Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chabad: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:38, 31 December 2015 editDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits →{{u|Debresser}} revert of 00:02, 25 December 2015: Typo.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:43, 31 December 2015 edit undoDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits →{{u|Debresser}} revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015: Reply here too.Next edit →
Line 280: Line 280:
:: —''<b>]</b>'' (]) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC) :: —''<b>]</b>'' (]) 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. ] (]) 22:58, 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. ] (]) 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 ], that Misplaced Pages should not do that.
:::: Why do I feel that people who claim that the article is "clearly and demonstrably in error" must be ]im (in good Yiddish)? ] (]) 23:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:43, 31 December 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRussia: Science & education / History / Religion / Demographics & ethnography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages rules, I feel I have to undo your edit" which is clearly against Misplaced Pages's policy in:

]

(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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages , 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Categories: