Talk:Chabad

Multiple merge
Please see Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies for a proposed "multiple merge" of the page Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies to Chabad and other pages. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225022808/http://gothamist.com/2013/10/07/crown_heights_documentary_shot_on_g.php to http://gothamist.com/2013/10/07/crown_heights_documentary_shot_on_g.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104174025/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131007/crown-heights/crown-heights-documentary-shot-completely-with-google-glass to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131007/crown-heights/crown-heights-documentary-shot-completely-with-google-glass

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

demographics
BTW, concerning the "estimates" given here, I'll quote Sue Fishkoff, The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch p. 13: Many reporters use the figure of 200,000 Lubavitchers worldwide, but that's little more than a guesstimate. AddMore-III (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:AddMore-III, the 200k is a general estimate used in press (sometimes to include "Chabad and supporters") so it is not precise but still widely cited. The 2018 estimate by Marcin Wodziński is based on community directories and is likely to be closer to the truth, but we should be wary of that figure as it is the first such demographic estimate and there are some details that are left blank:
 * As far as I can tell, Wodziński doesn't provide an exact number for Chabad, just that Chabad is 13% of the 129,213 Hasidic households across the world.
 * In his book, I don't think Wodziński specifies an exact household size for Chabad, though he (elsewhere) and others give the general estimate of approx. 5.5 people per household.
 * All this makes for a patchwork type of editing which is not recommended for WP but it is certainly better than keeping the 200k figure. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I don't have the atlas near. 13% of 129,213 are roughly 17,000 households anyway. I won't "translate" it into individuals because that will certainly be a guesstimate. AddMore-III (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

"one of the largest"
footnote 2 does not say Chabad is "one of the largest", it says it is the largest. --134.153.2.217 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Chabad/Archive_10. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you. My point is only that the footnote does not support the statement.  The article later says 'either the largest or the third or fourth' - perhaps one of those footnotes should  be used in the lede instead.--134.153.2.217 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And we had Talk:Chabad/Archive_9 and Talk:Chabad/Archive_8. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Debresser putting his opinion as "fact"
Debresser, I don't understand, there has to be a consensus for my version but not yours? You added information that's not sourced at all, it's Posner's opinion. While he has the full right to think that way, for you to put it as "objective fact" is disingenuous.

I'm new to this, so I'm not sure if I'm posting my message to you the right way and if I'm following all the complicated rules here. User:User1wik1 11:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the correct forum for the issue. The article talk page is where content should be discussed, with some exceptions. Note, that I changed the title of the section you created to reflect the content, rather than the name of a user talk page. Also note that I was the last to undo your changed. User1wiki, you simply cannot edit war, no matter how right or justified you think your changes are. Now, what exactly are you objecting to, exactly? Is it that the opinion isn’t being directly attributed to Posner? Because on that point, we agree. I do think the opinion is due to be included, but the way it’s worded right now is inappropriate. Despite it being in quotes, it’s still sort of effectively in the “voice” of Wikipedia, without attributing this to Posner. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The burden of obtaining consensus is on you in this case, for two reasons: 1. you are proposing to change a version that was stable for a while, which implies that it had consensus. 2. you are removing sourced information, and that is not something that should be done without good reason.
 * Please explain why you see reason to doubt the factual correctness of this information. I am a Chabad adherent myself, and it seems correct to me. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The onus is actually on YOU because you've taken Posner's opinion and put it in an article as if it's "fact" which it isn't. It is very disingenuous at best to put your own opinion with a phony "source" (which is nothing more than one guy's opinion) to disguise it as "sourced fact" and then take the moral high ground by claiming I can't remove this cynical opinion dressed as a fact because you put it there first. You even admitted "it seems correct to me". With all due respect your personal opinion (and mine or anyone else's) means nothing here, only real facts and sources do.
 * Bottom line: You decided some people haven't "accepted" something, and you claim this is "fact". It isn't, and your behavior is very improper. So unless you can justify this it will have to be removed.

User1wiki 6:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but this longstanding statement is sourced and to the best of my knowledge absolutely correct, so despite your disagreement it will stay. Which brings me to the same question I asked before: what is it you disagree with? Do you claim that the fact that there are people who are of the opinion that somebody who died is alive does not imply that those people don't accepting his death? Debresser (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You obviously have not read what I wrote above very well if you tell me "you're entitled to your opinion". I have not given any of my opinions here, you have. And I do not intend to agree or disagree with anything you wrote. My point (which you pretend to not understand) is that your opinions have no place on this page, with or without the phony "source" that's nothing more than Posner's commentary. The fact that you insist on keeping your biased and cynical portrayal of some people's religious beliefs of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Moshiach and the "Moses of the generation" is grounds to report you as forcing your personal opinion on the page as "Fact". If you were actually objective you'd at least mention the fact that many people take the Lubavticher Rebbe's life mission to bring about the redemption as something that could not have ended in failure, especially in light of Chassidic teachings that the end-of-life of the righteous is very different than that of average people. If you don't remove that sentence or at least add objectivity to it by clearly stating that it's a personal opinion (and then include the other side's opinion) you will be reported. And don't try your "moral high ground" argument with me about it being a "stable version" and "longstanding" which means nothing of it isn't factual, but rather opinion based.

User1wiki 10:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems to me you are the one with personal opinions here... Debresser (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You're the one putting your opinion on a Wikipedia page, not me, and you have not addressed anything that I wrote. User1wiki 12:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You just deleted my additions to the page which attempt to balance your one sided assertion disguised as "fact" by adding the other side's. User1wiki 3:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can know my intentions, and I'd rather you refrain from making such absurd claims. I stated the reason for my revert clearly in the edit summary, and will elaborate here:
 * 1. The existence of meshichists is not a "claim", as you write, but a well-know and well-sourced fact. A simple Google search shows that we have a whole article about this phenomenon, Chabad messianism. There is even an entry about it in an online Jewish encyclopedia, meshichist, and a book Us More Than Ever: Making the Absent Rebbe Present in Messianic Chabad by Yoram Bilu. The article already has the Posner source, which is authoritative enough. You have so far refused to explain what problem you have with the consensus version of this article, but if you are trying to doubt the existence of meshichists, then that is a futile endeavor.
 * 2. In your edits you use the construction "some claim ..., others claim ...". That construction should be used when presenting two things that are, or at least seem to be, in contradiction to each other. However, in the "others claim" part you recently added to the paragraph, you expound on the theories of those same 'meshichists''. Something is wrong then with your text.
 * 3. You speak sectarian language: "end-of-life" is "death" (compare WP:EUPHEMISM). "he wouldn't leave", same issue. You make allusions that are not readily understandable. Your seem to try to make a point, but don't really make it in the end.
 * 4. You seem to hold a sectarian, non-mainstreamm, point of view: as though people don't die without having accomplished their life's mission.
 * In short, your edit does not add anything worthwhile and should be undone. Debresser (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You have totally misconstrued my point. I never said Moshiach is a "claim". What I did say is that your assertion that some people just couldn't "accept" his death... THAT is a claim.
 * All the so-called "sectarian" language is just explaining the religious belief of those who YOU claim haven't "accepted" his death. User1wiki 6:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Chabad in the arts
Recently the movie Code of Silence was removed from the "Film and Television" section of "Chabad in the arts" by two editors. This was done because the editors felt that the movie -- which is about a case of sexual abuse in a Chabad-Lubavitch community in Australia, and the backlash the victim and their family faced from that community -- was not "about Chabad" but simply about people who happened to be Chabad. I re-added the movie because I felt it was as much about Chabad as many of the entries already on the list. One of the editors that removed Code of Silence agreed with me on this. Therefore, if we want to keep a section on "Chabad in the arts", I think the only consistent solutions are to remove all the works that are not "about Chabad" in the sense that they primarily concern the religion and the practice of it, or to add back Code of Silence.

I am generally in favor of inclusion, so I would like the more tangentially related works already on the list to stay, along with Code of Silence. This also seems to be the general case on Wikipedia, at least with categories. For example, the Category: Films about Catholicism includes e.g. Daredevil and Doubt, and the Category: Films about Mormonism includes e.g. Latter Days and New York Doll. Of course, neither the article Catholicism or Mormonism contain any mention of their respective subjects "in the arts" at all. So perhaps another resolution could be to remove the entire section of "Chabad in the arts" and create a list or category of works about Chabad, with the already existing Category: Films about Chabad as a subcategory. I feel this would make relevant information less accessible, so again, my preferred solution would be to add Code of Silence back as it were. If the consensus is to go for the middle ground of keeping only the works that are more strictly "about Chabad", we should discuss which these would be.

I am not entirely sure how this is process usually works, but I would appreciate comments, and let's reach a good consensus! Knuthove (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Chabad outreach into Chabad
Content FORK I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Per nom. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge, but please kindly cleanup before doing so. JBchrch   talk  17:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge any well sourced content that isn't already there.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Current situation
I came here hoping to get some clarity on the degree to which Chabad has been institutionally unified or not in the years since the death of Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The article hints that it hasn't been, but doesn't really say much. I believe this is something that belongs in the article, and I would presume that there has been enough written about the topic that there ought to be plenty that is citable. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Undue leadership section
The seven hugely overweight expanded biographies front-loading the article need slashing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Add to list of films
Chassidim - the Joyful path to G-d : A 1966 documentary of Chabad Chassidim in Kfar Chabad, Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOqzo_HnPUc Chamyv (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)