Talk:Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Dear PinchasC 2 Blanking 3 Merge Yechi into this article. 4 Clean up of this article

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)