Talk:Chabad messianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Soloveitchik again

Why do disputes about Chabad always come back to Soloveitchiks? We are not going to have a letter whose authenticity has subsequently been denied by its author quoted in full - put it in a note if you really want. If we have the full text of the fake letter, we need the full text of the real letter too. Here it is from the Hebrew version of Berger's book, pp. 74-75, and the English original on p. 75 of the Hebrew book, note 7. It is dated April 22, 2000.

“ To my great dismay, I was recently informed that certain publications affiliated with the Lubavitch movement have persisted in stating that I validate their belief that a Jewish Messiah may be resurrected from the dead. I completely reject and vigorously deny any such claim. As I have already stated publicly (The Forward—Dec. 2, 1994 and Dec. 23, 1994), such a belief is repugnant to Judaism and is the antithesis of the truth. My intent in signing the original letter cited by these publications was merely to express my opinion that we should not label subscribers to these beliefs as heretics. I believe that they mean well, but unfortunately, they are nevertheless misguided. Any statements in that letter which imply an endorsement of their view were not shown to me at the time I signed and I once again repudiate any such ridiculous claim. I am not releasing this letter immediately for I do not wish to stir up any unnecessary controversy in an already divided Jewish community. I hope that the aforementioned publications will cease to use my name for their purposes and that I will not find it necessary to publish this rebuttal. ”

Having so much material on one man's position is undue weight, which is why i didn't put the full quotes in. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps we can cut down the text. But surely there is nothing wrong with quoting. Shlomke 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some points to consider: The letter he signed and was published in the Jewish press is totally valid as far as wikipedia policy of Attribution. If Soloveitchik did not write and sign the letter, then he would have came out in the public with a real letter repudiating and disqualifying the first. Obviously, this never happened. Now what we have is a letter published by berger supposedly (there is no way to validate this) from Soloveitchik (not signed) stating only that he does not endorse or validate the Meshichist view. Therefore this letter would rightfully be in the "defense" section (vs. "Support"). What I dont understand from you is why have you inserted quotes for a number of other stuff in this article but you did not quote this? In any case I think it fair to compromise and take out some of the letter and leave the main parts. Shlomke 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, and we summarise it, and we can put it in the notes. But if we put the full text in the body then it makes a very long section on Soloveitchik, and in the light of the subsequent letter, it is not really worth it. I thougt it was in the defence section. In truth, this is of historical interest only - Soloveitchik did not defend messianism as we now know, he merely said that they were not heretics.

You cannot question the academic integrity of David Berger - it is nothing short of criminal libel to suggest that this letter is somehow not "real" or question it in any way, it was signed and is genuine. This is a real letter - what could be more real. Any sentient person reading Soloveitchik's letter must at the very least admit that he didn't write the whole thing - do you really think that Soloveitchik would trot out the messianist party line on the rambam and so on? Anyway, you cannot question the authenticity of this letter. If you want to have the authenticity of this letter questioned you need a source that does that. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That Soloveichik did not defend messiansim (and Chabad) is your own interpretation. He did in fact, and there is a source. You must admit there is a big difference between the letter that soloveichick signed and was subsequently publish in a public paper during his liftime, and the one berger produced after he passed. I suggested shortening the letter not summarizing it. Shlomke 18:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look man, this is pointless. Chabad have been trotting out Soloveitchik as a defender for years. Now we have a document repudiating the letter and saying " Any statements in that letter which imply an endorsement of their view were not shown to me at the time I signed and I once again repudiate any such ridiculous claim". I can't put it better than that. It might be my own interpretation, but you need to find a source that responds to Berger's new find, and then you can add it. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your still not answering my argument. This is all indeed your own interpretation. The letter is sourced. Much better then Bergers (third hand information about someone else from none other then, "a friend"). Just present the facts the way they are. You cannot say "this confusion is resolved by"... when there is no source for that. Shlomke 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot information about why the rebbe cannot be Moshiach (Some ideas are even quotes from the Rebbe himself!): http://chassidusunlimited.com/goodresolution.html#NO2

--Hernano 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag July 2007

I added the tag because I don't have time to copyedit the article right now. I noticed several typos and inaccurate or missing punctuation, and the citation punctuation (citations after punctuation) need to be standardised. Please don't remove the cleanup tag until the deficiencies are addressed. Anchoress 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Article

I am restoring the article to before the whitewashing executed against the David Berger passages. No reason was given for the whole sale removal of his content. Abe Froman 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality tag on this article? From what I can read, both sides are presented through voluminous direct quotes. Abe Froman 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There were plenty of reasons given for the changes by multiple editors in the talk above and in their edit summaries. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Over one day, with little or misleading edit summaries [1]or discussion, Pinchas wholesale deleted material from Chabad scholar Rabbi David Berger in this article. Please do not dissemble, the lack of edit summaries and discussion belie the intent. Abe Froman 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? I am sure that anything I did was for a good reason. I do not recall doing what you said. I did reorganize stuff, removed some stuff from the intro and reduced the material of some overly quoted people that were given undue weight. But wholesale deleting material from david berger was not one of them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You gave no reasons, or discussion, for the wholesale removal of the Berger and 770 Eastern parkway Chabad Gabbai material. You claim you did not remove this material, yet this is disproved by a simple check of the diffs. [2]This is simply whitewashing the page. You also removed the Sue Fishikoff citations and quotes. Again, no reasons given. Behaviour like this from an admin is sickening. Abe Froman 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You have provided a diff of my reverting your mass changes. Please supply valid diffs. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other editors, just click history [3] and look at Pinchas's actions on 7.27->7.30. He did not provide any justification for his whitewash. There was no prior discussion on Talk, either. This is a simple case of whitewashing. Abe Froman 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues?

We know there have been some edit conflicts in this article. However, I am curious to know if the other editors around here feel there is a WP:OWN environment around these edit conflicts. Please avoid accusatory tones, and remain civil... and be honest: Do you feel this a regular edit conflict or a WP:OWN situation? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. IZAK 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yaakov Yosef claim

I have heard many claims that the Yaakov Yosef signature is a forgery. 202.161.29.254 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes is almost certainly is, but there are no sources that state this. Lobojo (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes to article

I have made a series of changes to the body of the article, that primarily involve (a) Rewording some confusing prose (b) Adding some sourced material that has been removed from the article over time without any discussion on this page or elsewhere, but mainly (c) subdividing the sections to make great chunks of text more readable. Lobojo (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

The lead as it stands is very problematic. The lead needs to be a precis of the whole article, whereas now it merely talks about the "prevalence section". I am going to rewrite it, one sentence to each section to see how that looks. Lobojo (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the lead to 4 lines one line on each of (a) Expressions (b) Prevalence (c) History and (d) Response. Lobojo (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I removed was...

This line:

According to many researchers, while some have believed during the Rebbe's lifetime that Schneerson had the potential to be the Messiah, only a minute vocal fringe group still believe that he is the Messiah, and today, those beliefs have decreased within Chabad.

Based on these sources:

The Heart of Chabad, forgot this one, merely says "these views have subsided". Lobojo (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A movement embracing old-world Orthodox Judaism is alive and thriving in New York City. Merely says that "A small, vocal faction of Lubavitchers believe that Schneerson is the Messiah and revere him as such" but also "Critics of the movement today deride perceived restrictions on women and the cultlike devotion of the messianic faction." Simply not a substantial scholarly source and certainly fails to support what is writen above.

The Rebbe, 10 Years Later Broken link, can be seen here where nothing pertinent in mentioned.

Jewish movement thrives decade after 'Messiah' dies "Judging from a visit to the headquarters' basement synagogue, those proclaiming Schneerson as the Messiah today represent just a fraction of Lubavitch believers. Some who believe he was the Messiah hold he has not died. Others say Schneerson had messianic potential when alive but prefer not to speculate whether he was indeed the Messiah. Out of hundreds of worshipers on a recent morning, a couple dozen or so leaped to their feet to join a dance and chant to up-tempo music, with one man hoisting a yellow banner depicting a crown and the word "Moshiach," Hebrew for Messiah. In interviews, they said Schneerson was alive in body and soul. But Members of a larger group dismissed the dancers as fringe "messianists," adding Schneerson never said he was Moshiach." Again this fails to support what is said, and even the "best bit" minimises the authors own knowledge by admision, and cannot be used to support any such statement above. Apart from the fact that it shows that he has clearly failed to undersatnd what a messiansit flag is!

Hasidic Rapper Strives To Stay Atop the Charts Does not support the statement. Merely refers to people who chant "Yechi" as a fringe group, says nothing about messianism.

As far as I recall there was not much else substantial removed from the acticle, and I support the reinclusion of these sources in an appropriate way. If I removed anything else it was unsourced and I would have noted it in the edit summary.Lobojo (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to complete the move on the Chabad of US and Canada statement, that is now back in. Lobojo (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Yechi

Is there any opposition to a merge and redirect of Yechi to this article? As the subjects are kind of overlapping. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. This article is already around the recommended limit of 34kb and the Yechi article is good. I see no need to merge these issues. There is no overlap of material as far as I can tell. Unless there is some overriding reason I don't see the point as the people who made that page will only get agitated. David Spart 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should the same topic be covered in two articles? merging in Yechi does not necessarily need to take up much more space in this article if we just put in the relevelt info from Yechi which is not yet here. I support the merge. Shlomke 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Chabad Headquarters refernce - is 770 not chabad headquaters? Does the Haaretz article not describe that occuring? David Spart 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why is the material in the yechi article repeated here? I also vote to merge the articles into one large article. As for the size, there is a lot of repetition and needless lengthy quotation. I'm sure some capable editors can cut it down so it's more readable. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any overlap of material at all. This article is alreally over 40kb - I can't see any possible reason for a merge, it would just lead to pointless strife. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it would lead to pointless strife? Is there any specific reason you think there should be two separate articles other then size? In any case the articles are overlapping and should be merged. Shlomke 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It just survived an AfD. They are both good articles. I dont see an overlap. Various suggestions for merging it have been mooted recenty and none have been accepted. This article is already 40kb+. Yechi has been a very stable article for 18 months. There is simply no reason to merge it, and a number of good ones why not to. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All that transpired before this article existed. Now that this article was created all the stuff in the Yechi article would belong here. Shlomke 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It remains the case that apart from the appropriate paragreph linking to the Yechi article (which has become a fork lemafreah) there isn't an overlap. So I just don't see the point. This article is 40kb+ as it stands, and the styleguide would recomend doing exactly what we now have. I just don't see any point and again see many reasons why not. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason is clear, There should not be two article on the same topic. We all feel the article is overlaping. Size seems to be the only concern left, but that can easly be taken care of. This article does not have to be as long as it is (remember who made this article so long). In any case theres discussion so I'll put back the merge tags. Shlomke 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Shlomke, I have given my position on this a few times. It is not possible to merge a 20kb into one that is already 45kb. There is also no need as there is no substantial overlap, the Yechi invocation is notable in its own right as was affirmed by a AFD only a few weeks ago. I you think that the Yechi article material is covered amply in this article then you need to nominate Yechi for deletion. You cant just keep adding merge tags to articles in the hope that you will get your own way in the face of every policy in wikipedia. Thus is not was merge tags are meant to do. There have been merge tags at the top of the Yechi article for most of the past 6 months - this nonsence must stop. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I've given you my reasoning too. and I'm not the only one who wants to merge, and there are good reasons for one as I explained already. Again, the AFD was way before the creation of this article.

If size is the only issue again that's not a big problem. You seem very bothered by the fact that there are even merge tags up. There is nothing to be afraid of, it's just meant to make people aware of this discussion. Shlomke 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple reason that this article should be merged with the yechi one, which is that all that the colloquial term "Meshichist" means in the minds of the people who use it is "one who believes that yechi should be declared today." It doesn't have any other specific meaning. (It certainly has nothing to do with the general chabad emphasis on the belief in Moshiach, as this article falsely implies.) WADR, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant of the way that this word is used. Yehoishophot Oliver 05:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for a merger and many reasons why not. There is not a signiicant overlap, If Na na nachman has an article as well as Breslov then Yechi can along with Chabad messianism. Oliver, that is an OR arguemnt and is another personal attack. Please stop that and calm down - it is not condusive to discussion. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is significant overlap, and I support the merge as well, as there are now 4 editors supporting the merge and only 1 editor opposing the merge I will merge it after passover. Chocolatepizza 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot merge an article that is 20kb into one that is 50kb. There is no overlap at all. What do you think the overlap is? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, I have merged the article. The main and most obvious overlap is Rabbi Schneersohn's response to those that wanted to proclaim him to be the messiah. Chocolatepizza 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OUTDENT. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We debate and reach consensus based on set policies. This article should not be merged as (A) it is already very long, (b) NOTHING is gained from the merger, (c) Yechi was recently affirmed as a valid article title (d) it is the no.1 google result for Yechi, (e) there is no significant overlap of material. Nothing could make point (e) any more forcefully than your actual merger, which simply copied the vast bulk of the material in one block and plonked at the end of this article. This aptly demonstrates what I have been saying all along, there isn't a serious overlap here. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above and Wikipedia:Consensus. Chocolatepizza 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no overlap that I could find, Yechi stands on its own, if you think it dosent add anything to wikipedia it can be nominated for AfD, but this artcile is long enough as it is. Lobojo (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shach Quote

I removed the ref where Shach calls Schneerson names, and saved the ref in another sentence in the same passage so people can follow the link and make up their own minds. IMO, It also wasn't a very nice thing to say, lacked context, and was inflammatory. Abe Froman (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it off the topic somewhat. Lobojo (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rebbe on the bus.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Chatzkel Sofer shunned?

For a long time the page has claimed, without a source, that Chatzkel Sofer is shunned for his "moderate" view that the Rebbe should no longer be considered Moshiach. This seems like an odd assertion. His articles appear regularly in Kfar Chabad, and COL has started posting weekly shiurim from him, which seems to indicate that he's hardly a pariah. I put a CN on it for a while but didn't get any response, so I've removed it. I'd also like some sourcing for the assertion that Adin Even-Yisroel is no longer a Chabadnik. When is that supposed to have happened? -- Zsero (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yoel Kahn

In this article Yoel Kahn comes off as being anti-moshicist, but this may not be the case. The wikipedia entry on Rabbi Kahn says the opposite. Which is true? (Huberfamily 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

The truth is that Yoel Kahn changes his mind every couple of days. He provides some of the most convincing repudiations of his own arguments in existence (regardless of which side he happens to supporting any given hour of the day).--Meshulam 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He retracted once very famously, I don't know of other occasions, but if there were many other occasions, tell me; TTBOMK I think that's a very unfair characterisation. In any case, the confusion of Huberfamily lies in the utterly vague and meaningless nature of this objectionable neologism, "Meshichist" or "messianist". It is intentionally derogatory, and means, for all intents and purposes, "views that some Chabadniks hold that I think are wierd." But a Chabad Chosid by definition accepts everything the Rebbe says as absolute truth, and there are many, many things that the Rebbe said that without the proper background and context--and especially from a dry, analytical, rationalistic, secularistic perspective of the sort that permeates Wikipedia--seem highly odd, and reasonably so, just like anything taken out of its context can seem odd. The debate within Chabad is not whether these statements should be accepted, but only how these statements are to be understood, and also in what context they should be discussed considering the fact that those with less background will easily misunderstand them, or even seize them maliciously and use them as "dirt" against Chabad, in classic misnagdic style, as is so prevalent on Wikipedia, all in the name of sociologistic objectivity, of course (oooh, everyone pounce on me now for violating WP:AGF. In any case, the prevailing distinction, that there are two "camps", the ones who subscribe to all the supposedly crazy beliefs, and those who don't, is spurious. The reality is that most Chabadniks' views are far more nuanced and can't be so neatly, easily, and crudely pigeon-holed. And Reb Yoel, the more discerning person that he is, is one of these people. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Groupings

I've made an attempt to rewrite some of this very poorly-written article. The part about the groupings was a complete mess, with positions of some groups attributed to others, prominent people cited for positions opposite to their own (R Levi Ginsburgh is a radical meshichist, but was cited in the section labeled "anti-meshichists", and there was no recognition that all of these classifications are loose and unofficial. I've probably made some mistakes, which I hope knowledgeable editors will correct. But please do not make substantive edits if you don't know enough about the subject. Reading a few newspaper articles or outside reports does not give anything like enogh expertise - they are invariably garbled and confused.

Certainly each subgroup could do with a few prominent examples but I didn't want to put down names without being sure of their exact position. I think R Sholom Ber Levine should be included as a prominent anti- because of his pamphlets on the subject, and R Ginsburgh and R Wolpe should be in there on the meshichist side, and certainly R Yoel must be mentioned somewhere, but it's too much work to get sources for each of these attributions, and they will be needed. -- Zsero (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mishichist and anti-Mishichist Sources

I want to add a section towards the beginning of this article citing sources for this debate. The article is laughable in that it lists notable people that belong to either camp and brushes over their sources for argument. I think a section that discusses the sources for each camp and their reasons for rejecting the other camp would be very appropriate.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A very brief overview might be appropriate. Two or three sentences each, max. Not a whole essay. Point to external sources for detailed arguments on either side. -- Zsero (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I added some points of debate in the "yakov aveinu lo meit" camp and the "Resurected Moshiach" camp. There is obviously much more to write about this as at least three books have been written about the subject (Berger, Dalfin, and Student) however I let it stand here. Maybe more can be added later. Gavhathehunchback (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation and Misinterpretation of "Boreinuniks"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism#.22Boreinuniks.22 misrepresents my views compared to what is stated on my blog this subject : http://rebbegod.blogspot.com or at the article

Lubavitcher Rebbe as a God Haaretz, Saul Sadka, 02.14.07 which is mentioned as one of the references for Chabad Messianism page Besides the fact that I don't generally use the term "boreinu" - "Our Creator" (I fel it is overly theomorphic for my taste in spite various midrashic sources for it) in regards to the [Lubavitcher Rebbe] and thus shouldn't be included among the "boreuniks" it is very clear both from my site and from the haAretz article that I maintain that all theomorphic terms regarding the Rebbe or other tzadikim [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzadik#The_relationship_between_God_and_a_tzadik are meant as educational, or motivational metaphors see for example the FAQ on my RebbeGod blog: http://rebbegod.blogspot.com/2006/01/rebbegod-blog-faq.html or the statement in bold letters near the header at the top of every page of that blog or the haAretz article above for that matter. It also brings no evidence that I (or others mentioned in it) have been ostracized by all as opposed to some of other factions in Chabad. Both of these claims are intentional misrepresentations intended to defame me and other individuals and congregations they refer to and I demand this part of article to be rewritten to correspond to reality. I am granteed alias and treated respectfully at Chabad Synagogue I generally go to Shaloh House Beis Menachem Mendel Russian Jewish Community Synagogue and in many other places.

Including the amended Psak Din (Rabbinic ruling) by Rabbis Ashkenazi (Chief Rabbi of Kfar Chabad) R. Axelrod (member of the Beis Din of Haifa and R. Yurkovitch (a Rosh Yeshivah) stating that it is incorrect to automatically consider people who use theomorphic (see : theomorphism) titles such as "G-d" or "Atzmus" etc. in reference to the Lubavitcher Rebbe King Moshiach to be heretics. One should not presume that whoever uses such titles means them in any way other than a metaphor and even if that is not the case this still doesn't make one a heretic as Rambam's ruling was never meant literally for as we see he treated such people with respect answered their questions etc. see psak din # 1: and the Rebbe's letter thru Igrot Koidesh recieved by Rabbi Nachum Sarychev in response to a question about this psak din

http://bp3.blogger.com/_JJUhsQPYHhQ/R5Qx80UqnNI/AAAAAAAAADA/GQudbWGVbSI/s1600-h/originalpsak.jpg

See Psak Din #2 incorporating parts of the Rebbe's letter and denying that psak din number one was meant to be taken literaly: http://bp0.blogger.com/_JJUhsQPYHhQ/R5Q28EUqnOI/AAAAAAAAADI/E1kFB9JEm-k/s1600-h/Changed+Psak+Din.GIF PS. While I understand the desire of some of the editors to protect the image of Chabad and portray any people deviating too much from this image as crazy heretics believing in silly baseless bobe mayses with no backing in the Rebbe's teachings ostracized by everyone .this is not the case and Halacha , Wikipedia rules , law of the land and common decency (for G-d's sake!) demand them to leave their prejudices, hatreds and delusions behind while editing Wikipedia or find another way to spend time or risk getting sued for slander , libel and defamation of character. Ariel Sokolovsky (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and the sources you've cited. I hope my most recent edit alleviates your concerns. If you want to redeem your reputation, you need to do more to clarify your position . Many people are not up to the task of reading your voluminous writings carefully enough to find these subtle nuances, and it's often difficult to see them without a careful reading. -- Zsero (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits by 76.205.79.193 to Elazar Shach Section

1. This is accurate: "Shach was the first major Jewish Leader"

There's no reason to change it to "Shach was the first Jewish person ". He was a Jewish leader, whether you like what he said regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe or not.

2. He was also correctly described as "leader of Lithuanian Judaism"

3. I agree that it's more encyclopedic to say "Rabbi" instaed of "Rav". I'll fix it.

Yonoson3 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS we shouldn't have Rabbi or Rav other than at most the first time a name comes up. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Original Research for chabad.org is non-messianist

Issue:

• I believe that the following statement in the article: "According to Zalman Shmotkin, director of the non-messianist website chabad.org ...", claiming that chabad.org is non-messianist, is original research, and I've been unable to locate any sources (even from chabad.org) that support this claim. I inserted an {{or}} tag, which was removed. Please discuss this and try to build consensus:

Discussion: This issue was raised initially on my talkpage. Zsero and I don't consider this original research, since it is obvious. Debresser (talk)

 Note: This discussion has been moved to the NOR Noticeboard. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it is enough? From my talkpage you asked us to come here, and from here you go there. Perhaps turn off your computer, cool down, and come back tomorrow? Debresser (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Berger quote

Berger's admission that "one cannot point to a specific text saying in so many words that this belief [in a dead messiah] is outright heresy" (page 10) seems highly relevant, in the context of a paragraph about his response to the messianic movement, and I'm surprised that there isn't such a paragraph. I'm not up to writing a comprehensive yet short one, but if someone does, this quote should definitely go in there. But the recent edit wasn't the right place to put it; Berger is not giving a reason why messianics believe as they do, but rather why he had predicted in advance that some people might affirm such a belief. -- Zsero (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The information is sourced. It is relevant. And that's it. Whether we like it or not. Please also see your talkpage. You want to make a new section, incorporate this in it? Go ahead, but in the mean time don't remove things. That is not the way we edit on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sticking a ref tag on something doesn't protect it from deletion. Do you think I could write any nonsense I liked and simply stick a ref tag on it, and claim "it's sourced"?! The quote from Berger is itself genuine, and might belong in a paragraph about him, but in the use to which it's put here it's absurdly mischaracterised, and I will delete it as soon as I can. -- Zsero (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we are now under an injunction to resolve the problem before making further edits, let's give it a try. What is the problem you have with this edit? I have heard you say "it's nonsense", "it's out of its place", "it's just not true that he said such a thing". Which is it? Debresser (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What injunction? One person's dictate? There was no discussion of any kind, no consensus of anybody. Nobody has the authority to issue such an "injunction". WP is not a dictatorship.

I've already explained at enormous length what the problem is. But I'll try once more: The claim is patent nonsense. It is not possible for (significant numbers of) people to believe something merely because it can't be proved to be heretical. That makes no sense whatsoever, and anybody who claims that it is so is either insane or lying. It is exactly the same as claiming that people believe in unicorns for no reason except that they can't be proven not to exist. If sane people believe in unicorns, they must have some reason for doing so; one can speculate about what that reason is, but it must be something, not the mere absence of disproof.

Now Berger is obsessed and monomaniacal, but he's not stupid, and it's not possible that he would make such a claim, so it should come as no surprise that he doesn't. The quote itself is genuine, but grossly misconstrued. He does indeed write what he's quoted as writing, and that's a significant admission against his interest; if there were a paragraph about him, which there should be, that quote should be in there. But that has nothing to do with this discussion, which is not about the quote but about the claim the article now makes. False and illogical claims have no place in WP, no matter how many ref tags are slapped on them.

Since you have not read the book you have no basis at all for disputing my removal, and the editor who put it there isn't participating, so I am going to remove it again right now. -- Zsero (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the book, but I do have the original edit of NiceJew and the quote above. And these go together well, in my understanding. You seem to be missing the logical step that connects the two. I see it though. In Jewish law usualy anything that is not explicitely forbidding is therefore allowed. I can testify to this as an ordained rabbi. This was - and is - ever so more true in view of the distress surrounding the demiss of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, where people were willing to hold onto anything to could give them some direction. If you want to add a {{Dubious}} tag to this statement, that is fine with me, of course. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is elementary logic. Suppose I were to say that the reason so many frum Jews smoke is because there is no explicit paragraph in Shulchan Aruch one can point to that explicitly prohibits it; would you accept that? Of course not. It's an absurd notion. The reasons people smoke are many and complicated, but "you can't prove it's forbidden" isn't one of them. Now suppose I were to claim that a well-known professor, whom you admit not to be a fool, had given this explanation; would you believe me? Suppose I were to support my claim with an explicit quote from the professor that "there is no explicit paragraph in Shulchan Aruch one can point to that explicitly prohibits smoking"; would you accept that this meant the professor agreed with me?

Now on the other hand, suppose that professor were in fact conducting a determined campaign to excommunicate all smokers and stamp out smoking, and I were to write a paragraph in a WP article about this; in that context it would surely be relevant to quote his admission that he can't prove smoking is forbidden. The quote is genuine, after all. But to represent it as giving a reason for people's behaviour is ridiculous and wrong. -- Zsero (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any disagreement between the two of us about this argument. We both agree that it is valid, just that a few logical steps have to be added. We don't need to spell out everything, as indeed Berger didn't do also. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Are you completely incapable of sense at all?! The claim is illogical and invalid, and Berger's words do not support it at all, because Berger never made any such stupid claim. He did admit that he can't prove ChM is heresy, and that is an important admission, but he did not and would not give this as the reason why people would believe in it. -- Zsero (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have another look, I see you could be right, and that I can't tell without reading more of the book. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter from Rabbi Pinchas Hirschsprung

Rabbi Pinchas Hirschsprung wrote a letter about 12 years ago IIRC, in the Algemeiner Journal in support of those who believe the Rebbe to be Moshiach. I don't see it here in the article. Does anyone recall seeing this letter, and perhaps have a copy? Shlomke (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

link to the letter (hebrew) [4]--TPSLNH (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Shlomke (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of critics

Why are people not considered notable enough to have their own wikipedia article suddenly considered notable if they expressed an opinion on this topic and they have the name rabbi before them? Plenty of people with the title rabbi are not notable according to the guidelines of this encyclopedia. I suggest that the statements of all personalities cited here expressing criticism who have no articles be removed until such time as they do. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

While there is no intrinsic relation between notability and reliable sourcing, I agree that it is hardly productive to have a multitude of opinions by non-notable rabbis. I stress that I have no idea which specific rabbis this involves in this case, and what they have said. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If the rabbis quoted have no article in wikipedia, and if everyone knows that if someone would start one, everyone would scream "afd", then that's good reason to disqualify them alone. Some people seem to think that publicly disagreeing with Chabad in itself makes one notable, and they're entitled to their POV, but I'm afraid that here is not the place to promulgate it. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy. Let's see if apart from you and me others will agree. Two editors is no consensus yet. Debresser (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that; I have not removed those sections as of yet. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Alleged quote

Erlich is quoted in this article as saying:

A central source-book of Chabad messianism, Al ha-Zaddikim, collates many proofs for Schneerson's messianic status and argues that it is permitted to kneel before a Rebbe, to pray to him and ask for interventions from him, since "bowing to a man devoid of ego and annulled to the will of God is no different from bowing before God himself."

This is patent nonsense. I have the book Al ha-Zaddikim in front of me. Firstly, only a total stranger to Chabad would believe that Al ha-Zaddikim is a "central source-book"; it is nothing of the sort--the only central source-books for Chabad chassidim are the words of the Rebbeim are Chabad. Nor is the author a leading mashpia the likes of say, Yoel Kahn, Meilich Tzvibel, and so on. Pevzner's greatest distinction is the fact that he wrote this book. Note that Pevner is not featured in an article on wikipedia, and rightly so. So proof needs to be cited for this preposterous claim. Secondly, in no place does this book discuss "messianism". It discusses the concept that Hashem reveals his presence via Tzaddikim, but the belief in the messiah, or the messianic status of an individual is not mentioned there AT ALL. Again, another outright LIE from the fraud Erlich (along with the completely unsubstantiated "failing scholarship" claim that is being refuted elsewhere) that those who can't be bothered looking up primary sources or asking the individual concerned swallow hook, line, and sinker. Thirdly, in no place in the book does it advocate bowing to Tzaddikim as a deity (G-d forbid). Let the one who comes with this ridiculous claim cite the exact page no. in that book where this is supposedly said. I have removed this quote, and hope to hear more intelligent reason for its replacement than "Erlich is a professor". Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that it's characterised as "a central source-book of Chabad messianism", not of Chabad. The fact that it's not a central (or even peripheral) source-book for Chabad Chassidus, doesn't contradict that claim. And it does indeed argue "that it is permitted to kneel before a rebbe, to pray to him and ask for interventions from him"; the words "as a deity" are your own, not those of the article. The point of the book is that it is permitted to do these things precisely because the tzadik is not "a deity" but rather has been assimilated into the Deity. -- Zsero (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The book does not mention "messianism", or proof of messianic status, as the article claimed. Erlich brings no proof that the book qualifies as "central" in any way. Nor does it argue in any place in the book that it is permitted to "pray to" a human being. A p. no. would definitely need to be mentioned to verify such a claim. And in the context of a heading "Schneerson as G-d" and discussion of saying boreinu etc, the article certainly did imply that the book advocated worshipping a man "as a deity" (G-d forbid), when in fact the whole point of the book is to debunk this misnagdic canard. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Fair use rationale for Image:Messianist Flag.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Response to Chabad messianism

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

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

During my recent research I located [5] an additional copy of a Rabbinic P'sak with 13 Chabad Rabbis (Including Beis din of Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad) from the Year 1991, declaring the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach. According to the above research article - this ruling was later accepted by Lubavitcher Rebbe.

Although the above research study was completed by Strong Messianism members and does not seem to be all properly sourced - it still seems to be more sourced then the one sided opposition Book written by Berger who relies on many anonymous sources [6].

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

Recent edits

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

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

this page needs work!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There he goes again, Debresser just undid all the edits I (and other editors) made yesterday! Only this time he finally -- after opening an investigation into me -- has the decency to discuss it here somewhat civilly. I appreciate that! For starters thought, while your response may look good to an innocent bystander, anyone who looks at the history of the editing will see immediately that it is full of lies and inaccuracies. First of all, re your calling me a prick, that may be yor opinin, but dosn't give you the right to call me that just because you dont like my edits or opinion. You probably call me that because you are bias about this topic and cant handle anyone else making an edit; by your own admission you are "an adherent of Chabad and specifically of the messianic division of that organization." Now re your points:

1. Just because YOU feel its "waaaay too much detail" does not mean it in fact is. I am happy for other editors (actually, yourself included) to discuss this. What I am unhappy about is that it is always you, who are bias, coming and deciding. I wrote on this page many times asking for other editors to react. If there is consensus that it is too much, we can shorten, but why do you always just delete?

2-3. So why don't you correct instead of reverting? Now I'll just correct that. Do you really think I'm trying to purposely put in a wrong tag?

4. That is nto true (and certainly not on purpose!) as the edit history - available for anyone to check - will prove.

5. That is a false accusation, that has no basis whatsoever. I never remove a source without checking it first. I have also looked to add new ones (that you have always reverted!).

6. OK.

Now its also interesting you mention brd again. As anyone here can see, you have been the one to violate it, you have been the one to start and continuously hit the undo button. You actually first reverted a bunch of times, then when I try put back my edits you cry out brd and edit war...Effy770 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

To add to above, another false accusation is that my first edit to the page was a revert of Debressers edit. That is again a lie. No need to take my word for it, the history will show you that.Effy770 (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actual ideas

Based on the discussion here I started editing the page. There is a lot of duplicated information. Help make this page better by editing and talking here.Effy770 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the page doesn't explain the ideas of chezkat mashiach and vadai mashiach. obviously we don't need long explanation, but it gives more background. one of the rulings also speak about chezkat. so i will add it briefly. i look forward t other comments. also, i want to make an organized section of the criticism from david berger. at the moment its spread all around the page. that will take more time, but i thin it needs to be done.Effy770 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I also removed a paragraph about the stroking the kotel that was not relevant to the messiah subject.Effy770 (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You mention chezkat mashiach and vadai mashiach as two types, and then mashiach shebador as a third type. I don't think that is the correct way to introduce the term mashiach shebador, because the first two are related between them, while the third is not directly related to them. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing this up. this is the way I saw it written - i will find footnote and add it. The way i saw it written was as follows: chezkat and vadai are halachikly binding forms of mashiach. bedor is not. but according to the source, it is the bedor who can then become the chezkat who in turn can then become the vadai. so while the chezkat and vadai are halachick terms and bedor isnt they are still interlinked. i will add the footnote to this.Effy770 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I made edits to the section on the messianism during the Rebbe Schneersons life. I tightened the quote from Dr. Elior and moved around the quotes of the various chasidim speaking of the Rebbe as the mashiach. i also added some new information pointing to the Rebbe's passion for the mashiach - and showing how the messianism began. there is more to do here. i am working on making a full section based on Dr. Berger. that will take more time. i look forward to more input from other editors.Effy770 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I also shortened the Wolpo story. we already have the full story with more details later on the page.Effy770 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like an editor mistakenly wrote that the quote was from the new york times. it was from a publication so i fixed that. the other quote from the times is there.Effy770 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I restored one of the quotes, because I think it is illustrative of the situation, and some illustration is in place.

Note that on Wikipedia one shouldn't use "G-d" but rather with the "o". Debresser (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading Dr. Bergers book recently. its a well crafted scholars memoir. most of the information in that section was repeated a few times. i put it all in one form, so it's clear to the reader of this page. i also put his main claim in the book in the section, that he found no source that mashiach will come, die and come back to continue his mission. i am going to include more detials from his book with the real footnotes in the coming days hopefully but until now the section was very repetitious. if you have more ideas let me know.Effy770 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The sections of after death and coronation were not in order so i put them in order. and i moved the section about printing besuros hageula to that part. the information about the will belongs in a separate section. please help make the page more easy to read and understand. its still very messy.Effy770 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There was repeated information in the top section and the beginning of the article. there was also information in the beginning of the article in the history section that was better in the top section. i moved it there. and put in a short description of rambam rule for the mashiach.Effy770 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I added new information to the section on after the death and cut repeated information. i also put the footnotes to the talmuds in the correct place.Effy770 (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I added information that explains the idea that mashiach had been identified in other generations. it gives some context.Effy770 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned this before and am mentioning again. when it comes to reaction from rabbis the page seems very inconsistent. there is a separate section for each rabbi. i dont think this is necessary just as it would be unnecessary to make a section for each of the 250 rabbis on the pro messianic ruling. i dont think they all need to be named so i propose we remove the separate section for each and synopsis it keeping in the core information. this will also make the page shorter and easier to read.Effy770 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As the discussion i shortened the separate sections for each rabbi opposing the messianic claims. all their names are kept in and the sources are in. also the substance of all their claims and criticism is all in. now the section of the criticism against the messianic movement should be easier to read. before it was clogged up. if there are more rabbis who oppose the messianic movement that should also be added. i added some information from dr. bergers book that i have just finished reading. i moved the pro messianic psak din to the section near the israeli chief rabbi section as it said they oppose it but there is no source for that yet. if anyone has a source for that add it. there is no source for that in bergers book. also if there are other rabbis besides for the pro messianic psak din then that should also be added.Effy770 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

also i made sure to leave in the full sections about the cases relating to the israeli chief rabbis because they are very notable and also we didnt discuss that here. if there is more information on what happened after those cases and as a result of the then that should be added. i am looking for more information that will make the page better and smoother to read.Effy770 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

i shortened the top part and put in the proper footnotes. now there is a more fuller picture to the issue at hand.Effy770 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

the section were very long and confusing with many section in singular section. i divided them chronologically. if other editors have better sugestions please advise.Effy770 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)