Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:28, 11 April 2007

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

Dear PinchasC

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

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

• The Lubavitcher Rebbe as a god, Saul Sadka, Haaretz
• A Brief History of Lubavitch Messianism, Melech Jaffe

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

Thank you again for helping out.

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

Blanking

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

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

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

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

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

I asked to be quoted:

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

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

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

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

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

Merge Yechi into this article.

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

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

Clean up of this article

How can this article be cleaned up?

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

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

Neutral point of view and factual accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovid Jaffe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agriprocessors

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

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

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

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

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

Your removal of extensive sourced information

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

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

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

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

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

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