Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. The case for delete was mostly based on this violating WP:SYNTH, but those arguing that side failed to make a convincing case. It is certainly true that this article leans heavy on recent events, out of proportion to the 250 year history of the movement. That is only a symptom, however, of the greater problem with WP:Recentism, which, sadly, plagues the entire project. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is violation of several WP policies including COATRACK, SYNTH, UNDUE. Nature of article is a COATRACK of all negative events relating to chabad. Various historical events are placed side by side creating an impression of a link between events (the link being all are deemed "controversial"), thus in violation of SYNTH. Local, individual and isolated events are constantly being added to a page relating to a 250 year movement, giving UNDUE weight to those events. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The previous AFD discussion (in 2007) resulted in "keep" as the article was (at that time) mainly on the topic of Chabad messianism. Consensus was reached that the Chabad messianism debate (under the title Controversies of Chabad) should be a separate article as Yechi. Subsequently, Chabad messianism became its own page (which Yechi was merged into) and this page was left to become a COATRACK. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Link to previous afd: Articles for deletion/Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research. Compiling various cases together create POV. Attack style. Caseeart (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep because: (1) This is an important WP:NPOV article with enough WP:V & WP:RS about an important WP:N and controversial movement. (2) The nominator has spent a lot of time in recent YEARS and many MONTHS whittling away at this article for well over TWO YEARS having single-handedly shredded it beyond recognition of its meat, bones and sinews, and now claims "look the patient is now a skeletal 'coat-rack'" well, ha, what do you expect after a POV campaign to make chopped meat of this article that few other editors have had the stomach to participate in with such tenacity. Take a look at the original article before the nominator shredded it over at least two years, say at June 2013 and it is an incredibly coherent, scholarly and acceptable article with all due WP:V & WP:RS. (3) While the nominator has had plenty of time to shred the article, there seems to be an obvious WP:COI. He does not even have the courtesy to inform who started the hard work here in February 2007   about this deletion discussion per accepted WP norms who started the hard work. (4) This nomination gets into the problematic area that was dealt with with in a 2010 ArbCom case, see for example Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement: "Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links" -- and that procedure was not used here, rather a resort to slow-motion editing to favor the pro-Chabad point of view obviously. (5) This kind of topic is a natural subject within the parameters of its super parent Category:Religious controversies and its immediate parent Category:Judaism-related controversies that includes at least 27 other such sub-categories and 115 articles mired in genuine controversies connected with Judaism, and no one would suggest to shut any of them down as subjects for tenuous WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT "reasons" either. (6) There was an overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS to Keep this article with lengthy discussions, see Articles for deletion/Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch. Finally not only should this article be kept, but ALL material that has been edited out and removed by the nominator over the last two years should be restored or at least be put up for full and lengthy discussion on its related talk page per the 2010 ArbCom ruling/s regarding Chabad-related article on WP, or else more serious sanctions should be considered and/or implemented. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will answer in the order you wrote. 1- Just because in your opinion it is chabad "a controversial movement" that does not assert an article. 2-Two years ago there was the same exact problem of compilation of original research. 3-Let us refrain accusing the nominator of not notifying who's last edit is nearly 9 years old. 4-Assume good faith just like we assume good faith on your edits - despite your comments accusations and tone of voice. 5- "Categories" have nothing to do with "articles" -which need to adhere to wikipedia policies. 6- The nominator addressed this. 7- I am now discussing about the deletion or retention of the article. Caseeart (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Chabad so "perfect" that it is above any valid critique and criticism? Is it so immature that it cannot take normal adult feedback in encyclopedic form? Is Chabad totally "un-controversial"? If so how, if not, why? Just off the top of my head I can think of about ten current controversies either within Chabad or involving Chabad that can be written with WP:V & WP:RS & WP:N, if you can't then what do you really know about Chabad? There are by now thousands of pro-Chabad articles that are pure hagiography and the only reason they survive is because no one has the stamina to sit around and create the counter-weights and if they do their efforts will be attacked in all sorts of ways, see what has happened to these Chabad controversies articles Shaul Shimon Deutsch & Barry Gurary they are pockmarked with gazillions of "cn" templates in obvious acts of WP:CENSORSHIP& WP:VANDALISM and WP:LAWYERING or worse! Take care, IZAK (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you feel that way about Chabad and the community of Chabad editors. Generally I have seen that articles related to Judaism and specifically religious Jews - these articles are often victims of unfair negative edits. It is possible that Chabad articles which are Jewish+Religious+Chabad piling up even more groups of users adding negative information. Maybe that is what prompts such responses. Caseeart (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to preach to me about Chabad, I am not its enemy and wrote up virtually all the first drafts of each of the seven Chabad Rebbes long before you came along. The problem we are dealing with on WP is that the pro-Chabad POV-warriors have tunnel vision when it comes to their illegal WP:OWN domain of Chabad articles. It is wrong of you to conflate the issues surrounding the Chabad-related articles and Judaism articles. For the record, from my vast experience of 12 years on WP I can prove to you that when pro-Chabad editors are around they do not give a hoot what happens to other Judaism-related articles, they only appear like attack-bees when Chabad-proper articles do not reflect the pro-Chabad hagiography party-line. 99.99% if not more of virtually all Chabad-related articles on WP are just paeans of praise for their subjects. Of the one or two articles somewhat more critical articles, like the AfD in question here, you should actually fight to retain them because it proves that Chabad is as human and fallible as anyone or anything else. Even Moses the greatest Jew who ever lived (not according to Chabad messianic nut-jobs of course since that would be the 7th Rebbe) was not perfect, he was banished by God from entering Eretz Yisrael, and the Jews of the Exodus were punished to wander for 40 years and die in the wilderness, while the first humans Adam and Eve were punished and explicitly rebuked by God for all time for their failings and the Torah does not hide their faults. Imagine if Adam and Eve were really "Chabad shluchim" how the fanatical pro-Chabad editors would edit out the Torah's criticism's of them! but that standard of Judaism seems to not apply to Chabad articles...WHY? Are they infallible and better than anyone else and immune from any critiques? What is called for is a little maturity and objectivity and for you and the pro-Chabad editors to back off and allow SOME criticism and not try to swing every last vestige your way to avoid making Chabad look more foolish than it does already with the kind of "defenders" they have on WP warping the story that fools nobody. IZAK (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Have now created the perfectly valid WP:NPOV Category:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies with our article under siege here as its main article which makes perfectly good sense. IZAK (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your creation of this category, at the same time the article is up for Afd, to be somewhat of a trick to game the system. If this article will be deleted, I will Cfd your category based on that. If only to teach you a lesson that editors shouldn't try to game the system. By the way, your reference to that ArbCom case is interesting, because you lost it. :) Debresser (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite on the contrary, during AfDs articles are very often improved to save them and there is no better proof of the strength and viability of any article that it can in fact be the main article for a full category containing many directly related articles that fit into it perfectly. Besides, it will take a lot of back-peddling to try figure out all the important stuff that the nominator cut out of this article in the years and months before his latest attempt to delete the rest that he just does not like. As for the ArbCom case on the contrary there too, a standing warning was issued to partisan pro-Chabad editors not to engage in activity that results in creating and spinning articles about Chabad topics that do not adhere to WP:NPOV, simply because Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org per WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTMYSPACE, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision. Admittedly it must be very hard for any pro-Chabad POV editor to truly understand this, but it is important for the historical record as well as for genuine encyclopedic needs to record all points of view, just as there are plentiful articles in Category:Judaism-related controversies and Category:Religious controversies that one cannot just "wish away" no matter how distasteful the topic may be on a purely personal level. IZAK (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the low opinion you express regarding pro-Chabad editors, I am all in favor of improving articles, and I am well familiar with the fact that Afd discussions often lead to improvement of articles. You may have noticed, that I have not stated any opinion as to whether this article should be deleted or kept. I do protest the creation of the category, which I think was uncalled for and insults the participants in this discussion by trying to game the system, and I think it will eventually be related in any case. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of controversies involving Chabad and it seems reasonable to bring them together on one page. It is a bit too bulky to merge anywhere. Deletion would amount to revisionism. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because there are "plenty of controversies" - it does not mean that it meets wikipedia's article policy. We are not a billboard. Caseeart (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Keep it's an appropriate place to bring them together. "Coatrack" would mean using at article on Chabad to discuss all the various religious and social matters they have ever spoken about, rather than discussing the role of Chabad in them. And, fwiw, having the category as well as the article is a good idea,and standard practice. However, it is much better to avoid the term controversy, both for the category and the article, and some alternative should be looked for   DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Appropriate" is not an argument to delete or retain an article. Policy is what determines. This is a compilation of unrelated events into one article which is WP:ORIGINAL research. (There are other policy issues such as WP:ATTACK etc.)Caseeart (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note If there are 115 articles in "Judaism related controversies" category - as IZAK pointed out - why is there no article on "Judaism related controversies"? Caseeart (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: DGG noted about renaming the article. How about a more neutral name like Challenges to the Chabad Movement or Criticism and Challenges to the Chabad Movement?

I have not found sources with those titles (still a problem with OR) but that will address most of the concerns of the nominator, it will also make it more difficult to vandalize the article or add individual isolated events and will give place to a neutral two sided article. Caseeart (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. There is nowhere else in Wikipedia that anything remotely critical of Chabad can be posted. This is not a COATRACK; rather it is some cross between an article and a list (these happen, you know) of controversies and critiques related to Chabad. In my opinion, any critique or controversy that is institutional in nature (rather than individual) is on topic here.
 * FWIW, I am certainly not a Chabad critic, on net. Ask other editors.
 * And one other thing: if this article disappears, in my opinion you will legitimately open the main article Chabad to the inclusion of more criticism of Chabad than it has now. Chabad has plenty of critics, but for right now, those critics generally have to write here (or in yet more obscure locations). People like me have encouraged critics not to write on the page Chabad itself because the criticism is rarely about Chabad as a whole. But that's because there is another place to go—here. Be careful what you wish for. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also see some additional remarks I made on the talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @StevenJ81 I saw your remarks on the talk page and your a neutral editing on Chabad topics. If consensus is to retain the article - what would you say about  DGGs idea of renaming the article? Renaming it could also clarify that this article is about "Chabad" and not about individuals or individual institutions in Chabad?
 * You brought a good example in the Chabad Talk page and I will use it here: If we would create An article on United States related controversies (and there are a lot) - it would only contain controversies about the "United States" - not about people or individual institutions within the United states (which never ends). Similarly an article created about Judaism related controversies would not be a blog forum to post any controversial information about any Jewish person or institution. Caseeart (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Caseeart, first of all, I would not have a problem with an article rename. It probably needs to contain some version of the word controversy or the word critique/criticism, but I do not have a strong opinion about what the article should really be called.
 * However ... I suggest you reread my example at Talk:Chabad. It was quite different from what you described above.
 * And another however: Clearly controversies related to Chabad widely belong here. Clearly controversies limited to a single Chabad individual do not. (We could perhaps argue that point if the individual were heading one of Chabad's major global organizations, but that's a theoretical discussion, not a real one.) Controversies regarding specific Chabad institutions are much trickier. Unlike the examples you bring of the United States above, or of Judaism/Jews as a whole, people see Chabad (rightly and/or wrongly) as a global organization with at least some modicum of global direction and control involved. Positives in one part of the organization reflect positively on the movement as a whole—and problems in one part of the organization reflect negatively on the movement as a whole.
 * It would be more appropriate to bring this example I gave at Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies directly:
 * "We're not talking about an allegation that a single Chabad rabbi in Australia was a pedophile. We have an allegation that the Chabad organization in Australia tolerated pedophilia and protected its members. That's notable, and that's notable at the global level. Moreover, if I heard that there were a controversy about a Chabad affiliate and pedophilia abuses, and I didn't know ahead of time that it took place in Australia—perhaps I wonder where it took place at all—I'd come here. For you (sic) to demand that it go on the (nonexistent, by the way) Chabad in Australia page is entirely absurd to me."
 * The minute that the controversy includes a pattern bigger than a single institution, it is a controversy about Chabad. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(I have not discussed where individual cases should go)
 * - This page may be beneficial for Chabad for the reasons you pointed out but...
 * Chabad is the |only article on Wikipedia with such a subject name. The problem with such OR style articles (both Chabad related controversies and Judaism related controversies), is that there are almost unlimited individual cases of controversy against it's 1000's of mainstream institutions and schools, and there are almost unlimited individual cases of praise or accomplishments by it's large institutions. What will determine? and why do "current events" have priority?
 * In either case I guess a name change would correct much of this problem. Caseeart (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose name change. Try not to bend reality to suit the distortions, rather, try to understand what is the cause of the distortion/problem in the first place and how to best use description & explanation, that are the best tools of science and the social sciences to analyze it on WP. Covering up reality with rotten and rotting mounds of hagiography solves nothing, it's just a terrible placebo you are feeding the readership of WP in the hope of fooling them with a fake picture of reality. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of this discussion has, in my view, consisted of invoking many WP policies in hoping that one or more might stick, e.g., WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, and so forth. I've already explained why I don't think it's COATRACK. I also don't think it's OR, in that nobody is (as far as I know) looking to synthesize the things here into some kind of coherent whole that is more than the sum of its parts (or even that is just the sum of its parts). The facts are what they are, and provided they are otherwise noteworthy and are sourced consistently with WP policy, as long as no one is trying to synthesize them into a specific narrative, they are not OR.
 * I'd point out: Don't lawyer on noteworthy. Let's assume for the sake of discussion here that at least some things in this article pass the test. I think you will lose if you try to say that nothing in this article was truly noteworthy.
 * Leaving aside the article title for the moment, if something is a controversy and is included here, that inclusion is not synthesis per se. It's only synthesis and OR if someone tries to tie things together to create a pattern that cannot be justified from outside sources. The current article lead makes it clear that items here should be viewed as generally not connected. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Caseeart, if you think a name change would help, why don't you go out into the wiki and try to find three examples of articles about criticism/critique/controversy/challenge/whatever and propose some names that people here can discuss? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.