Talk:Chabad messianism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New edit war

Discussing and consensus

hey hey, i was away for a few days and it seems like there are some major edit wars going on here between Debresser and some other anon ip users. i have reverted the information to its earlier version as i had edited it according to the sources. if an editor feels there is something wrong thats what the talking page - here - is for. i dont understand why debresser just reverts? is he going back to edit warring? i am always careful to explain my edits here. this is the second time that i notice that debresser just deletes information - that has footnotes - just because he dosnt like it (the other time was when i put in information from rabinic sources who rule out the option of a resurected mashiach. there too debresser just deleted it because he didn't like it). here he says its opinionated. that may or may not be the case - and can certainly be argued - but any edit i made i put a reliable footnote that it cites. also, we are talking about two sections. the first one is the section called expressions. before my edits most of the statements there had no footnotes. debresser says they do have and that they reflect the truth. if that is so why is there no footnotes there. there are only six footnotes in that entire section, five of which are to primary (talmud, tanya) or chabad documents. only one is to a paper by an academic. on the other hand every statement that i edited is based directly on real sources and footnotes so that any other editor has the liberty to verify. also, it so happened to be that most of my edits to that section only clean and fix much of the information that is already there. for example, the idea that messianist dont write zechuto yagel alenu is there already, that they apply the idea that jacob didnt die is there, that the non messianists observe the yahrtzeit is there. so i really dont know what is bothering debresser. can he please explain here before just deleting and saying its opinionated and not true! the seconds section is what is called reaction by chabad lubavitch, dbresser also just deleted that even though it has been footnoted and part of it has always been on the page. i dont know why this is called opinionated. these are real statements from the agudas chasidie chabad and from the vaad rabonie lubavicth. they made them. they published them. they are as real as the statements by dr. berger and dr. rachel elior. perhaps it is because debreseer is more of a messianist then the views expressed in their statements - by his own admission debresser is an ardent of the messianic faction of chabad - but that does not give a right to remove a footnoted statement just because you dont like it. i think that is also why debresser deleted the information that says mashiach canot be resurrected (regarding this point, i left a message on the talking page for debresser but still did not get a response). in the future please use the talking page before just deleting.Effy770 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me again remind everybody of WP:BRD. If you make an edit, and it is reverted, do not restore it, but first discuss. What is so hard about that rule?

Both text have some unsourced statements in them, and some sourced statements. In my opinion, that is not the main issue.

There are 2 subsection that Effy770 completely rewrote, and in my opinion he has not been able to lift the burden of proof that his version is better. I am personally of the opposite opinion, that the previous version was well-balanced and the new version is one-sided. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes i agree with Debresser who i have come to admire. there should be no edit wars here and they need to be stopped immediately. at the same time i think the article needs to be objective and not judged solely by someone who has admitted he harbors messianic views. those views should obviously be represented on the page - after all that what this page is about - but that dosnt mean that other views must be disqualification. for example, the agudas chasidei chabad and the vaad rabonei lubaitch issued statements in response to the messianic fervor and proclamations. it seems that debresser doesn't agree and doesn't like their statements. he is certainly entitled to disagree with them. but debressor will not allow that on the page - he has not explained why other that it is opinionated. in fact debresser is just misleading everyone here and not justifying why he removes that information. it is authentic. it has real footnotes. the other issue is the explanation of the messnianc groups within chabad after 1994. debresser claims i rewrote them. that is not true. i edited them and added footnotes to every statement. if debresser or anyone disagrees, that is fine. but lets talk about it. if there is something that seems opinionated then point it out and lets edit it. from my part everything i edited comes from reliable sources such as adin steinsaltz, david berger joseph telushkin and simon dien. regarding the section that debresser claims i rewrote, as i pointed out, 1. the info about zecut yagel alenu was already there. 2. the info about jacob didnt die is already there. 3. the info about observance or non observance of yahrtziet is already there. 4. the info of still wanting schneerson to be the messiah is already there. 5. the info about the yechi was already there. 6. the fact that some of this views are controversial is there. 7. the fact that most in chabad probably want schneerson to be the mashiach is there. all i did was add footnotes and fix the information according to real credible footnotes. and as i pointed out at the moment - before i made edits - the entire section had only 6 footnotes. 4 of them to primary and chabad sources. that is very pov and not credible. 1 of them a dead link and 1 to simon dien. instead of being attacked by debreseer i should be lauded and thanked for improving the page by editing the information as it is stated in the sources (and removing any original research) and adding actual and credible footnotes to this controversial subject. i put back some of the information and took out some statements - even though they have footnotes - that debressor may have felt are opinionated or harsh. if there are others lets talk about them. not just deleting. again, debrseer conveniently did not respond - this is the third time i am mentioning this - as to why he deleted the information from rabbinic sources that rule out a resurrected mashiach. he should not forget that i also added some important information that supports that view. can we be true to the real sources and be objective?Effy770 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Effy770, what precisely did I remove and in what edit?

I edited the "Expressions" section, because it was written very unbalanced. I understand you quoted from anti-meshichist sources, and that shows. I think it is better now.

I still think the previous text was fine, but if this is what you want the article to say, then I have no real problem with that, as long as it is neutrally worded. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

is the term "anti-messianist" accurate as oppose to "mainstream" or "non-messianist"? i have not seen that term used in any books. if you have a source please provide it. at the moment it looks and sounds a bit pov.Effy770 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The terms in use are meshichistim and anti-mishichistim. I didn't look in sources, but those are the terms. It may be POV, like chassidim and misnagdim. Nevertheless, those are the historical terms. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yserbius

Can I get a reasonable explanation why three of my edits were reverted, including one minor edit on spelling and references? Some things were clearly in need of fixing (like a quote by Rabbi Aharon Feldman that seems completely fabricated and contradicts what the reference said). It seems to me that Effy770 is violating WP:NPOV and reverting edits that do not conform to his POV. I mean seriously. First he talks about 'not' reverting edits and then he goes ahead and reverts my edits! And Debresser seems to be heavily involved in this too. I am this close to putting Effy770 on the administrator notice board for edit warring. This is not your personal page. You cannot revery everything that doesn't suit you. If you have a problem with my, or Debressers, edits then fix it. Don't just revert everything. Oh, and calling everyone meshichist/anti-meshichist is getting no one anywhere. Yserbius (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Calm down my friend. No need to shout. No I don't think this is my page. Nor do I want a POV page. But please, before making major edits, please discuss them here. Yes, many of your edits may have been good and important, but don't do so many of them in one edit. If you do so, it's hard to see what was done. I have no issue with true edits, so long as there is a valid source. And if Rav Feldman was misquoted, then by all means, go and fix it. But again, you can;t just come and make major sweeping changes, here or anywhere, without first discussing it and attain some sort of consensus. I suggest you check out some of the Wikipedia rules of WP:EW and WP:BRD before hitting revert. Thanks.Effy770 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. I did split my edits up into something manageable, you reverted all of them including the simple minor edits over spelling. And yes. I can come in and make changes (which aren't exactly "sweeping", just a few lines here or there). If you take umbrage with it, then modify it to what's more suitable, or post something in the talk page. There is no reason to revert all of my changes, that's how edit wars start. None of my edits were large enough that you couldn't simply go through it and fix the parts that were problematic. You are treating this page like your personal property. There is already a warning on your talk page about your zealous editing and the history is full of your edits, 90% of which are reverting previous edits (often by Debresser). This isn't Israel, where you need to discuss something and have it approved before you can edit. No one needs your personal permission to make an innocuous edit on this page, but that is how you're treating it. Like I told Debresser on another related topic (which incidentally lead me here), you don't need a hammer to swat a fly. If you want, we can resolve this right now. Simply revert back to my last edit and fix the things which you feel need fixing.Yserbius (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that you did leave in most of my edits. I beg mechila for that. I also noticed that you removed a mention of Rabbi Shmuel Butman that I added in. It's a very relevant topic and the article about him putting up signs all over New York should be referenced some where. Furthermore, you kept the original language of "hope" as opposed to "believe". I am adding a new topic to discuss that.Yserbius (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)