Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:24, 30 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chabad messianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Judaism B‑class Mid‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Religion Start‑class Low‑importance

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:Messianist Flag.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How can using it NOT be fair use? --Teacherbrock (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Elazar Shach

Outrageous invention of non-existent subgroup in the Chabad movement

The article states:

A small number of people termed Boreinuniks or Elokistim have gone so far as to call Schneerson God. The first record of this was in 1996 when the words "our rebbe" were substituted with "our creator" in a messianist publication. These people (Meir Baranes, Ariel Sokolovsky, and two or three others) have been ostracised by all factions of Chabad.

According to the main Chabad page, there are at least 200,000 adherents of the Chabad movement worldwide. The statement above purports to prove that there is a sub-movement to declare boreinu and cites nothing more than one leaflet (note that even that leaflet has not repeated that expression since), two named individuals, and a "two or three" other unnamed individuals as "proof". So according to my math, even assuming that the report is true that these "two or three" others exist, that's a grand total of .00025% of the movement. And this is considered notable enough to be discussed in a separate section in a reputable encylopedia, as a supposed subgroup?? It is patently clear that a handful of people does not qualify as a subgroup. This is totally not notable. I have removed this section and hope for a more intelligent response than "but Berger (or whoever else) is a professor, so therefore everything he says is by definition notable." Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This subgroup is significant not because of its size, but because of the publicity it has attracted. Its actual numbers are statistically equal to zero. But with the amount of attention otherwise reputable sources have given to it have given it significance. Even if it were a complete myth, rather than an actual fringe phenomenon, it would be significant, just as snuff films are a significant phenomenon even though there is no evidence that such a film has ever been made, or as razor blades in Halloween apples are significant even though nobody has ever found one. -- Zsero (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Zsero over here. There are a few lines about them, which is precisely the right amount of attention the subject deserves, no more, no less. Debresser (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Zsero and Debresser. It exists. It is notable. It is small. 'nuff said. Joe407 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This population is not negligable or at the fringes of Lub society. In fact, they are represented by chabad.info. E.g. the summary of the Sep 27th 201 article Waiting For Our Father, Our King which reads (emphasis mine):

Every Lubavitcher knows what "Birkas Habonim" means in Lubavitch, it is not just hearing Yevorechecho from the father, it is squeezing into 770 upstairs and hearing the Brocha from our father, our King, the Rebbe. On Erev Yom Kipur, hundreds of Bochurim filled the Zal upstairs and sang Yechi while waiting and expecting to hear the blessing from the Rebbe.

I believe the resources they have already been shown to have at their disposal indicates they're a big enough group to warrant inclusion. Not just because of publicity, but because of size as well (sorry Debresser). Also, I would prefer they were called Elohistim, as the God they're describing isn't one Orthodox Jews would have a problem calling with the implicitly secular "Elohim". micha (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in that article did you see a mention of Elokistim? Debresser (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guys: There are not "200,000" adherents of Chabad anywhere, regardless of what any article says, who has counted these people. You can only be sure of the Shluchim and people in Crown Heights and a scattering here and there. You are having this discussion with yourselves and as usual you are removing stuff because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Very nice to see that you are all back in "business as usual". It is not "outrageous" to discuss the elokists or boreiniks because they exist and are significant in Chabad, they are casing the civil war inside Chabad and causes the mud to be thrown at Chabad by "outraged" outsiders. There are citations for all of this.IZAK (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Izak, I'd be remiss by neglecting to note that you, too, seem to be back in "business as usual" - unsupported assertions and all! By the same 'standard' you use to dispute the 200k number of adherents, any reasonable reader might question your alternate 'guesstimation' of same. I notice this has already been discussed on other pages... While I agree with Zsero that a mention is warranted in the article, a more appropriate word would be 'miniscule' when mentioning the existence of these people, since clearly that is what this group is - miniscule at best. Winchester2313 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that according to the info. in the article, these people do not qualify as a subgroup by anyone's definition, and thus should not be presented as such. They may be presented as individuals perhaps, but not as a subgroup. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If I'd have to make a personal estimate, I'd say 200,000 is very realistic. Even counting Chabad families we'd get something like that figure. And what about all those who pray in Chabad synagogues? Those who come at least a few times a year to Chabad gatherings? Those whose children learn in Chabad schools? We could get twice as much easily. That's my personal guess only, of course. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Several even state that the Rebbe is God. This is a significant finding. It is unknown in the history of Judaism to hold that the religious leader is God and to this extent the group is unique" I would like to know how this is UNIQUE considering the Notrim (early Jewish believers in Yeshua HaMashiach) professed the same thing. --Teacherbrock (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

References

1. Habad’s dead Messiah: A review of The Rebbe, the Messiah and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference, by David Berger, Judaism magazine - Winter, 2002, Arnold Jacob Wolf
2. Sichos Hage'ula 1996, cited in Keller, 1997.
3. Jolkovsky, Binyamin L., "The "Messiah Wars" heat up: Online gets out-of-line", Jewish World Review, February 19, 1998
4. "Waiting for a revelation", Yair Sheleg, Haaretz, 26 February 2004.

Response to Chabad messianism

In the section "Response to Chabad messianism" which brings Schneeorsons response along with 28 headings of Rabbis who oppose it - I am adding the section and the photo of the 100 Rabbonim (both from Chabad and from Non Chabad) who declared him as Moshiach.Caseeart (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. That is a notable response, bringing some sorely needed counterweight to the mainly negative responses already listed. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

During my recent research I located an additional copy of a Rabbinic P'sak with 13 Chabad Rabbis (Including Beis din of Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad) from the Year 1991, declaring the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach. According to the above research article - this ruling was later accepted by Lubavitcher Rebbe.

Although the above research study was completed by Strong Messianism members and does not seem to be all properly sourced - it still seems to be more sourced then the one sided opposition Book written by Berger who relies on many anonymous sources .

Just like Berger's book is cited multiple times in the article - so too (in my opinion) should this study or at least the P'sak of 1991. In this way, the article will possibly become more neutral. However I am not sure how/where to include it.Caseeart (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent edits made by an ip address - although they need citations - these should remain in the article for two reasons:

• In order to achieve WP:NEUTRAL this means to state all sides.
• They are verifiable. We could do research and verify the accuracy. Caseeart (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

this page needs work!!

the page looks more like a data dump of information (some true, some not true, some sources, some not sources). how can this be fixed?Effy770 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I Started working on this page. There is lots of information. I will put more. I will soon put some back where it needs to be. Please comment. Effy770 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have undone your edits from today. You give a long introduction about Messiah in Judaism in general. That is not the subject of this article, and should be restricted to a few lines or a few short paragraphs at most. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't just delete all my edits. If you don't like, or disagree with something, discuss. I see you feel it's about Messiah in Judaism in general, that is both true and not true. It is very relevant here to give a context to what this is about. I'm adding the Messiah article as the main reference. Also it's not such a long introduction but mainly information that leads up to the discussion about Rebbe Menahchem Mendel as the Messiah. There was some important information that I removed that I will put back on the page in the right place. At the moment the page was like a mumble jumble. There are a bunch more issues on this page that i want to try fix and bring source for. Please helpEffy770 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I also just deleted a few footnotes. 1. the footnote to chabad.org was not connected to the issue at hand. 2. the other footnotes lead to nowhere. Meanwhile I left the information in so i can find a new footnote for it.Effy770 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't listen. Your edits are not acceptable, since they discuss things that fall outside the scope of this article. Yes, that information is important, but not here. Now I have no choice, but to undo it all again. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You dont own this page. These edits are acceptable as they lead up to the information here. Sorry.Effy770 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Why can's there be a normal discussion. Not one person just deleting everything?Effy770 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The page does need a lot of work. That is also indicated in the tag at the top of the page. There is no real structure here. I was also concerned about the neutrality of the page. For example, I don't think we need to elaborate on every single Rav that opposed the Messiah campaign for Rabbi Schneerosn, just like it would be unnecessary to elaborate on every Rav who supported it. I think the few lines summarizing those who support it are done well. I think those that opposes should be recorded in similar fashion. 208.54.45.128 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Effy770 No need to start screaming "WP:OWN". And your claim that one person is deleting everything is strange in view of the fact that one other person is adding everything. Please see WP:BRD and WP:EDIT WAR. I have had enough of all those aggressive editors who think they can get their way without discussing, so please be informed that if you want to edit war, I will report you and that will be the end of it. Debresser (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. 1. This page does not have a real structure. It seems like a build up and 'data dump" of years of info just having been dropped in here. there is nothing wrong with that, necessarily, and Im not saying it needs to all be deleted. What I am saying is that we need to work on fixing this page. Making a proper order, putting the items in their places. Giving a context for what Messiah is, showing what Chasidim think of Messiah, showing what Chabad Chabadsim have said, showing how they started, what they did. At the moment this is not covered. There are only large quotes of articles and sections of books. Not a real order here. Not at all in the format of other wikipedia pages. So when I worked to start fixing this, I dont appreciates when aggressive editor debreser starts just deleting everything I added to make the page better. All debreser wrote is that the sections I added - that all have real footnotes -- isnt acceptable...Effy770 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to tell lies. I explained myself and gave a very good argument. I'll repeat it here verbatim for you, since you seem to be unable to scroll up a few lines: You give a long introduction about Messiah in Judaism in general. That is not the subject of this article, and should be restricted to a few lines or a few short paragraphs at most. I still completely stand by this argument. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a lie. Just because you don't like my reason, it does not mean this is not a reason. I am giving context to the idea of Messiah, and to the idea of Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson being Messiah. Not sure why that is not excepted. If there is some issue with what I write - and provide footnote for - then edit it, to what you (or other editors) this is more suitable, but don't just delete. That is aggressive and arrogant for no reason. Also, can other editor beside debressor also voice an opinion?Effy770 (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why every time I add some information to this page it gets deleted. All the information I put has real footnotes. If I did it wrong so then edit it or explain it. It can't all be wrong. This it not right. That is aggressive and mean. This page looks like one person controls it.Effy770 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to fix this page. Please anyone help. So many footnotes here go to nowhere. Some that go to articles don't have the information they quote and there are so many primary footnotes. The page is also so different then any other wikipedia page. There are so many long quotes.Effy770 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I also notice that 208.54.45.128 points out some problems that need to be worked on. It dosn't look like anyone is disagreeing with that. I can try start working on this also. Please help or say another opinion!!Effy770 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not much I can do. I'm not great at editing and don't usually do much Misplaced Pages. Go for it. 208.54.36.251 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There are so many footnotes on this page that the links don't work. I deleted some and replaced them with the cn tag. I am beginning to work on this page. Other editors please help.Effy770 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Again it looks like one editor thinks he is in charge of this page. Each time I one editor changes it back! For instance I removed footnotes that didn't exists and put a cn tag and that same editor just changed it back. Please check it next time before just changing it back.Effy770 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

1. The information from Rabanim Feldman and Leff is found later in their sections. 2. Here we explain the Messianic position, not the opposing position that is explained later. 3. There is no need to give the full critic of each position each time it is mentioned. 4. The criticism is all still on the page with the words of those Rabanim.Effy770 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Effy770, just because you make lousy edits, is not a reason to accuse me of WP:OWN. Next time, do not remove a source, even if it doesn't exist. Either add the Dead link template, or search for the article in archives like The Wayback Machine. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with your removals. I do have a problem with you adding a whole bunch of {{Citation needed}} tags to a paragraph which is explicitly sourced to the same book of Berger mentioned at the beginning of that paragraph. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

All it says it that its from Berger book. Doesn't give a chapter or page. I am not saying that information is not in that book, and I didn't delete it. All I did is ask for any other editor to point to where it is. Just because you don't like my edits, it does not mean they are lousy! I can put {cn} tag were there is no source! You have no right to call me an idiot who makes lousy edits. That seems to show me that you have an agenda and are bias. And I don't just delete a source that doesn't exist. I check first. If it's there, I will fix it. If it's not, I will remove it. I hope you will apologize for calling me "idiot" who makes "lousy edits." As I said, if you don't like my edit, so talk about it here. Don't just undo and curse me out.Effy770 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't just write anything you wan't and say, oh it's in that book. Maybe it is in a book, maybe it's not. So im not making a deletion. Im only asking that you point out were it is!Effy770 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though debresser is acting horrible, I listend to his advice because I see he is more experienced in wikipedia. So I put back some old information in much shorter version. And I limited it as debresser suggested. Please talk about it here if it's still not good.Effy770 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I also put in Maimonides rules of Messiah. He is the final word on the Messiah topic.Effy770 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Rambam may be the final word on Messiah, but that does not mean he is relevant here. As I told you above, this is mostly too general information. I do appreciate that you tried to write it shorter, but still. Also, if you want to know what page of the book, don't us {{Citation needed}}, but {{Page needed}}. In general, I would view your edits significantly more positively if you'd refrain from reverting me every time. In this regard I'd like to repeat my recommendation and request to read WP:BRD and WP:EDIT WAR. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Here he goes again. Just deleting every time I edit. This time saying he cant separate the good from the bad. Next time dont delete until we talk about it here. That's what it says on brd.Effy770 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. thank you. I will change them now to the {{Page needed}} tag. I dont undo you every time. but every time I edit that what you do to me!! you even call me horrible names like idiot! I said i want your advice!Effy770 (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If Rambam is not relevant here then who is?? He is the final word on the Messiah!Effy770 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to reach consensus and respect your advice. but you cant keep deleting every time i edit, and calling me an idiot who makes lousy edits. that's biting, edit-warring, aggressive and making like you own the page.Effy770 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I don't appreciate being called a fucking prick.Effy770 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, then don't behave like one. Your first edit on the page again was a revert of mine...

However much I don't want to continue an edit war, and don't want to bite newcomers, I had no choice but to revert again. The reasons:

1. You still bring waaaay too much detail about the general Jewish outlook on Moshiach.
2. You still use the {{Citation needed}} template for Berger's book in some places.
3. The correct code is not {{Tl|Page needed}} rather {{Page needed}}. The "Tl" is a code used to prevent the transclusion of a template when only its name has to show.
4. In your revert, you removed improved sourced I had just added.
5. If you don't see the source, for example if you land on a 404 "page not found", you should remove it. Either add a {{Dead link}} tag, or try and find an archived version of the source.
6. In general, the way to improve an article is not to add a dozen {{Citation needed}} templates, but rather to work yourself on finding sources.

I am sorry to revert you every time. Perhaps you could start with a few small edits, the kind of edits you can be sure will not be contended. After all, that is what WP:BRD is all about. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• B-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• Start-Class Russia (religion) articles
• Religion in Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles