Talk:Chabad messianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Balance

There seems to be all the voices that have ever attacked chabad messianism however there aren't any of the voices that supported chabad messianism. I am going to copy in the current defense which is in the controversies article.

Another example is the halachic Christianity paragraph fails to quote the same person a few years later sort of backtracking see http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14234 . --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not set out to get all the sources who attack chabad - I would say most are simply anthropologists and are very detached. I put in all the academic sources that I could find in the hope of writing a NPOV article. Certainly I agree that there should be a section on Messianist theology where the messianist viewpoint could be elucidated and some of their arguments detailed. I wanted to do this but I couldn't find any sources. In that context a subsection detailing those academic voices such as Ravitzky and the other guy who argue that mesianist is not an anathema to Judaism should be quoted. However attacks on David Berger seem to me to be off-topic and POV since a) they attack him for his solutions and commentary - which is not the issue here and it would be much moree useful to have their arguments against Berger's position quoted and not simply their as hominem attacks on him b) Berger is not the only one and such quotes would imply that he is. c) Berger is not the topic of the article so attacks on him (and not a defence of Messianism) are tangential and belong elsewhere.

Including a list of minor Rabbis and Rebbes who have at some point come out in favor of messianism is also not appropriate IMHO. I would support adding a line saying Some non-Chabad individuals have declared their support for Messianism. These include a son of Ovadiah Yosef and some minor Rebbe in Tzfat and ..., with sources.

So, I propose:

"Messianist theology section containing a description of what messianists believe and why followed by a sub-section detailing the acadamic and rabbinic soucerces that defend the idea of Messianism in Judaism perhaps entitled "defence of messiansim from outside Chabad" or something. At the end of the section it would be appropriate to add a line about non-Chabad messianist supporters.

There are a few academics who discuss the christianity comparison but if one later backtracked that should be noted. David Spart 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

someone keeps on taking off any mention to the fact that the Rebbe openly encouraged "Yechi" way before the stroke, i posted a link to a video filmed on may 28 1991 (almost a year before the stroke) proving this, but this someone keeps on removing it. it is in my opinion that these so called Anti-meshechist are twisting history to fit there claim.

Sources

David, please help me find some of the sources that you are quoting. I have tagged the ones which I have not seen a source referenced at all.

1. "Within months however, messianism had regrouped and now is the major force within the Chabad movement." I was unable to find this in the source provided "Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe, Felsenstein, F., Criticism, 1999." Please let me know the page number.

2. "while others refused to accept that the funeral had been anything other than a sham." Is this from the Jewish Chronicle article? If yes, do you have the text or a link to it?

3. Do you have the text or a link to the quote from Simon Dein in the intro to the Expresions of Messianism within Chabad section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I built the article up from a few pages of notes that I took looking through journals, I have occasional access to various academic online compendiaLexus Nexus etc. I might have jumbled one or two of the sources up, I will check into 1 and 2 for you. I think 1 might be a pasting error on my part. Dein is a beautiful writer and conveniently that quote from him is actually in the abstract, so if the click the link it should be there. Thanks for the help. David Spart 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide a source for the first citation request. It is merely a lead to introduce unfamiliar readers to the topic. I don't think it is controversial to say that this is a major post-war controversy in orthodox judaism. David Spart 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrections needed

There is much in this article that needs to be corrected. So I'll start with a few:

1) The book Besuras Hageulah was printed during the rebbe's liftime, not after his death.

2) Sentence on Rabbi Volpo does not have a valid source. The link given does not work. When tried on archive.org it brought an unreliable source.

3) The general tone of this article is one that is trying to show how extreme this view is, and giving too much weight to the POV against this view.

4) I don't think you can give a name to this "trend" as Chabad messianism unless that is actually how it is referred to. If you want to say things like "Chabad messianism is a term" or "a phenominum known as Chabad messianism", then you need to bring sources to show that this is actually what it is called.

5) Words that fail to meet WP:WTA will be removed

Shlomke 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Shlomke. 1) Yes, I know, it just says that it was distributed after his death - it doesn't say when it was printed. I will make that much clearer. 2) Yes, i checked and the link is dead or broken. I will un-hyperlink that though the source is good. 3) I think the tone is an academic one - neutral and detached. 3) Look if you can bring good academic sources that will argue for michichism, I would be delighted - I looked but found none. But what would you like a section "Chabad defence of messinism" "Messianist defence of messianism" that is the problem, everyone is arguing here. So all the research is from detatched non-messianists including chabadniks. 4) Ideally it would just be called Messinaism or Mishichism. But the first is too vague and the second is in Yiddish - but I think I made a redirect for it. So it could be called "Messianism (Chabad)" or "Messianism in Chabad" or Chabad Messianism which means the same thing. It is not a neologism as google tells us. It is the natural English usage and is reference in two peer-reviewed papers. I notice that the M in Messianism is wrongly capitalised though. 5) Quite so. David Spart 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I appreciate you working together with me. The book was actually printed and distributed during his lifetime. Like all other books printed by chabad, it was naturally continued after his death. The sources that Meshichistim rely upon are much broader then this one book. They rely on all the talks of Rabbi Schneerson concerning moshiach (this book being a mere collection of some of them) Other chassidic works, the Rambam, Talmud and much more. This book is basically statements made By Rabbi Schneerson about the messianic age. If you are going to specify which sources the Meshichistim were/are relying upon, it would only be fair to list all of them. 2) The source is a private website, which is not a reliable source. Correct me if I'm wrong. 3) As I already stated the tone needs fixing to adhere to wikipedia standards of neutrality I will try to fix this slowly. I'm not sure what you are referring to by the second 3). 4) I think another name might be better, since it's not the place to coin a new term here. Shlomke 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this is referenced in an article which describes how the book was used. There are others that they use - but Besuars Hageula is central. Feel free to note that they also bring sources from all over Schneerson's writings if you can find a source for that. You are correct though, I will change it to make it clearer that these were not their only source of proofs. 2) The source is Besuaras HaGeula - the link is to a private website which is fine, it is just to help people out in finding the text. Besuras Hageula is fine as a source. Especially when just used as an illustration - IE a primary source referred to by a secondary source. 3) This is not a new term, though neither is it firmly established. It is the most established term in English being referenced in two journals. I would support moving the article to "Chabad messianism" as the capitalisation is an error. David Spart 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes

Some the fact templates were on sentences that were sourced at the end of paragraphs. Is there a way to reference the same source multiple times without it showing up multiple times in the citations section?

The terms Elokist and Boreinunik are simply shorthands to describe groups of positions. They are not referred to as such in academia - they are slang, but I think it is useful noting these terms.

I move the information from the bullet points into the new sub-section. I switched the quote from Singer to one that directly addresses the issue at hand rather than Berger, Berger is not the major theme here. I also added an accurate citation for the article.

Chaim Dalfin appears to have self published a 120 paperback page book on chabad "Attack on Lubavitch" which he also appears to market himself exclusively. I cannot find any review of this work, though it is mentioned en passant in an article as an illustration. Unfortunately this cannot be used as a source for such bold statements.

I removed some the honorific and "Joe Bloggsky chair of xxx" stuff as that is cumbersome and not in line with wikipedia practice. David Spart 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms Elokist and Boreinunik imply a certain viewpoint which is not accurate. For example there has not been a single source stating about a single Lubavitcher that says that the Rebbe created G-d. These terms should be removed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case. Dein refers to the trend, Berger does in many places, as does the recent article in Haaretz. David Spart 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there Reliable source that uses these terms? If not, then they need to be removed. The Haaretz article referenced in the article did not mention them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Defence of messiansim

The section can't be called support, because a number of the people mentioned explicitly do not support messianism. There should be two sections if you like one called Defence of messianism and one called support.

Also - if we mention the letter we need no note parenthetically that its authenticity has been questioned, seeing as it is such a controversial letter. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with having both defense and support if you prefer it that way. Shlomke 23:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

I believe that this article should be renamed to Messianism (Chabad) due to the need for standardized naming. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I feel leaving the name as "Chabad messianism" would be creating a new term. Messianism (Chabad) would be a good name for the article. Shlomke 15:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. It should not be capitalised though. Chabad messiansim is the only term I can find being used in academia. Messianism (Chabad) is a bit much - it is a much stronger way of describing the situation. It implies a strong link between this type of Messiansim and others, which is not really the case. Furthermore, michichism is not referred to as simple Messianism except in a very specific context - nobody is going to confuse this issue as in "oh! That type of messianism. I thought you meant Shabetai Zvi.

So, since (a) Chabad messianism is not a neologism and is the only academic term used to describe the trend and (b) simply means "messianism of the chabad variety" I support the name being changed to "Chabad messinaism". David Spart 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who vote for a name change, but for a different reason. I think that two issues are being confused throughout this whole article, creating a false impression. There is the Chabad emphasis on belief in the Moshiach, that began in an intense way through the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, and was emphasised to a far greater extent by his son-in-law. That can be classified as messianism in the simple sense, as it's classified on the messianism page. Then there is the notion of identifying the Rebbe as the Moshiach. And the discussion of the way that the Rebbe identified his father-in-law as Moshiach. And those who say that this concept applies after the Rebbe's passing. And so on. These are simply separate matters, and the vague term "messianism" (capitalised or not), with the implication that it's all one idea, is misleading and thus incorrect. And it makes no difference if some academics perpetrated the same confusion. Because they haven't studied the Rebbe's talks thoroughly, but selectively, to find the sources relevant to the controversy that they want to research. But the Rebbe discussed and emphasised the importance of the faith in the coming of Moshiach countless times, literally at every public appearance, but only discussed the concept of identifying Moshiach's identity a handful of times. So to call the concept of identification one and the same as Chabad messianism in general shows a skewed perspective.

So I vote not to use the term messianism altogether. If one wants to talk about the specific idea mentioned a handful of times in the Rebbe's talks concerning identification of Moshiach (which is clearly the intention of the creator of this article), and not about the meaning and importance of the belief in Moshiach in general according to the Rebbe's teachings, then for the sake of clarity call the article something else, perhaps Chabad identification of Moshiach. Please respond. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am (one of the) creators of this article and I dispute your assertion that my motive was to "about the specific idea mentioned a handful of times in the Rebbe's talks concerning identification of Moshiach", indeed this is demonstrably untrue if you read the article. Simply my motive was that there should be an article on a subject that in discussed in dozens of academic papers and books and about which there was a dearth of reliable information on the Internet. Chabad messianism, lubavitch messianism, michichism, habad messianism, lubavitcher messianism are all terms that have progeny back to the 1980s and this article is composed of some 70 sources that discuss this theme. The mentions of the rabbe's father etc. are not even one line - maybe there should be more discussion about that. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read my list posting above. Put simply: The intention of the article creator, whoever it was, was to discuss the idea of identification. This is conceptually distinct from the idea of the emphasis that the Rebbe laid time and again on the importance and the reasoning for emphasising the belief in the coming of the Moshiach. The former is found very rarely in the Rebbe's talks, and is the subject of this article. The latter is found countless times (something that you oddly did not research and see fit to dedicate any article to). Yet this article takes the former and calls that "Chabad messianism"--as if the concept of identification encompasses and defines and summarises the Chabad belief in Moshiach, when that's simply not so to anyone who can read Hebrew, or even the translations of the Rebbe's talks printed by Sichos in English. Yehoishophot Oliver 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I read it, it was a strugle but I read it. Look, this is just an article about Chabad messianism. So stuff to do with Chabad messianism goes into in. You say these things are distinct, but a number of sources listed in the article make a clear connection between the Rebbe's comment and messianism in Chabad by the way. But again - this is not the subject of the article - it is only mentioned briefly. This article is NOT about "chabad's identification of moshiach".It is about the trend within chabad to identify one guy as the messiah and the history that lead to this. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You actually rather explain the issue. We have an article on "Chabad messianism" b/c chabad messianism is more that the sum of the words "chabad" and "messianism". The rebbe's focus on bringing moshiach is amply coverd here, in the Rebbe article and in the Chabad article. This is why the article isnot called Messianism (Chabad). Then why not Messiansim (Bobov) and so on. Do you understand? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rebbe's focus on beinging Moshiach is not covered here at all. If you can make such a claim, it shows nothing but your ignorance of the Rebbe's words. What is covered here is the specific topic of identifying the Rebbe as Moshiach, and the name of the article doesn't reflect that. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is, but again that is not the prime issue discussed here as I explain above, the topic you are talking about is dealt with at length in other article where Chabad messiansim is barely touched on. And again, this is the term that is used in academia to describe what is discussed in the body of the article. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Exaclty my point, that's not the prime issue discussed here, so the name of the article should be changed to reflect the nature of the article. Where is the topic of the Chabad emphasis on the belief in Moshiach in general discussed? As for what academics say, then they're also guilty of vagueness. Maybe it makes sense to them, but it's confusing to others who think you want to talk about one idea when in reality you discuss another. Either way, clarity is necessary, so the name needs to be changed. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am at a total loss to understand what you are saying. The article is focused entirely on Chabad messianism, a term used in academia do describe a major trend. There are dozens of references discussion the trend and many of them are brought down here. Again, I suggest you read the other articles where you will see the the rebbe's focus on bringing moshiach is discuused at length. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, the name has to be changed, you cannot use wikipedia to help creat this new (yet to be) term. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms which states: Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities.

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia.

The question now is only what the article should be changed to. Shlomke 19:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No that is not the question at all, as I have stated many times this is not in any way a neologism, as you would know if you were to search google. Chabad messianism, Habad messianism, Lubavitch messianism, are the terms used in academia to describe this phenomenon, so that is what the article is called. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, a neologism is: words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. So yes, this is a neologism. Shlomke 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shlomke really, I can add nothing but to point out that this is the term used in academia to describe the situation, the rule you quote above is refering to acticles which are about new words and phrases - this article is describing a trend that is discussed widely in academia - and academia si more than a "certain community". David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

770 replicas

The 770 replicas does not have to do with the rebbe returning as Moshiach, since there were replicas built even before he passed away (they were always built with special room for Rabbi Schneerson should he ever come and visit). They had to do with they significance given to the building. I'm removing that part. Shlomke 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but why did you also take out the quote with the reference. I am putting that back in without the replicas list because until I find a source. David Spart 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not part of messianisim. It is an example of a chassids feelings toward his rebbe (which may sound a bit extreme to those unfamilier with Chassidus). At most this would be relevent to the 770 article (probably not). Shlomke 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a central part of messianist thinking, the the rebbe is the center of their plans, the messianist belief that his home is to become the beis hamikdash one day (as expressed in the quote that you removed). This is a firm illustration of messianist thinking - and does not predate messianism, though it predates gimmel tamuz. No other chasidus goes to such lengths as far as I am aware - this is unique to lubavitch and a literally concrete example of the way they think about their Rebbe that is discussed in journals. I will try and make in more palatable to you, but the quotes and refs need to stay. David Spart 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain more accurately what the 770 replicas have to do with messianism? which journals put the two together? Shlomke 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The replicas are an expression of the devotion of the Rebbe's disciples to him as a Rebbe. This may not be found in other groups, but so what? It's a commentary on the nature of the Rebbe/Chossid relationship in Chabad, period. This has nothing to do with messianism per se in the minds of the Rebbe's disciples, and no source was quoted to prove so. (No talk says that 770 will become the Beis Hamkidash; it just says that it will be attached to the Beis Hamikdash, as will all the other shuls in the world.) Yehoishophot Oliver 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The link is totally clear - and is summarised by the quote at the end. The construction of the replicas is directly linked to its status as beis moshiach or beis raboteinu she'bebavvel. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's strange that you'd think it's "totally clear"; when I read it I saw nothing of the sort. There is no reference in the quote provided to the concept of "Beit Moshiach". There is no reference made to identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach or the belief in the Moshiach in general. There is a reference made to a source that discusses a very strong devotion to the Rebbe as Rebbe. Period. I'm removing that paragraph as it's irrelevant. Yehoishophot Oliver 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to have a consensus before you remove good sourced material form an article. The replicas are a concrete example of the centrality of the Rebbe and Beis Raboteinu Shebegalus in messianist though - along with a quote from a messianist publication. This is directly relevant, A Chabad publication elucidates on the centrality of the building in messianic thought: "We Lubavitch chassidim believe that Lubavitch is Jerusalem, the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the covenant standing on the "Even HaShetiya" in which the divine being and essence rests. That is not a very strong devotion to the "Rebbe as Rebbe" that is a very strong devotion to the Rebbe as Atzmus E'Mehus and is borderline Elokism let alone Messiansim. If you do not recognize that then you may be a messiansit oyourself. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A quote has to be relevant to the subject of the article before it can be included, and the fact that it is sourced is irrelevant if the content itself is irrelevant. The replicas are a concrete example of the centrality of the Rebbe in Chabad thought in general. No argument there. So include it in the article on the Rebbe, if you like. Yes, it is "a very strong devotion to the "Rebbe as Rebbe"". It has nothing to do with the element within chabad that emphasises belief in the Rebbe as Moshiach per se, and no proof whatsoever was quoted to prove so. The quote there mentioned nothing about replicas. And it mentioned nothing about identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach. And the fact that this quote is from a publication where yechi is written does not in itself prove that there is anything inherently "messianic" about this belief, much in the same way that there are many other notions there that have no direct connection to the notion of identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach, because as Chabad chasidim they will speak about Chabad concepts.

The only possible source that would prove your claim that the making of replicas is somehow in the minds of some related to identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach in particular, is if you would quote an interview with the designer or sponsor of one of the replicas who said that this was his intention. But until then you have quoted no source whatsoever, and I will remove it. Stick to the article topic, thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Look you have to stop reverting like this without consensus. The quote is clearly messianist/elokist in nature and ties in the replicas and the centrality of the rebbe and 770 in chabad messianist thought. The quote is really the ikar davar - the mention of the replicas is in a way only background. Again: A Chabad publication elucidates on the centrality of the building in messianic thought: "We Lubavitch chassidim believe that Lubavitch is Jerusalem, the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the covenant standing on the "Even HaShetiya" in which the divine being and essence rests. That is not a very strong devotion to the "Rebbe as Rebbe" that is a very srong devotion to the Rebbe as Atzmus E'Mehus and is borderline Elokism let alone Messiansim. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, you have to stop posting material like this without relevance to the article topic. Again, the quote mentioned nothing about the concept of the belief in the Moshiach, which is purportedly the topic of the article. The quote doesn't become "messianist" just because you claim it so. You need proof of that. And you need proof that replicas have something inherently to do with identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach. That quote refers to the relationship of the Chosid with a Rebbe according to Chabad, something that you clearly have little knowledge of. And it is directly based on talks of the Rebbe and previous Rebbe accepted universally by all Chabad chasidim, not just so called "messianists." And it doesn't refer to the concept of the Moshiach in general or his identification. Stick to the topic.

In summary, Just because something is regarded as extreme by you, which is fine, that doesn't make it relevant to the article topic. If you think the Rebbe/Chosid relationship in Chabad is extreme, say so on the Chabad page. That has nothing to do with the concept of identifying Moshiach in Chabad, which is the topic of this article. And perhaps research the topic more using original sources and consulting with Chasidim directly who are learned in their Rebbe's teachings, instead of drawing absurd connections and conclusions, thereby demonstrating your ignorance and lack of coherent grasp of the subject matter to all those familiar with it from original sources. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK fine if you insist I will reword the paragraph, and provide the source that you require. The quote is brought down by David Berger in a recent artile in Yated Ne'eman. He mentions it at an example of Chabad messinaim. I simply thought this was so indisputably obvious that I simply refered directly to his source. But since you insist I will rephrase it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't insist you reword the paragraph. I ask that you remove material irrelevant to the article topic, until such relevance is proven. The fact that you have a source doesn't make the material relevant. Anyone familiar with the facts knows that replicas of 770 were made long, long before the controversy over identifying Moshiach that is discussed here, most notably the replica in Kfar Chabad, which was made with the Rebbe's full consent. No Chabadnik has any problem with the making of these replicas and there is nothing specifically "messianic" about it, and no source was quoted to prove so. If you think it's extreme and want to discuss that, then discuss it in the relevant article, maybe the 770 one, or the general Chabad article, because the value of 770 as explained by the Rebbe is universally accepted in Chabad, and not the province of a sub-group. And as in the Yoel Kahn article, I ask you to please do proper research, instead of jumping to baseless conclusions. I have removed the paragraph and will continue to do so until you provide a source (perhaps an interview) that proves that there is some sort of direct connection between making of replicas and identification of Moshiach in the minds of those who make or sponsor the replicas. Yehoishophot Oliver 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I said above. The link is expliciply made by David Berger in an article in Yated Ne'eman in June, and the reference is in the artice. I therefore rephrased to reflect the artibution - making that atribution direct. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. Lets work things out on talk page. I will past it here for now. Shlomke 19:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Full size replicas of 770 Eastern Parkway have been constructed in Kfar Chabad and in Jerusalem. Other replicas or near-replicas have been built in New Jersey, in Los Angeles, Melbourne, Milano, Rio and Buenos Aires. David Berger cites a senoir chabad mashpia in Kfar Chabad, Rabbi Yishvam Segal describing the messianist posiiton of the Rebbe in the world:

"We Lubavitch chassidim believe that Lubavitch is Jerusalem, the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia^none [770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the covenant standing on the "Even HaShetiya" in which the divine being and essence rests"

No, the material is sourced and I have adressed you concern amply. I strongly request that you dont take good sources out of articles. The link is made expliciply by Berger as an example of messianist thinking. If you want to remove it from the article you need a very good reason. I'm going to put it back - where it was before - until you can find a good reason to remove a valid and relevant source. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

David are you basically saying that if Berger sees something a certain way, then it can automatically go into the article? What if others dont see it that way?

Also perhaps you can post the piece from Berger where he links the the replicas to messianism, as I was not able to get it online. Shlomke 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was avaliable on that Shema Yisraol site (or something) last week. That is where I read it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References

My edits

I removed a large number of links from the see also section, since they are not topics of messianism, and it was also very long. Took out necessary "undisputed" from Shach, added in a few words about shach's other attacks on chabad. NPOV about the RCA. A word about the Jewish's community's original opposition to chabad's outreach - Kiruv. Gill students book self published. I took out the part about Yaakov kaminetzky, also something not related to messianism (does everything that attacks chabad go into this article?). Removed "mantra" as already discused. took out "ostensibly" on the soloveichik letter, and put in more info from the letter. I made it clear that the alleged letter from Soloveichik in 2000 is something that Berger claims, but that Soloveichik himself never repudiated his 1996 letter publicly. Removed a word in acordance with wp:wta. The Halachic ruling was signed by many non chabad rabbi's too, corrected. Shlomke 00:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shlomke thank you for your edits, many of them are entirely valid. Thankyou also for spending the time to report me for a 3rr violation - you must have really enjoyed that bit of mesira. But really, thank you for the edits. I am not going to revert you edit since many are very good - I am going to take the time to merely replace the sources you removed, since that is not beseder, but I will leave out the Kaminetsky source if you really like. Gil Student is a notable source of criticism on Chabad so it should be noted that he wrote a book, though if you insist he is not used as a source. OK with statement, but invocation is really much better, genuinely.

Soloveichik: Er no. You see that letter is the repudiation you say he did not make, also the letter continues to say that he didn't go public on the matter for the sake of not creating a controversy, but if it continued to be used he would - he then died a few months later, but that is only by the way. Nobody disputes Bergers' reliability or handling of primary sources - and there can be no caveat in the article about the authenticity of the letter unless you have a source for that. The letter was "ostensibly" signed, since the signer subsequently claimed that he had not seen the whole text when he signed it - though I will try and reword to your satisfaction. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope we can work together on this. I put back the 770 stuff until you give a good reason why it should be removed, I left out the Kaminetsky stuff as per your edits. I reworded the Soloveichik stuff, I hope to your satisfaction. But your description of the new letter in Berge's book was highly POV, implying that was unreliable and so on. We don't care whether or not it was true - in wikipedia we only care that there is a reliable source, Berger is such a source - we cannot question his honesty here. I added a few citation needed tags. But thanks for your input. We can discuss the "see also". David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mantra

The word is Mantra. There is nothing POV about the word. Declaration on the other hand is not neutral as it implies a certain force that Yechi does not posses. Look here [1] "a slogan or phrase often repeated" - that is what Yechi is. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course declaration is neutral. That's what they do, they declare it. It implies nothing about its powers; if anything, the term mantra carries that implication. On the mantra article it states "They (mantras) are primarily used as spiritual conduits, words or vibrations that instill one-pointed concentration in the devotee." No one will say that this is an accurate definition of yechi, that yechi is said to increase concentration. They'll say that it's said to declare the Rebbe as king. Nothing to do with concentration. I have changed it back. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the third definition, it is an oft repeated slogan. Decleration is just not the right word. It is not used that way in English. I dont know why you think mantra is POV. Right exactly, they will say it is to declare the Rebbee King but that is their POV. A NPOV must note that these are merely words and have no declarative force. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no such definition on that wepbage. Please point it out to me. A declaration is simply when someone gets up and says something. It doesn't imply that it has any "force." (And it definitely is relvant what those chasidim who say it say that they mean when they do so, something that you oddly neglect to discuss.) That's just the way the word is used in English. Whereas the word mantra implies a process of meditation, or "religious ceremonies to accumulate wealth, avoid danger, or eliminate enemies," and "are intended to deliver the mind from illusion and material inclinations." No one makes any such claim about declaring yechi. So it's a false comparison. Please use terms correctly. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from wikitioary a Mantra "3. slogan or phrase often repeated" - that is the primary modern use of the word. I don't see any POV problem here and it is by far the best word to describe it. Declaration simply wont do - because it has overtones of legal force and establishment and so on. If you can think of a different word we might be able to have a constructive debate about it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And the word "proclamation" is worse, neing defined as "something that is proclaimed; a public and official announcement." It really is hard to think of a better example of a mantra than Yechi. I am at a lot as to why you keep replacing it with words that are not applicable. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we compromise and call it a statement. That is the most neural word in the world OK? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. On second thoughts, it occured to me that the ideal word is invocation. How does that look to you? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see anything POV about the word "Decloration". it's abou how they use it, not how it's seen by others. Shlomke 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not happy with that word. Granted, Yechi is said by some as a prayer of sorts, but it means many other things in the minds of those who say it that the word prayer doesn't express and conceals. In any case, the word invocation has all sorts of secondary implications that are not correct in this context. Statement is fine. Yehoishophot Oliver 02:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we all agree then on the word statement? Shlomke 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

invocation is much much better. It is exactly the correct word. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you think so, but you must respond to the concerns of others and reach consensus, which you are clearly making no effort to do. It has been pointed out that both words, mantra and invoation, carry associations inappropriate in this context, and this inappropriateness has been explained. You need to address these concerns in order to reach consensus. Yehoishophot Oliver 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oliver, could you please stop with the cheap personal attacks. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, like I said, address the issues. I seeyou persist with using invocation despite lack of consensus. Yehoishophot Oliver 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for support

I tried to find some sources for these poeple: Here is how it went:

1. Aaron Laufer - appears to be a doctor in New York. Searching for "Nadvorna-Safed" -wiki -wikipedia -arikah -mbceo. "aharon laufer" does no better. It is bizare that a current (within the last decade) rebbe should get NO ghits.
2. Yaakov Yosef appears to be the oldest son of Ovadia Yoseef - who had a falling out with his father over some halachik issue. He was an MK for 3 years in he early 80s, and has not done anything of note since and I can find no source to say that he supports messianism.
3. Eliyahu Shmerler gets no ghits that do not refer back here ("Eliyahu Shmerler" -wiki -wikipedia)
4. I can also find no source for Pinchas Hirchspung saying the rebbe was still moshiach. Though I don't doubt he did. However he was a lubavitcher himself so this is not really notable even if it could be sourced. ("Pinchas Hirshprung" -wiki -wikipedia)

I spoke to Rabbi Hirshprung's son-in-law and he told me that Rabbi Hirshprung did indeed sign a letter saying that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was moshiach because he was told that it would make him feel better when he was quite ill, but he signed it on condition that it not be publicized and he did not mean that he was THE moshiach, only that he was a moshuach Hashem in the same way that others have been called that. His son-in-law also said that Rabbi Hirshprung also said that he believes in moshiach and that he is 99% certain that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not moshiach. But at the same time Rabbi Hirshprung did think highly of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and consider him the manhig hador because he was the only one who actively cared about all of klal yisroel instead of just his students and chassidim. --Ezra Wax 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Any tips? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Attack on Chabad by Dalfin, Jewish Enrichment Publications. Shlomke 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Leifer+Nadvorna+-wiki+-wikipedia for Aaron Laufer. It should be Leifer and instead of Safed attached to the word Nadvorna you should consider that it is spelled by some tzfas. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any materail justifying the claims made in the article at present. Dalfin is not a reliable source having writen a self published paperback which he then distributed himself on request. The idea that some of the non-notables mentioned as supporters of messianism is very controvertial and needs a very good source. If no sources are forthcoming we are going to have no choice but to remove all the unsourced material in the article. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Many writers publish their own books there nothing wrong with that. Moreover, He written some 20 + books some of which have been published by third party publishers. He would be considered and expert in his own field of chasidic pholosophy. He is definitly notble. Shlomke 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of that. He is self-published sources are not reliable exept in exeptional circumstances - and certainly not in this case where the statements are so contravertial. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of what? Shlomke 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No evidence that he is considered an expert, or that he wrote 20 book on the subject. It appears he only wrote one, which he ptinted and distributed himself. Not that it matters - he is certainly less reliable (and notable) than Gil Student who you correctly argue below should not be used as a source. Basicly, of we are going to write that private people such as Yosef and Hirshprung etc. are messianist - which is a controvertial position - we need a damn solid source due to extreme BLP concerns. And by the way, if it is true, that will not be hard to find. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of this article

Anyone who really knows about the movement and knows about what goes on should know that the Messianists are a minority and not the majority, as stated multiple times in the book "The Rebbe's army". It is known that the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself threatened to walk out of 770 if a group of people did not stop singing the "yechi". Please make the changes necessary to the article so that this is clear or I will have to do it myself on a later date. --24.79.155.111 23:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSES

Wikipedia Before Schneerson's death in 1994 a significant body of Chabad Hasidim believed that he would soon become the Messiah by ushering in the Messianic Age and constructing the Third Temple. Books and pamphlets were written containing arguments for the Rabbi's status as Messiah, some of which Schneerson opposed, but some he also encouraged on occasions.

Response The tradition to believe in a living "scion of the House of David" as the long awaited messiah is in deed very old. It dates back to the very Talmud. There the talmidim, students, of 5 different yeshivas, academies of higher learning, believed that their Rosh Yeshiva, dean of that academy, was fitting to become the actual messiah, would Hashem, G-d Al-mighty, would only consider that generation even having a small bit of merit.

Rav Nachman even had declared about himself, "kagon ahna", "for example, I am [fitting]".

How could they all be correct, as there is only one potential spiritual giant per generation that can actually be the messiah? This question was posed by Rabbi Yehezkhel Medini, the former Chief Rabbi in the Hebron, Israel, community, known as the author of the widely accepted halachic encyclopedia, Sdei Chemed, quoting Rabbi Arye Leib Lipkin zatzal. See Sdei Chemed, volume 7, responsa 70. To remember, it's "770". See page 2xxx.

Sdei Chemed explains the answer. Each group of students and Rav Nachman lived in different generations. So, there is no contradiction in the Talmud regarding these 5 statements.

Clearly, we see that this is a very old tradition, which Chabad Lubavitchers practice to this day; it is rooted in the Talmud. Those that belittle it, or deny its validity, violate the last two principles of belief from Rambam, Maimonides, and will not rise by the resurrection of the dead.

One foundation of the ChaBaD school of Chassidic Philosophy and System of Thought is the teachings of the famed creator of the Golem, the Maharal of Prague, Rabbi Yehuda Lowry. His followers considered him also "fitting to be the messiah", and called him out loud and in public, "ruach apeinu, moshiach Hashem" - "breath of our nose (life), the anointed on of G-d".

Both earlier in time in many different generations, and later after the Baal Shem Tov, it was common to find different groups attributed messianic status to their leaders. This was not only a Chassidic custom. For example, the Ksav Sofer was regarded as the potential moshiach by his father, the Chossam Sofer. See the book, ___________, page xx.

The quotations from the halachic encyclopedia, Sdei Chemed, and from the Responsa of Chossam Sofer, are cited in the published works of the former professor at University of Buffalo, Rabbi Hershel Greenberg Shlita, the son of Rabbi Meir Greenberg zatzal of Fairlawn, NJ, to be posted soon at his web site, www.rabbigreenberg.com.

Wikipedia During the later years of his life Schneerson's teachings were interpreted by many to mean that he was claiming to be the Messiah.

Response There is no written record, or recorded source, for this claim. Rather, the Lubavitcher Rebbe never made such a claim; he even rebuked those that implied that he was the messiah. There is one indirect reference to the Lubavitcher Rebbe's admittance to such a claim, when he explained that the term, "mee-yad", immediately, was an acronym for three terms. Mee-yad consists of three Hebrew letters, Mehm, Yuhd, Daled. So, Mee-yad refers to the names of three Rebbes, who were considered to be the messiah: Rebbe #7 Menachem Mendel, Rebbe #6 Yosef Yitzchok, and Rebbe #5 Sholem DovBer. This though is hardly a teaching that can be interpreted to be a claim to be the messiah.

Wikipedia His death in 1994 did not quell the messianist fervor, as believers found rationales to explain the belief that Schneerson was the Messiah despite having passed on.

Response This statement, "despite having passed away", is based upon a basic belief in Reform Judaism, which suggests that it is impossible for the true Jewish messiah to come from the dead, like Jesus the Nazerene.

In Orthodox Judaism, it is actually preferred for the true messiah to come miraculously from the deceased. The Talmud compares such a great deceased Jewish tzaddik, saint, to the prophet Daniel, who was killed by Haman's efforts. This is mentioned later by the Chossam Sofer in his second volume of responsa. The context there is whether the messiah can arrive on the Sabbath.

Wikipedia Some argued that he had in fact not died at all and was still physically present, but in a concealed state. Others argued that even though he had died, proofs existed within Judaism that legitimize the Messiah returning from the dead.

Response This ia very misleading and clearly non-Orthodox Judaism statement. The Talmud clearly states that Tzaddikim, Jewish saints, are never considered dead. Even when their bodies are buried, Tzaddikim are still alive. In contrast, Reshoyim, wicked Jews, are never alive, even before their physical death. Whoever authored the above lines obviously espouces a belief the very opposite of the Talmud. For as we have explained both here, and earlier, the Talmud regards Tzaddikim as always alive, and the long awaited Moshiach as being able to come from the (physically) deceased. Anyone who rejects these ideas is tearing pages out of the sacred Talmud.

Wikipedia Early developments One of the earliest proponents of the idea of Schneerson as the messiah was Rabbi Avraham Parizh. As early as 1952 Parizh printed a poster proclaiming him as the messiah. When word reached the United States that the poster had been seen around Tel Aviv, Schneerson forbade its distribution.

Response Rabbi Avraham Parizh was a very holy Chassidic Jew, who desperately wanted his Chassidic comrades, and fellow Israelis, to feel the love and admiration which he felt for his rebbe. In all Lubavitch circles, he was seen as a pariah, and not a part of mainstream Lubavitch, just as the extreme elements of what is known as the Moshiach movement, or the "crazies", are considered. As this entire article inaccurately describes, most Lubavitchers are fine religious Jews, devoted to helping every Jew to become a better Jew. The crazies are a very small minority, numbering less than a few hundred people, usually with different psychological problems.

Yet, because of the general jealousy and intense hatred in the so-called learned Orthodox community towards Lubavitch and/or the Lubavitcher Rebbe, articles like this pop up, written by psuedo-learned or seemingly religious ignoramuses.

Wikipedia Again, in 1961, in a letter dated Tamuz 5721, Pariz, wrote of Schneerson as having near God-like essence:

“ Within the holy body of the Rebbe, 'Atzmus Ein Sof baruch Hu' [the essence of infinite God] resides. This tells us that whatever the Rebbe says or writes, 'Atzmus Ein Sof baruch Hu' is saying and writing, so to speak. ”

Response Rabbi Avraham Parizh refers here to a very lofty concept about a true Tzaddik in general, as explained by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, in Likutei Amerim - Tanya, based upon teachings from the holy Zohar. The author intentionally quotes this out of context, and doesn't have the faintest idea what Azmus Ein Sof is.

References

NPOV and accuracy

There are multiple NPOV and accuracy problems with this article. The following is a sample of those problems:

1. This article is 98 percent criticism and only 2% support of the chabad messianism. This is very unbalanced.
2. It does not discuss the significant view withing chabad that Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not the messiah.
3. It does not speak about the times that Menachem Mendel Schneerson threatened to leave 770 if people continued to sing Yechi.
4. It does not speak about the responses that stated that people should not say that he was the messiah that Menachem Mendel Schneerson gave to individuals who asked him.
5. It does not speak about the fact that the messianists rely on hand motions that took place after Menachem Mendel Schneerson had a stroke and could not speak.
6. It takes the views of a few people and implies that these are significant beliefs in chabad.
7. It leaves out all sources which state that the messianst are a fringe group.

There are many more problems, however this is a start. Chocolatepizza 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not criticism or support, it is simply a discussion. If you can add sourced material from reliable attributable sources that support Chabad messianism that would be great, there are even sections ready for that information to be added.
2. It does, it quotes a few people like Shmotkin. If you can add any information on people within Chabad who say that he is certainly not the messiah that would be fantastic it was reliably sourced and so on.
3. Find a source for that and add it in - it does mention his attack on Wolpo for writing the book and noted that he sometimes discouraged Yechi.
4. It notes the Rebbe criticism of Wolpo - check and you will see - if you have more sources add them.
5. Again, find a source, that makes this point - no that he couldn't speak - but that the have misinterpreted him as a result, and add it in.
6. There is a section on prevalence where all the verifiable sources that we have found that discuss the numbers, if you have more, add them.
7. This argument is mentioned in fact. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BeKitzer, add more sources, but there is no POV problem here, the tone is very neutral. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-mosichist sources

I found them in the "Yechi" article.

Third footnote: ^ Sefer Hisvadus 5745 Volume 1 page 465 which corresponds to the Rebbe telling his Chassidim to stop singing the Yechi

Quote from the article.. "On Shabbas Parshas Noach 1992 when some chassidim started to sing a similar song, the Rebbe stopped them and remarked that it was strange that he should remain sitting there. He complained that he should have stood up and left the room, his only deterrent being a desire not to disrupt the brotherly atmosphere of a farbrengen"

The source: Sichos Kodesh Parshas Noach 5752

--24.79.155.111 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Even if you consider the Elokists to be "one or two people" (which they clearly are not), they are discussed enough in various anti-Meshichistic books, articles and speeches to warrant a section on their own. Calling them and "outrageous invention" is just delusional, especially when so many shluchim and Chabad rabbonim have been making public statements about how "the Rebbe is watching over us" or "the Rebbe will help us" and etc. If you want to define Elokists as the guys who add in a line by benching or change the Yechi chant to "Adoneinu v'Boreinu", then you're deluding yourself further by creating a narrow definition that excludes an awful lot of people who should fit the definition. Yserbius (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yserbius Please see the consensus above that one or two lines is the most attention they deserve. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

References

The problem is that there are people who don't identify as Elohist, but conflate the Rebbe ZTZL with God Himself. Those are sadly not only the few people mentioned above. AryehGintzler (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and don't think that such people exist, except for that group. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hope vs Believe

In several places in the article it refers to Chabad messianism as the hope that the last Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L was Mashiach. A more accurate and more in line with encyclopedic phrasing would be that they believed he would be Mashiach. I suggest changing "hope" to "believe" in most of the article. I mean, the articles written by meshichists both pre- and posthumously clearly state their belief that he is Mashiach.Yserbius (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yserbius They hoped and believed. Both can easily be sourced.

On a personal note. What bothers me most here is your fanatic believe that whatever you think is true, must me true. The only truth and the only "right" edit. I really recommend you to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR, WP:IDLI and other related guidelines and essays. Let me put it simple. This community, including me, will not tolerate your attitude for long. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, sure they hoped and believed (and many still do) but it's inconsistent with the language used on other articles relevant to religion. You don't find Ani Maamin described as a series of hopes. Nor do you find Christian ideas, lehavdil, talked about in terms of "the hope that JC will return". So why should the meshichist movement, who ardently believed (and many continue to believe) in something be different? I am simply curious why on this topic in particular the language is different and why you are so opposed to changing it.

And let me add to you personal note. Please point out where exactly I expressed a, ahem, "fanatic believe (sic) that whatever I think is true". I have not added or changed anything based on what I believe or think is true. I have simply added a few facts here or there and referenced them properly only to see them being reverted almost immediately with vague comments as to why. As a Wikipedia user, and infrequent contributor, for close to eight years, I am quite familiar with the various rules, regulations and best practices governing this hefker velt. Notably, the "undo" button is not to be used to remove information not to your liking. It's for edits that violate the rules. You and Effy770 seem very trigger happy with the "undo" button and that is something that you may want to think twice about before threatening and accusing other users who are just trying to add content. Like I said to Effy770, this is not your personal page. Whilst keeping a close eye on edits is something that every page should have, hoarding over a page and reverting everything that comes from other users is simply bad practice.Yserbius (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

While there may or may not be valid sources to each side, I happen to think that "hope" is a more accurately defines the situation. One can not believe something that is not 100% true. So yes, many Chabadniks hoped and many still do that Rebbe Schneerson will be the Mashiach. The hope/ed that if the Mashiahc were to come now, it will be him. They can not believe it (i.e., that he is already the Mashiach), since it has not happened yet. They may wish, truly wish, hope and pray, that it will happen. But at this point, it's inconceivable to really define it as "belief." The Ani Maamin is obviously different, since the Torah (Rambam) tells us that we must believe. So there, even though it has no happened yet, we must believe it to be so, since we know for a fact - since the Torahs tells us - that it will happen. Re the Rav Butman quote. The reason I removed it is simple. He is not of note. There were many other Chabadniks who did the same as him, so I don't know why he should be singled out. His actual behavior, can, if you can prove it to be so significant, find its place elsewhere on the page. But no need for it in the lead. Rav Krinsky and Rav Shemtov are both leading figures - who were appointed by Rebbe Schneerson to their respected positions. It's ludicrous to place Rav Butman as the opposition to them. If you would have a quote from Rav Groner, Rav Simpson or Rav Klein, that is something that could be considered - although other then Rav Simpson, neither Rav Groner nor Rav Klein had been appointed to official positions. Re the Rav Feldman quote, I have just looked at it and I see he does mention the passages frequently quoted by those who continue to hope that Rebbe Schneerson could be the Mashiach (such as Danial etc.) but rhetorically asks how anyone can say that Rebbe Schneerson fits that bill. For now I have left it as is. All in all, no nee dot shout out, no need to accuse. Just be civil, and first discuss here. If you disagree with what I wrote here - you are definitely entitled to - let's talk.Effy770 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully and vehemently disagree. Whilst there is certainly a hope that Mashiach will come soon, meshichisters ardently subscribe to the belief that Mashiach is the last Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L and how he will be resurrected and return. Saying "We want Mashiach now" is a hope, saying "May he live on, our master our teacher, King Mashiach" represents a belief. You said that you can find me sources that say so, very well then bring them. Because every source listed here, from the 770 refutations saying that he is not Mashiach to David Bergers books and speeches on the topic state the concept of "meshichistism" as a religious belief.

As for Shmuel Butman, he is significant not so much because of his previous and current position in Chabad (which is no simple shaliach), but because of his de-facto position as the leader of the meshichist movement. Virtually every piece of literature discussing the movement, quotes him and mentions him at length. He already has a Wiki page, so he's definitely fulfills WP:NOTABILITY and I see no reason why he should be omitted from a page that discusses a movement which he plays a huge part in, even if his significance in Lubavitch as a whole isn't all that much (a claim I also doubt, he still leads LYO and plays a huge role in 770 whether or not Rav Shneerson ZT"L actually appointed him is insignificant)Yserbius (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is precisely the attitude I am referring to. Since you (claim to be) well familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, therefore any editor pressing the undo button simply must have WP:OWN or other issues. It couldn't be that your edit is inferior or, even worse, against guidelines. Well, as long as that is your attitude, have a nice day.

No need to write posts of half a page or over (like another editor I know, who also lost whatever war he though he was fighting). If you have any really important point, please write about it in a few short words. Hope vs believed is not important, and some variety is good. Butman, never heard of the guy. What else? Debresser (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you responding to my latest comment or something previous? I am trying to clarify an edit before it falls under the scrutiny of yourself and others and ends in another edit war. There is no need to be harsh and I am still unsure of exactly what it is that you are taking issue with. I am not violating WP:OWN, but I do have an issue with my edits, no matter how minor how well referenced or how well written, being reverted almost as soon as they are posted. If anyone is violating WP:OWN it would be you two. I am simply trying to clarify a wording that I feel is completely out of place. You and Effy770 are defending the wording, but you haven't brought a single source or refuted a single argument I've made in favor of "believe" over "hope". Now you're just getting angry at me. I'm trying to discuss this in a civilized fashion, so that fights don't break out. Editing is out of the question. Posting on the talk page is out of the question. What, pray tell, would you suggest would be a sensible way of going about this topic which is clearly an issue?

As for Shmuel Butman, you not having heard of him is no rayah. It just means that you clearly were not around major Chabad centers in New York any time in the past 20 years. I'd been hearing his name, and seeing him mentioned in articles, since at least 1995. I never heard of Rav Shemtov before now, does that mean all of his stuff should be deleted? Yserbius (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

For one, accusing a veteran editor of WP:OWN is not the way. Let's get that clear. I think that "believe" or "hope" can both be sourced, and in any case clearly falls under WP:BROKE.

Butman may be notable, I don't argue with that. I live in Israel and have not heard of the guy. So he can not be the world-leader of the meshichists. In certain things we do say that it is a rayah. In this connection, please see WP:WORLDVIEW. I have heard of Shemtov. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with the petty arguments. Must I remind you that you called me out for WP:OWN amongst other things? Trying to "win" with threats and accusations (pretty much all you've done in every one of our discussions) gets everyone nowhere and no one cares how long you've been on Wikipedia for. The only reason you may feel that it ain't broke, is because two out of three people watching this page feel that way, and you're half of them. If you want some sources for "belief" here they are. Now please bring me a source that explains how meshichists retain the belief that Mashiach can be anyone, but they merely hope it's Rav Shneerson ZT"L. Yserbius (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a coherent discussion. In addition to Debressers recent comment, I would just add one point on the Butman issue. He may or may not be notable, but so what? That is certainly not the point. The issue is that his statements can not be held to the level of those of Krinsky and/or Shemtov, both of whom, as well documented, were given authoritative positions by Rebbe Schneerson. And should therefore not be in context of him vs them or vice-verse. As I said, if we can find such a statement from someone like Groner, Klein or Simpson, I think that would fit somewhat better. I suggest the Butman information, though I don't see it as specifically relevant, be included, as per your recent edit, further on the page. Actually, I am just curios, you mention that you have heard Butman a lot; when was the last time he has been quoted on the Mashiach topic, or any other topic?Effy770 (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Then leave him out, I was just a little surprised and curious why the line I added about him was removed when several others remained. I have been hearing his name mentioned almost every time the topic of Chabad and Mashiach comes up and have seen it in print in many magazines and other media. I cannot recall the last time I saw his name in print relating to meshichisters, but it was definitely in the past ten years.

Also, please see what I wrote above to Debresser in regards to whether meshichisters firmly believe that Rav Shneerson ZT"L is going to be Mashiach, or whether they know it can be anyone but merely hope it will be him. Yserbius (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Both are true, obviously: they hope and believe. Which brings me back to WP:BROKE. The text sometimes uses "believe" and sometimes "hope". There is nothing wrong with that that needs fixing, so "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and just leave the text as it is.

I'd call your arguments "petty", so let's just agree not to call names not to each other and not to the arguments of the other, and just stick to the issue(s) at hand (by the way, this also a Wikipedia guideline, called WP:NPA.) Debresser (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

But it's a gross misrepresentation of a fact and comes across as apologetic or sympathetic towards their beliefs, which is why I am so insistent on it. And I still do not see any text that uses the word 'hope' in the context of him being Mashiach. (The text uses 'hope' in many of the key locations, such as several times in the header.) Sure they 'hope' Mashiach will come soon, but they firmly 'believe' that that Mashiach will be Rav Shneerson ZT"L. This is important as there's nothing in Judaism against hoping for a particular person to be Mashiach. There is, though, little wiggle room for actual beliefs in regards to who Mashiach can or cannot be. Going against established beliefs is going against thousands of years of Judaism. If they had hope for something to happen, they probably would not be facing such an anti-meshichist backlash. As they believe him to be Mashiach, they are ridiculed, criticized and called heretics.

Also, conversations would go a lot smoother if you would stop talking about what a wonderful contributor to Wikipedia you are and lecturing me (and others) about Wiki policies. In case you didn't notice, I've been contributing for a few years longer than you. :) Yserbius (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yserbius I hadn't noticed that. I do notice that your number of edits isn't anywhere close to mine. Nor did I say how great I am; you made up that part. But since you are such an experienced editor, you should know better than to insist on what you like and just leave the article as is, with a less rigid but more natural choice of words. :) Debresser (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References

"many Jews hoped that he would be the Messiah"

The lead states "During Rabbi Schneerson’s life, many Jews hoped that he would be the Messiah. This idea gained great vocal attention during the last years of Schneerson life.[7][8][9]" My edit of this has been reverted with the edit summary "definitely not hagiographical". However, there is no reliably sourced support for for this WP:PEACOCK/WP:WEASEL text. Citation [7] is a eulogy! (Aharon Lichtenstein, Euligy for the Rebbe) and cannot be considered a reliable source for such an unqualified assertion. Citation [8] says "See section 'Before Schneerson's Death'". There is no such section. Looking through the article, I see no sourced statement that supports this statement. Citation [9] is The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present, M. Avrum Ehrlich, ch.9 notes, KTAV Publishing, ISBN 0-88125-836-9. None of the notes (a strange reference, which note is it supposed to be?) support the assertion. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I head source 9 in mind, but if you say that the claim is not in the source, then I can not but agree with your edit. By the way, I think source 8 violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should be removed altogether. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Schneerson's belief

The article seems to present only one side of the story when it comes to Schneerson's belief about Moshiach. I'm not Chabad or even Jewish but I have an academic interest in Chabad and Chabad messianism. It's not just a few radicals who thought he was Moshiach, and it's not just Chabad messianists who think that Schneerson believed himself to be the Moshiach. Take a look at Max Kohanzad's doctoral dissertation at University of Manchester: "The Messianic Doctrine of the Lubavitcher Rebbe" (2006) pp. 85-122 for a discussion of the evidence that the Rebbe believed himself to be Moshiach. Keep in mind that Kohanzad, while no longer believing that the Rebbe is Moschiach, was personally involved in Chabad in New York City during the 1980s and 1990s and was present at Schneerson's death. It's just not the case that the messianists are basing themselves on nothing in this respect. As Kohanzad discusses, up to around 1990, the Rebbe did not think that it was appropriate to go public with his messianic claim and so strongly pushed back on any attempt to declare this to the world (as his first priority was the spread of Chabad and to bring Jews back to observance), but around the time of the Gulf War he began to speak of these things more publicly. Certainly one can bring counterarguments but it is not fair to be as one-sided as this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.204.69.14 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The rebbe is moshiach

the rambam (mimonedis) clerly stats the carecter of moshiach and the rebbe fits the guidlins(mishne torah, book of judges, laws of kings chapter 11 (ref)). and the rebbe aluded to this many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.186.243 (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Chabad messianism

Why are the sources in this page all from anti chassidim sources? Obviously they will be against chabad. חלוקת קונטרסים (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add more sources. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)