges were made. Is this whole paragraph not a WP:BLP violation?

Let's remove it till there is consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, note that ithe NYT source has a "Correction" at the bottom, denying that he is a Chabadnick. That is not true, he is, but he is no rabbi and certainly no leader in Chabad. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Haaretz, The Forward, The Times of Israel and the Guardian have all covered the horrifying testimony of the Chabad child sexual abuse that went on in Australia. It's not just that it took place, but that the religious authorities protected each other instead of protecting the children, and are continuing to protect the pedophiles. This needs to be covered in a prominent place, not shoved into a separate "controversy" article---doing that would be "covering up" just like these rabbis did. The article contains info on when Chabad itself was a victim years ago at the hands of the Russians. Now we need to cover where Chabad is creating victims and protecting their abusers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs)

Stop attacking the subject using words like "Horrifying testimony". Caseeart (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman has crated a new section called "Legal; issues", in which he gave a very good representation of the facts of this widely infamous scandal. And well done for that! However, I think that when we are talking about a wordlwide movement of some 250 years old, this is not lead material, and that section that VanEman wrote is completely adequate and sufficient, without the need to have it duplicated in the lead.

I must add that I sense in his post above and in his edit summary when he reverted my undo "No protection for pedophiles and those who protect them" that this user is at least partly motivated by the indignity of the case, or other personal motivations, and I think that if the question is reviewed objectively and calmly, there is no need or justification for a paragraph in the lead about this news item. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, it is not what we think, it is what is appropriate. Controversies that have garnered world-wide attention and believe it or not, the first instance of some people hearing of Chabad, are notatble for the lead. A quick mention is the usual way. The lead does need trimming, but censorship is not usually done on wikipedia. Murry1975 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Watergate scandal was a crucial event in Richard Nixon's life, and has 2 sentences in the lead of his article. We are talking about a worldwide movement of some 250 years here. I think this issue does not need trimming its length in the lead, it has no place in the lead at all.

This is a news item and not something many will remember in another month. Moreover, I almost haven't heard of it here in Israel. This is a local issue, which for some has a lot of emotional value, and we at Wikipedia, when writing an encyclopedia, should take that into account, and not give the issue overdue attention. By which in this case I mean mentioning it in the lead of the Chabad article.

I do not understand what you mean by "censorship is not usually done on Wikipedia". I remind you that there is an extensive paragraph about this in the "Legal issues" section. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, editor who claims others are emotionally invovled. I will re-add and we can trim from there. 20:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murry1975 (talk • contribs)

I strongly protest this step of yours!

1. I reverted per WP:BRD and you can not claim any consensus at this time for restoring the long version. So far consensus is 2:1 against a long text in favor of a short text, 1:2 against a short text in favor of no text. So you can not restore the long version.
2. There is no justification in Wikipedia procedures for not first doing the trimming and then placing a finished product in the article. This is not the way editing works!
3. I see a possible misuse of implied power in your revert, since you know that per WP:3RR I can not undo it, even though you yourself agreed the current paragraph is not proper. Note, I do not accuse you of doing so on purpose, I just point out the fact.

Please self-revert this restore of the long paragraph to the lead, or feel free to trim it within the next few minutes. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you cant trim it either, as per 3rr. But you have a COI with the topic, so maybe you should calm down. Lets discuss the trimming. Murry1975 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a POV, not a COI, let's make that very clear. In this case, however, my complaint to you is only procedural. I ask you again to undo the revert of my undo, per, among others, your own arguments. You have not replied to the procedural argument at all.

Calling for me to do the trimming is strange, to say the least, since I have already stated my opinion, that there should be no such paragraph at all in the lead.

It was far too early in the discussion to decide on restoring or trimming. Per WP:BRD you should have left the previous consensus version. I ask you now to undo your mistake till such time as a more solid consensus will emerge. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED. And WP:IDLI. And I dont have a COI or POV. As per brd, there is no time limit, but as you are emotional about this point, I would ask you to step back and calm down. Murry1975 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED can not apply, since there is a whole paragraph about this subject. WP:IDLI is just your guess, and in this case an incorrect one, because how would you know if I like or not like it? I'd say the assumption should be that I like anything that helps prevent child-abuse. If I am emotional, then it is only because of your undo of my undo, which is clearly against procedure. Why should I roll over and play dead, when I can argue with you and try to make you see reason.

In any case, now that I see I can not make you seek reason, I will post at WP:ANI. My official notification, as demanded by procedure, will appear on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Australian sex abuse case does not belong in the lead because it relates to an individual Chabad community institution and is not a movement wide incident. Echoing User:Debresser, the Chabad movement is 250+ years old, with thousands of community centers across the globe. The Australian case may be added in full to the Australian Chabad page, and it may be mentioned briefly here alongside the movements response. Otherwise we have a serious WP:UNDUE issue here where an individual local incident appears in a general movement wide article. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

VanEman -Stop spamming Chabad articles with your Negative POV. Why is this more relevant than every incident in the past 200 years. First go add another 500 pages of every other neutral incident that ever happened. Then go and add some of your POV attack material. I already specified in the edit summary various rules you are violating Caseeart (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Break for WP:JUDAISM input

Caseeart: You should stop trying to censor information that is timely, has received international press attention, is factual and well documented in respected newspapers. If Chabad has responses to the mishandling of the abuse cases in addition to firing or recommending the resignation of authorities involved, then please document those responses in the article. I hope there are some! VanEman (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the point Caseeart is trying to make is that these legal issues are not related to Chabad as an international Jewish movement, but rather concern specific communities and people, and as such should not be mentioned in this article, but rather in the articles about those communities and people. I think he does have a point here. The argument is rather related to the argument I gave above why these issues are not lead material, namely, that this article is about a 250 old world-wide Jewish movement and these incidents are simply not relevant enough for the lead. The same point may be made about the article in general. I think we perhaps need a broader discussion to assess this question. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Timely has nothing to do with it. Go and create a neutral 500 page article on every incident about every institution in Chabad over the last 200 years and then go and add this attack information. Also Debresser is right that this is a group of 200,000 people. This article is about the group not individual cases. Caseeart (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have asked editors at WT:JUDAISM for their input here, suggesting that "this material is perhaps not fit for this article, or should be moved to Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies", as per my above stated opinion. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree here with Caseeart and Debresser on this point. Possibly—possibly—it rates a mention in the main article. (I don't really think so, but I could concede that point.) If so, I would combine the sections for "Controversies" and "Legal Issues" and put it there. But the issue here is the materiality of these events to the overall Chabad movement. And, frankly, it just doesn't rate.

Consider, for a moment, the article President of the United States. It certainly mentions the possibility of impeachment, and mentions the two Presidents who have been impeached in history. It does not say (in this article) why these two particular Presidents were impeached—because those controversies are not material to the office of President of the United States. So, here, these issues are not relevant to the Chabad movement as a whole. [If there were an article on, say, Chabad-Lubavitch in Australia (there is not, at least when I write this), it probably would be relevant there.]

In my view, only one controversy concerning Chabad is really material enough to cover here: the messianist issue. Personally, I am satisfied with how that is covered here. But that controversy involved (involves?) a material fraction of the Chabad world, and led to some very serious discussion about whether or not a portion of the Chabad world was actually in a schism outside the normative framework of Judaism. (Please, don't reargue the point here, that's not why I mention this.) So that controversy achieves a level of materiality with respect to the overall Chabad movement that demands some coverage here. This issue? Tiny in comparison—and believe me, I am no defender of people using religious positions to hide sexual (or other) abuse, rather the contrary. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the matter can be handled in the same way that "sexual abuse" and its "cover-up" has been handled in the article about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has existed for something like 1700-2000 years depending on who's counting. The sexual abuse matters that go from 1980 to the present are covered in one paragraph in the main article but then link to another separate article. Of course, that separate article is now longer than the main article about the Catholic Church. But at least it keeps people from worrying that one issue is getting too much coverage in the main article. Because the cover-up of sexual abuse by Chabad leaders has received wide coverage in Jewish news around the world (US, Israel and Europe), it needs to stay. It is not simply a local issue but one that is receiving international attention. VanEman (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The importance of the Catholic Church in the world, and the extent of the problem within the Church, make that a far more material issue there than here. Still, since I want to find some common ground here—and because the last thing I am looking to do is to cover up a serious and important problem in Chabad (and elsewhere in the Jewish world)—I can live with your suggestion, provided you do this in a way that tries not to tar the whole movement with a single brush. I cannot, however, endorse any mention in the article lead whatsoever. That would not be appropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The section mentions two incidents. There is no mention of a world-wide effort to cover up, or to prevent the cover up, of such incidents in the Chabad movement in sources, like there is for the Catholic church. Therefore, I see no room to have these incidents in this article. International attention to a local issue is not the same as an international issue! Debresser (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Van-Eman calm down. There are 10'000s of Neutral articles and publications on individual incidents of Chabad and it's individual institutions - Non of that belongs in this article. Regarding your Catholic Church attempt There is not a single mention in the Catholic Church article about an individual institution. The small mention about the Church as a whole might be a result 30 year period where vast percentage of media coverage on the Catholic Church in general has been over cover-ups. Even if there were to be that in the Catholic Church the article would contain such individual information - the argument "Other stuff exists" (WP:OSE) is weak and there is no comparison with the articles and coverage to the Catholic Church. I want to add to StevenJ81's comment - Maybe add this to Australia's wikipedia article because there was a case of abuse in Australia. Obviously that would be ridiculous because this is about an individual institution.

The same is about the info that you added about an individual lawsuit against a single individual (or group) has nothing to do with the Chabad Article. Maybe at it to the Los Angeles article because it happened in LA[7]. I understand that you are passionate and angry - move your anger somewhere else.

Also please stop falsely attacking and accusing me in the edit summary. Caseeart (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Debresser: I appreciate your willingness as a Chabnik and a rabbi to protect and promote your religious movement. But on this matter I think you need to remove yourself as not objective. Your POV is not at all neutral. VanEman (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me just repeat what I already wrote on your talk page

I have no COI nor a POV. I am actually quite offended by the suggestion. I am an experienced editor of 7 years, and have edited in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines all those years, even when my personal feelings lay elsewhere. As I have stated before, if I would have a POV, it would be on the side of exposing child-abusers. I come only with good arguments, as my talkpage posts prove clearly. Another proof of my high editing standards is that I am not trying to remove the paragraph by edit warring, rather opened a discussion about it, while asking for input from other editors. But you insists on adding more and more information to this paragraph. Information that is really not important at all. You must come to respect that you can have your way, but must abide by consensus of the Wikipedia community. Your edit warring is unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I loath your cheap attempt at discrediting me by ways of personal attacks and unfounded assumptions, rather than replying to the objections raised by me and other editors. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015: The latest on the Chabad child sexual abuse case in Australia. Looks like it's becoming more than a local issue. First, evidence and testimony showed that when Chabad found out one of the sexual abuse perpetrators might get caught by police, they helped him get out of the country. Later he was arrested and jailed for abusing a child in the US. So if perpetrators are being helped to move to other countries to escape, the global Jewish community is at risk. Second, the member of the Australian Parliament representing the area is Philip Dalidakis, and he has sent an open letter to the Jewish community saying not only should all the leaders in Chabad resign who had any knowledge of the sexual abuse and failed to report it, but he clearly says it's not just a matter for the local rabbis to handle. He says: "The Yeshivah Centre, and the Chabad-Lubavitch movement which controls it, must accept corporate responsibility." So I think this is going to go global. VanEman (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

VanEman Who is this "Chabad" who "helped him get out of the country"? What international conspiracy you are referring to? Or did he simply have some friends abroad, like every Chabadnik (and Jew) wordlwide? Some Philip guy who is simply misguided, and seems to think that there is some central Chabad leadership people answer to, does not make this an international case. Please start seeing things in proportion, and don't try to blow up a local scandal (however much you may care about it) into an international crisis. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Debresser: Here is news from Jerusalem Post about Rabbi Pinchus Feldman's testimony: "senior Chabad rabbi in Australia apologized for letting down victims of abuse and admitted to having failed to report that an accused molester was planning on fleeing the country, in testimony before a government commission on Thursday.

Speaking before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Sydney’s Rabbi Pinchus Feldman said that “we are deeply sorry that you have suffered abuse and that the Yeshiva Center in New South Wales failed in protecting you.” Do you think Rabbi Feldman was lying when he said "the Yeshiva Center in NSW failed to protect you"? I think you should read the testimony or watch the hearings on line before you accuse anyone else of inventing conspiracy theories. VanEman (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Ah, yes, and the testimony at the Royal Commission shows that The Yeshiva didn't simply keep mum on the accused (now convicted) perpetrator, David Kramer: "During his plea hearing, the court heard that in 1992, once Kramer’s offending became known, the management of Yeshivah College offered to pay for the teacher’s passage to Israel if he left immediately. He did and police were never contacted." http://montrealjewishnews.com/?p=1641 VanEman (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer the questions. What is the international conspiracy here? The second issue you ignored completely. I hope, because you agree that I am right. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, what's international about the responsibility is that the HQ of the Chabad movement are in NYC and they did nothing to stop the abuse, or stop the punishment of those who went to the police or change the culture, as Dalidakis recommends. They continue to support a "mesirah" culture, punishing victims and reporters of crimes. IF we need to show the Chabad problems with sexual abuse in NYC, then so be it. Finally, the HQ of Chabad finally made a statement about Australia, bland and limited as it may be:

"We commend the efforts of the Royal Commission, and trust that their involvement in this matter will not only address the immediate situation, but that they will provide broader recommendations as well that will be instrumental in ensuring a safe, sound and positive environment within all schools. We welcome and value their insight.

The decision on the part of the victims to come forward cannot have been an easy one. But it was the courageous and correct one. For in their willingness to do so, they have contributed to a heightened awareness that will prevent other children from falling victim. The suffering and consequences of such abuses are often life-long, and as such, every instance of prevention is a life saved.

In our ethos, every life is a world. Every child represents a world, worthy and deserving of our greatest investment towards their safety and nurture. The victims who have stepped forward to report abuse have surely saved many, many lives, each of them a world unto itself. For this, we applaud them. We pray that they will find healing and the strength to move on. G-d bless them with goodness and kindness."

Debresser, I think that since Chabad gives thanks to the Royal Commission and compliments the victims for their bravery in speaking out, we should also make sure the story gets coverage in the Chabad section.

The name "Chabad HQ" is loosely used to describe the place where the Lubavitcher Rebbe used to live. It is not like an army HQ, where the leaders of the Chabad organization are. Every rabbi has autonomy. The people in NY had no responsibility for, and likely no knowledge of, what is going on in Australia. Nor were they supposed to "do something about it". It is nice of them to have come forward with a statement, but that does not make this a general Chabad issue yet. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Hasidic consistency

I see various spelling and capitalization styles for "hasidic" throughout this article, including "Chasidic," "hasidic," "chasidic," "chassidim" (note two s's)... etc. This is an egregious editorial oversight. Someone should figure out (or initiate a rousing debate about) what WP's standard spelling for this is. MosheEmes (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It is Hasid. The problem is that both editors and sources use a variety of spellings.

As long as both spellings are acceptable, I don't think there is a guideline that insists on consistency of spelling, even in one article. But have a look around, perhaps you can find such a guideline.

This is the kind of problem we find in many articles with many words, and usually this is ignored, in favor of more valuable edits. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality scale

How often can an article be reviewed as per quality. Are we sure this is still a B class article? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You can list it for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Assessment. I don't think there is a rule how long to wait between assessments. I didn't see any restrictions at WP:ASSESS. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive older threads

How do we have the older threads on this page archived? Consensus? Specifically, I refer to all the discussions that are older than one year! I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ordering an archivation bot to visit this page from time to time is easy enough. If the page is not manageable the way it is, then I could do this. Who thinks that is the case? Debresser (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that archivation was installed on this page, just that there was a problem with it. I think I fixed that in my previous edit to this page. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Racism and hate

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/07/why-is-the-us-honoring-a-racist-rabbi/

Why isnt there any mention of Chabad's Jewish supremacism and xenophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.249.155 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is non-existent... Debresser (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as non-existent. deisenbe (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you can back that up with reliable sources (to the exclusion of the usual hate sites), then please feel free to add it to the article. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Current Leader/Rebbe of Chabad

I think the way the article currently is written, is in a POV slanted towards an incorrect view on the actual current state of affairs in/with Chabad.

Why is there many mentions/implications of the lack of current leadership by Rabbi Schneerson?:

Section - History, Subsection - Leadership

1. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1994)

2. Even after his death, many continue to revere him as the leader of the Chabad movement.

Section - Offshoot groups, Subsection - Disputes over succession

3. The death of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson – Following the death of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Chabad rebbe, an attempt was made by one follower to form his own group. Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutch assumed the title of rebbe of Liozna (after the town where Rabbi Shneur Zalman first led the Chabad movement). This attempt failed to gain broad support, and it is unclear whether Deutch continues to claim the title of rebbe.

Section - Activities, Subsection - Publishing, Subsubsection - Internet

4. Their last leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was the most video-documented Jewish leader in history.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

These are the ones I have noticed so far.

So I think they should more accurately state: (I made the changes in bold to easily point what changes I'm trying to advocate here)

1."Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–Present)"

2. Even after his death, the group continues to revere him as the leader of the Chabad movement.

3. The death of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson – Following the death of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Chabad rebbe, an attempt was made by one follower to form his own group. Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutch assumed the title of rebbe of Liozna (after the town where Rabbi Shneur Zalman first led the Chabad movement). This attempt failed to gain broad support, and it is unclear whether Deutch continues to claim the title of rebbe. The current state of affairs lies in the leadership remaining under Rabbi Schneerson's command, with the group continuing to follow his instructions and directives as given prior to June 12, 1994 (3 Tammuz 5754).

4. Their current leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is the most video-documented Jewish leader in history.

or

4. Their current leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was the most video-documented Jewish leader in history.

or

4. Their leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is the most video-documented Jewish leader in history.

or

4. Their leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was the most video-documented Jewish leader in history.

Regardless of political affiliation and whether one believes that chabads ideals are correct, or whether Rabbi Schneerson is/was moshiach etc... With all that in mind the fact remains that he is still the currently accepted leader by the group and therefore should be acknowledged as such. Although June 12, 1994 (3 Tammuz 5754) may have been believed originally, to be the end of his reign. Since then, now more then 20 years later it should be crystal clear Rabbi Schneerson remains the current leader of the "Chabad" group.

Besides any grammar, spelling or other english language mistakes I may have made in the above (I make no claim of english mastery) I would like to hear if any agree or oppose what I wrote as when I tried making the above changes, it kept being reverted by a user so I bring the matter here as it seems a case of POV currently in the article whereas the way I outlined to update it would be more fairly accurate and NPOV.

I take some slight offense to the explanation message to my first revert by a user which only said "messianic crap". When i reverted that he again reverted it and wrote something coherent and not so clearly biased so I decided to move the issue here before starting a edit war. Also I posted on his page in case he misses this and I more clearly wrote my views and questions to his views there as this is meant for an unbiased NPOV result for the page and not bringing out personal opinions.Howdy770 (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

You posted about these same subjects on my talkpage, let me copy my reply here.

1. There is no leader of Chabad at present. That is a fact.
2. There is a large segment of Chabad who consider the Rebbe to still be the (spiritual or material) leader of the group. But not more than a large segment, not the whole group. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is it a fact that there is no leader. If our looking for sources the book: The Rebbe’s Army INSIDE THE WORLD OF CHABAD-LUBAVITCH By SUE FISHKOFF

and I quote: " This is Chabad-Lubavitch, the 250-year-old Brooklyn-based Hasidic movement that pundits predicted would collapse following the death in June 1994 of its seventh and last Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Schneerson, or, as his followers call him, the Rebbe, had been the heart and soul of Chabad for forty-three years, its spiritual leader as well as its intellectual and organizational fulcrum. He shepherded Chabad from a small postwar community of Russian-born Hasidim into a worldwide, highly public movement as well known in Congress as in Crown Heights Brooklyn....But in January of 1994, the frail ninety-one-year-old Rebbe lay dying in Manhattan's Beth Israel Medical Center. He left no children and had designated no heir to take up the reins of his international empire. Around his sickbed swirled succession speculations and rumors of power-grabbing, complicated by the emergence of an almost desperate messianic strain among some of his followers that threatened to tear the movement apart. But it didn't. Today, Chabad is stronger, bigger, richer, and more popular than ever, with more than 3,800 emissary couples stationed in 45 U.S. states and 61 foreign countries, dedicated to bringing Jews back to Judaism. It's almost as if the movement forced a shot of adrenaline into its collective arm after Schneerson's death, just to prove--to the Jewish world and to itself--that his legacy would survive him. "All the 'ologists thought we'd run to California and jump off a cliff when the Rebbe left us, or shave off our beards," says Rabbi Yosef Langer, Chabad emissary in San Francisco. "But they don't understand the relationship of a Hasid to his rebbe....We're carrying on the Rebbe's revolution," says one Lubavitch woman in her early twenties, who moved from Brooklyn with her new husband to establish a Chabad operation in Russia's Far East....That "revolution" began in 1950, even before Schneerson took over Chabad's helm from his father-in-law, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe."

Very clearly whether or not ones personal beleif requires a physical person to be a leader, Rabbi Schneerson remains to this day the leader, driving force behind the Chabad movement even now more then 20 years since June 12, 1994 (3 Tammuz 5754). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdy770 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 70.192.68.69 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

That text mentions his death and legacy. So you just proved my point, that he is not the movement's leader. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot infer from the above article that "despite" the events of June 12, 1994 (3 Tammuz 5754) he still remains very much the leader. I will bring another source. Chabad.org is the main website for chabad and is run under the official auspices of the leadership of chabad. Here is a direct quote from an article posted on June 22, 2007 regarding this very issue. Here are the first two paragraphs:

"In the weeks following the June 12, 1994 passing of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, many could be forgiven for forecasting the global network of Chabad-Lubavitch adherents and emissaries as a dying movement.

But in the 13 years since the Rebbe's departure, not only has the Chasidic movement – known both for its uncompromising adherence to Jewish law and its equally unswerving commitment to cater to each and every Jew, regardless of religious observance – grown, but it's demonstrated that the Rebbe is still very much its leader."

The link to this article where you can read the full article is: http://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/534279/jewish/Since-its-Leaders-Departure-Chabad-Lubavitch-Expands.htm

Note the clear and impossible to missunderstand words at the end of the section I quoted. it's demonstrated that the Rebbe is still very much its leader. How much more is necessary to show Rabbi Schneerson is still regarded as the current leader by the group themselves. I see you write on your page Debresser "This user is a Chabadnik (Lubavitcher)." Please tell me what community of chabad does not hold the rebbbe as the current leader? Which Lubavitch schools no longer focus their Hasidic curriculum around his talks and teaching. What in Chabad is not based on his policies and anything he stood and spoke for. You also write you are a father, do your kids go to chabad schools? if yes please ask them simply "Who do you think/Who is the current leader (dare i even say) / rebbe of chabad / lubavitcher chasidim today?" and if they answer anything other then "The Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson" I will be shocked and would love to know what yeshiva, seminary etc... under the "Chabad" umbrella espouses that belief. I'm not talking about a meshichist belief, I went to Detroit, home of the Anti's and no self respecting knowledgable member of that hanhala or even bochur would say that anyone but the rebbe is the leader of chabad today, of this generation the last generation of galus the first generation of moshiach as was said over and over by the Rebbe.

Yes there are ignorant people who will say just about anything but show me one recognised authority accepted within chabad that will make any claim other then the Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson remains as the current leader of chabad.

Please I would really like to hear why even just you, but really anyone would say that anyone but Rabbi Schneerson is the current leader of Chabad. Howdy770 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

I have little patience and time to explain the obvious. Let's see if anybody else is willing to talk some sense into you. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to do nothing other then remove my posts and make unsubstantiated claims. I once again put back the edits I mentioned above and quoted in the references my source, using the already mentioned Chabad.org wich to quote from the Chabad page on wikipedia "The Chabad movement publishes a wealth of Jewish material on the internet. Chabad's main website Chabad.org, is one of the first Jewish websites and the first and largest virtual congregation. It serves not just its own members but Jews worldwide in general." I would like to hear others opinions as well and more then just your opinions before you revert the changes I made. Howdy770 (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

I feel that you are misinterpreting and therefore misrepresenting those sources, so in accordance with Wikipedia rules, I feel I have to undo your edit till such time as you can show a clear consensus for it. Debresser (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I will say it again, I am open to hearing community feedback but your reverting of an edit with a reliable source and rationale or reference to your version other then saying I am "misinterpreting and therefore misrepresenting those sources," and then saying " in accordance with Wikipedia rules, I feel I have to undo your edit" which is clearly against Wikipedia's policy in:

[All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]]

(Once my edit was challenged I then provided my source "But in the 13 years since the Rebbe's departure, not only has the Chasidic movement – known both for its uncompromising adherence to Jewish law and its equally unswerving commitment to cater to each and every Jew, regardless of religious observance – grown, but it's demonstrated that the Rebbe is still very much its leader.")

The footnote then reads: Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

So until I hear more from the rest of the community or Deberesser "articulates the specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia" beyond merely stating "you are misinterpreting and therefore misrepresenting those sources" I will revert it back, as it should be. Howdy770 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

After the message on my talk page from an editer claiming im violating Wikipedia:Disruptive editing I will refrain from reverting for a few days and hope to see others add their voice to the discussion as I don't think it will get any further just between the 2 of us currently here. Howdy770 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. However, the discussion above is so long that is hard to see what the question is. If it is whether many, but not all, members of Chabad still consider the late Rebbe Schneerson to be the leader, then the answer is certainly yes. If it is over what exact wording to use to express that, I would prefer fewer choices to choose between. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was very short in my replies, as opposed to Howdy770, whose lengthy posts wear me out as well.

My point is that a dead person can not be the leader of an organization. It is as simple as that.

Furthermore, I am an adherent of this organization, and can testify to the fact that although some still do consider him to be the spiritual leader of this organization, in some form or the other, others do not.

Also, the source specifically mentions "legacy" and "carrying on", which choice of words reinforces my conclusion rather than Howdy770's. Debresser (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The point/edit I've been trying to make is not whether Rabbi Schneerson is alive or dead. Rather it is whether the group, "Chabad" themselves as a whole consider him still the current leader today.

While I agree it is not the norm to find someone to be considered the leader of a group post mortem. Yet the distinction of who a group considers is their leader, is based on who they themselves follow/believe is their leader (especially in a religious group). I did provide a source to show they still consider him the current leader

Source: " But in the 13 years since the Rebbe's departure, not only has the Chasidic movement – known both for its uncompromising adherence to Jewish law and its equally unswerving commitment to cater to each and every Jew, regardless of religious observance – grown, but it's demonstrated that the Rebbe is still very much its leader. " This is drawn from Chabad's own main website. (I quote the whole paragraph so there is no feeling of misquoting it out of context)

I still await some explanation of why this is not a valid source or is "misinterpreting and therefore misrepresenting it" (as Debresser states above) as well as the source/reference for Debresser's statement. Other then his personal opinion, as wikipedia is not a place for expression of personal beliefs or research.

Howdy770 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

I think the phrase "the Rebbe is still very much its leader" is not to be understood literally. I think it means that Chabad as an organization, and individual rabbis as parts of that organization, still draw inspiration from his personality. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Chabad/Archive 10 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." It first needs to be remembered that providing a reliable source for a proposition satisfies verifiability, but that verifiability is merely a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion (see WP:ONUS). That having been said, it needs to be remembered that our goal here is to write an encyclopedia for the general public to use. Referring to Schneerson as both being dead and to generally refer to him as the current leader would be unnecessarily confusing for the general public. It may (or may not) be that it could be asserted somewhere in the article that they, or many of them, or some faction of them or some such consider or regard him to still be their leader, but that's not what's in dispute here at the moment and I limit this opinion to what is now in dispute.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your point regarding possible community confusion is valid, however I don't feel the proper response is to (assuming consensus agrees Chabad considers him the current leader) have incorrect information showing instead.

Being that there is only one reference to his death in the main article until the end where it mentions it in the section "Disputes over succession". As this is the page on Chabad as a gorup not their leaders personal life stories. My thought is then update the leadership part to say something like:

"Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–Present),” and have it end with “He is commonly referred to as "the Lubavitcher Rebbe", or simply "the Rebbe". “ This would be deleting the current refference in that paragraph to his death and leave that subject to the later section "Disputes over succession”. (Especially since the topic at hand is leadership of Chabad not the life of Rabbi Schneerson, another page for that already exists.) Thereby eliminating the confusion caused by the seemingly contradictory statement of death and leadership.

Then address the issue later by the "Disputes over succession" section, and go into greater detail on the elements of the situation. Ex: "The death of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson – Following the death of…..it is unclear whether Deutch continues to claim the title of rebbe. (adding to to the current end) Currently the group continues to believe that the leadership remains under Rabbi Schneerson's command, with the group continuing to follow his instructions and directives as given prior to June 12, 1994 (3 Tammuz 5754). However outside opinions maintain that there is no leader of Chabad at present. Yet all acknowledge that there is a large segment of Chabad who consider the Rebbe to still be the (spiritual or material) leader of the group to this day.”

The above is an example of how to fix the current article (obviously not perfect and I would love contributions to word it better and make this a great accurate NPOV wikipedia article, should the consensus be that Chabad as a whole does still currently hold Rabbi Schneerson as their leader. I apologize that I could not put my thoughts into a shorter statement.

This brings us back to the disagreement at hand: Is Rabbi Schneerson considered the current leader of "Chabad" by the group as a whole (obviously there will always be one or two who claim to be part of a group yet not actually align with the groups positions) or not. I feel I have brought a sufficient source in support that he is and would like a response articulating specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). As well as a verified source showing the group maintains a different belief. Otherwise I think the edit should be put back in and we can discuss the best way how to do so. Howdy770 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

In simple words, you do not accept the 3rd opinion, and decided to wear us down with another lengthy post. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, I accepted his point but do not think he addressed the disagreement or that his proposed solution was ideal. Therefore clarified the disagreement and how it would be relevant based on his point. Howdy770 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

Of course. See WP:TE. Debresser (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Again I feel TransporterMan missed the point of what we the disagreement is about and your decision to never explain yourself or back up your statements on this issue. You continuously refer to my edits as vandalism, and continue to challenge the reliability of my sources with no explanation besides saying "misinterpreting, misrepresenting, etc...". Instead of accusing others of tendentious editing "WP:AOTE". Please just address the issue at hand and articulate the specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia , as well as a source for your opinion. Howdy770 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Howdy770

You are the only one who is not happy with the present text. Also, please see WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. It is absurd to describe someone dead as the current leader of a movement - absurd, and very misleading for the reader. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150708205054/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_re/religion_today_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_re/religion_today_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150609163410/http://chabadinfo.com/index.php/jq/css/ui-lightness/jq/js/?url=newsnew_en&string=tag_Chof%20Beis%20Shvat to http://www.chabadinfo.com/index.php/jq/css/ui-lightness/jq/js/?url=newsnew_en&string=tag_Chof%20Beis%20Shvat
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150503052544/http://www.pbs.org/alifeapart/res_film.html to http://www.pbs.org/alifeapart/res_film.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I call BS

"Oppression in Russia" section has no reliable citations. All from Chabad sources. Anti-Commie propaganda. I'm blanking it. I'm sure someone will revert it despite lack of sources, but whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is right, I reverted it. For two reasons. 1. It is reliably sourced. 2. Your edit summary and post here suggest a POV. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

1. No it's not. 2. So what? You're saying you don't have any biases of your own while editing? Whether or not it's motivated by a particular point of view doesn't change the fact that the sources are complete crap, in service of the original author's own POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Why do you say the source is not reliable according to Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline? 2. Having a POV is fine, but editing because of it is called pointy editing, and that is not okay. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, see, unlike most editors here I don't appeal to Wikipedia policies to attempt to justify edits. That it is unreliable to cite some blogs and random webpages associated by X to authenticate the statement that "X was oppressed by Y" seems self-evident. I'm guessing if I went and tried sourcing random pro-Palestinian blogs to justify a statement on an Israel or Palestinian-related article that "Israel has oppressed the Palestinians" that it would be swiftly deleted, mostly because there are editors highly unsympathetic to that viewpoint actively monitoring the page. But, here, where the article is being edited mostly by people sympathetic to the subject, it passes muster. See, this is the issue with Wikipedia-- it assumes that most people can effectively separate their viewpoint from editing and can produce truly neutral and objective content, which is patent nonsense. While the collaborative editing of Wikipedia and its guidelines generally produces reliable content, one can frequently find questionable material simply because some editors have managed to convince the majority that their edits are NPOV and comply with Wikipedia's guidelines while the opposing/rival editor(s)' don't, all the while "Wikipedians" engage in the grand self-delusion that their behavior is totally objective and fair. Bottom-line, you can link to all the Wikipedia policies you want but those sources are crap and anyone with a brain should be able to see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser revert of 00:02, 25 December 2015

@Debresser:

• "Don't like the tone of the new text" is not a reason for a revert. Please elaborate or alternatively, after reading the rest of my comment, restore my edit.
• The jewocity site should probably never be allowed as a source anywhere anytime on wikipedia, as it self-describes itself as "The Largest Online Jewish Business Directory and Marketplace", and titles its website "Jewish Classifieds". Use of the source would seem to a violation of WP:RS.
• Neither of the sources offered support the claims in the sentence as self-researched data. One is a court reporter reporting on a court case, the other is a business marketing book unabashedly slanted to promoting and marketing Israel and Chabad as "brands".
• The statement is contradicted elsewhere in the article, in section Chabad#Demographics. Compare the quality of the sources cited.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Boruch.

To reply to your comments:

• If the tone of the text is not encyclopedical or neutral, that is a reason to revert.
• Even if jewocity is not a good source, but that statement had two sources. I think it shouldn't be hard to find even more sources.
• There is no requirement that statements be self-resourced. The fact that a reliable source uses the information is enough. In addition, you have no proof that the statement wasn't self-resourced.

To add some critique of the text you wrote:

• The statement that Chabad outreach is aggressive doesn't sound neutral.
• It isn't sourced.
• The statement that Chabad outreach is effective isn't sourced.
• The statement that Chabad is know because of it outreach isn't sourced.

Comparison:

As you see, you introduced three unsourced statements, and it doesn't sound neutral. I prefer a neutral statement with two sources, even if one of them doesn't live up to WP:RS, to three unsourced statements any day.

Regarding your claim that the statement is contradicted in the Demographics section. This is not so. The statement concerns Chabad as a "religious organization", including all educational and outreach activities, while the Demographics section is limited to those who are actual Chabad chasidim. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I've just updated the article with a modified version to account for your comments. There were two statements at issue in this:

1] " It is the largest Jewish religious organization in the world."

• you agreed that the statement is not true for the number "actual Chabad chasidim", but includes participants in "all educational and outreach activities"
• you agree that the jewocity reference is WP:RS.
• the second original source no longer clearly supports the statement.

My resulting edit is "While not the largest Chasidic movement as measured by the number of its adherents (chasdimim), as measured by the number of participants in its events, it is the largest Jewish religious organization in the world." For the first clause, I used the sources already in the article in the Demographics section. I'll leave the source for the second clause of statement for someone else to insert.

2] You objected to the statement "Chabad is today one of the world's best known Hasidic movements and is well known for its outreach" being replaced with "It is one of the world's best known Hasidic movements, due its aggressive and effective outreach programs."

• you took issue with a lack of source, so two were supplied from two respected sources, Chaim Dalfin (already cited elsewhere in this article) and Steven Bayme
• you took issue with describing Chabad outreach as "aggressive", interpreting the term as "not sounding neutral". I question that interpretation and refer you to the two sources as a start.
• you took issue with the claim that Chabad outreach was effective, so I marked it with a {{cn}} tag. If you wish, you can alter the tag to {{dubious}}, or remove the word 'effective'. Personally, I think its ridiculous to question the claim that Chabad outreach is effective, but that does seem to be the consequence of what you did and wrote.
• you took issue with the claim that "Chabad is known because of it outreach", so I marked it with a {{cn}} tag. If you wish, you can alter the tag to {{dubious}}, or remove the word "because". Personally, I think its ridiculous to challenge that statement, because publicity is a basic prerequisite for outreach, and Chabad's outreach programs include wide-net advertising in mass markets. As anecdotal examples: in New York City, I've known them to advertise on the two most widely listened-to radio stations (WINS (AM) and WCBS (AM), on subway and bus billboards, and on highway billboards. I wouldn't know if they advertise on television.

3] A general word about tidying up the article. If you look at the wikitext of my edit, you'll see that I made it more readable by placing the citations at the end of the article, and referring to them in place. I've seen wikipedians recommend this, in criticism of what I see called "ref clutter". This article currently has over 130 citations, so its not something to do in one sitting, but I made a start with these two sources, and others may, or may not, follow the lead.

Finally, there was another thread pending regarding another revert of yours. I may or may not get to it later today, but will inform you so you can review it.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I have not agreed that the statement that Chabad is the largest hasidic group relates only to the number of people reached, not the actual adherents. That was only a theory, a possible explanation. I never said that I am of that opinion.

I have added some sources for the statement that Chabad is the largest hasidic group in the world. Please note that those sources also do not make the above distinction.

Please also see this book, which I have not quote because it limits itself to America only, which mentions the outreach, but does not use the words' aggressive" or "effective".

The four main reasons I have reverted you is that 1. you should really make sure your edit has consensus before you make it, now that you are aware that your previous edits did not enjoy consensus, and 2. because of the fact that you added too many tags. To put it simple, if you don't have a source, why do you write it? 3. The statement that outreach made Chabad the largest organization is not sourced. 4. Your edits violate WP:SYNTH in that you combine two unrelated statements into one: that Chabad outreach is aggressive and Chabad is the largest organization, does not mean that aggressive outreach made it the largest organization. Debresser (talk)

Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015

@Debresser: Your revert reinserted a mathematically impossible statement into the text. The original editor clearly misunderstood the statement that the distinguished scholar Jonathan Sarna wrote in the cited article. Sarna, a historian, correctly said "Nobody in 1945 would have predicted that ... that the fastest-growing Jewish religious movement in the world would be Chabad." Sarna did not claim anything about the current rate of growth of Chabad; He was referring to the 70-year period since 1945. The mathematical impossibility that I contend is that there just aren't enough Jews in the world for Chabad to continue expanding at the same explosive rate of growth that it did under MMS. As such, the claim in the statement exceeds {{dubious}}. —Boruch Baum (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, in how far this statement is a mathematical impossibility, and in how far the term "mathematical impossibility" can apply to the statement, I am not sure. But however that may be, I think the solution to this problem is easier and less drastic than removing a sourced statement. Instead of "Today, Chabad is the fastest-growing Jewish religious movement in the world" it could be changed to "Chabad has been the fastest-growing Jewish religious movement in the post WWII era / in post WWII Judaism", or something along those lines. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I've taken your comment into account as best I can while keeping the statement factual, but have added the {{dubious}} tag to the result because its clearly and demonstrably in error. Here goes: In 1946, Chabad had survived the war with chasidim in many countries. The demographics section in the article claims that they are now the third or fourth largest. See there for details. Compare that with the growth of Satmar, which in 1946 was basically a rebbe without any following, who by some accounts had to flee both Hungary and Mandatory Palestine in fear of his life at the hands of fellow religious Jews. The scholarly consensus is that now, in 2015, Satmar has more chasidim than does Chabad. So: Satmar went from basically zero to largest; Chabad went from greater than zero to third or fourth largest.

I would agree to removing the {{dubious}} tag if the statement clearly distinguished Chabad movement members from participants in Chabad events.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How happy I am that you would be willing to agree to remove the tag. You know what, I have done it for you. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

On what do you base your claim regarding "scholarly consensus" above? Also, how do you explain that "consensus" in view of the sources I have brought that claim Chabad is the largest organization world-wide. Are you perhaps restricting yourself to America? Because if you are, please see WP:WORLDVIEW, that Wikipedia should not do that.

Why do I feel that people who claim that the article is "clearly and demonstrably in error" must be putzim (in good Yiddish)? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615110446/http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a3611/News/New_York.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a3611/News/New_York.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141113021020/http://www.sichosinenglish.org:80/books/when-silence-is-a-sin/17.htm to http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/when-silence-is-a-sin/17.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The first link was no good, so I replaced it with another.[8] Debresser (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hats

When the Rebbe tipped his hat.. on YouTube

Do all Chabadniks wear a yarmulke under the hat? --Djadjko (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. As do all haredi Jews

Oh, I see: the big hat itself doesn't constitute a yarmulke :) --Djadjko (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really. The hat is also a head-covering. But hats are for outdoors, while the yarmulke stays indoors as well as outdoors, and even during sleep. If there wouldn't be a yarmulke under the hat, it would be all too easy to forget to put it on when taking off the hat for whatever reason (when coming indoors, or even simply to wipe the hat clean or whatever). Debresser (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

new photo of Group Chabad Shluchim

photo of User:Meni yuzevich is better. I can see the people on this photo much better.8.52 MB !!!!

photo of User:Debresser is bad, only 30 KB !!!

HI User:Debresser, I put image more quality. Why u deleted it?!‏ Meni yuzevich. ♦ 12:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Debresser, your foto is bad. The photo of user:Meni yuzevich is much better. I can see the people much better. --MosheRo (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

TU MosheRo‏ Meni yuzevich. ♦ 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I suppose by "image quality" you mean resolution. Resolution is not important for these small pictures. What is important is that the picture is less good of an illustration because 1. it shows the sun blinding 2. it shows more heaven and pavement and a lot less the people 3. the people are much smaller. 4. (follows probably from the previous point) no single people can be recognized, even on the front row.

Also, please review WP:BRD. The idea is that if you make a change and you see it is being reverted, you should really discuss and obtain consensus, rather than keep undoing the revert. That is a matter of good behavior on a community edited website like Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

MosheRo is an editor without any other edits, and we really don't believe in calling your friends for support, or making multiple accounts. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Your picture is so low-quality, That even that small - See that it is not quality...

2. it shows the sun blinding Because of that effect.

3. the people are much smaller. Because there are many more people

4. Your picture must have been impossible to see anyone, My picture Can be seen (even in the back row)! Click on it + zoom and see

5. I know the rules of the WP: BRD, but sometimes there are things that are so stupid ....

6. I do not even know who it MosheRo

I hope you will take it I do not know English well, ‏ Meni yuzevich. ♦ 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I took it, yes. I have not changed my mind, nor have my arguments changed. Your picture may be higher resolution, but as I said, that is not a significant improvement, because pictures are only illustrations. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The photo of user:Meni yuzevich is much better. I can see the people much better. --MosheRo (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You already wrote that. Did you at all read what I wrote above? Debresser (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I came to this discussion by accident, and just wanted to express my opinion. Its right that both guys above aren't English speakers so they didn't get exactly the point you wanted to make. Yet they're right that the new picture is better(and I'm not referring to the quality) because there are more people to see, it generally looks better and much more impressive, as it should be for such an honorable movement. The old pictures is out of date and isn't representing the power which is coming out of the new one. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilel1996 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"I came to this discussion by accident, and just wanted to express my opinion." Sure. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stay objective and let us keep on discussing the topic Hilel1996 (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)