Talk:Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 May 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Belarus

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I don't know that there's enough information in the article to have a complete template. But I will do what I can. Of course, it may take time.

As for the verifiability of the informtion: Which information in particular needs verification? I referred to Hillman at the bottom of the page. That's where most of the info comes from. The information about the TAY Rebbe I read in a book somewhere. I forget where. But its something that is known in the Chassidic world. Most "information" about Chassidism is spread that way, rather than being written in a history book somewhere. Most of the Satmar stuff about the Z-A conflict is not "verified," but is nonetheless true. Ask anyone in Boro Park :-). If you're more specific, I'll be better able to comply with your requests.

Thanks,

--Meshulam 15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

does this group exist today? Jon513 14:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Its members assimilated into different groups after the second generation. The books still remain, however, and are popular in some Chassidic circles.--Meshulam 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

It would seem more appropriate for the name of this article to be Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty), Rather then the current "Chabad-Strashelye". this is because:

There were many other split off / Break away Chasidic dynasty's which came from Chabad but did not Carry the Chabad name together with the new name, and
Does it actualy say somewere that the name of R. Aarons movement was in fact called "Chabad-Strashelye". I have not seen this anywere. In the Beis Rebbe book It is not called by this name. Shlomke 22:53, March 26, 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above: I chose the name to indicate the group's origins. You have to remember that Chassidism today is more established. At the time, I doubt the group even had a name. The Shar Blat on R' Aharon's seforim don't indicate any name. It doesn't say, for example, AdMo"R M'Strashelye, or any such thing. When is the first reference to the name ChaBaD? If R' Aharon's group was called anything, it was probably just stam "Chabad." As in, "I am a Chossid of Chabad. My Rebbe is R' Aharon." If anything, perhaps the article could have been called "R' Aharon HaLevi Horowitz." --Meshulam 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your saying. What I ment is that just like we wouldn't call Boyan (Hasidic dynasty) By the name Boyan-Sadigura Boyan-Ruzshin, we should not call the group that split off of chabad by the name Chabad-... Of course we should make note of the origins of the group and how or why it split of in the article, and identify it with the previos group, but as far as the name of the article, it should have it's own name of either the name of the group or anything else that people identify it most as (if it did not have an official name), or the name of their Rebbe.

In this case it seem's from Beis Rebbe that it did not even have a second generation, so I dont know if it's even correct to call it "dynasty" (my mistake). perhaps it should be called on R. Aharons name, or just plane Strashelye? what do you think? Shlomke 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a second generation, though a weak one. R' Aharon's son (I'll get the name for you later and just fill it in here) took over. Apparently, many of the Chassidim at that point became Lubavitcher Chassidim (the Tzemach Tzedek was Rebbe by that time). That generation did not produce an heir, and Strashelye Chassidim just became included in a bunch of other groups, including Chabad-Lubavitch. I think the distinction here between R' Aharon's Chassidus and Boyan is that R' Aharon's entire claim to the nasius was that he was most representative of the Chabad school of thought. Its not like he fashioned himself a break-away. He wanted to be the next Chabad Rebbe (remember that Lubavitch was just one of many cities in the sphere of influence of Chabad at that time. The Baal HaTanya lived in Liadi, which was the center of Chabad. The Mittler Rebbe moved to Lubavitch after the Baal HaTanya's histalkus). Therefore, I think including Chabad in the name is only fair if we're going to do the same on the Lubavitch thread. But using the name R' Aharon HaLevi Horowitz would be acceptable, I guess.--Meshulam 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a source is needed that there was a second generation. If the name of the successor is not even known, it doesn't sound like it lasted at all. If there was no notable 2nd generation, then the name dynasty is incorrect. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above comment a number of months ago, and no further comment was forthcoming. The article claims there was a successor, but can't even name him, and then says explicitly that "the dynasty did not last into the next generation". This is comparable to the case of the Baal Shem Tov, who was succeeded for a brief while by his son Reb Tzvi, until the Maggid of Mezeritch was appointed. That was really an interregnum, not a succession, because Reb Tzvi (great as he was) did not truly lead in that time. Thus it is no surprise that on the Baal Shem Tov article, it only says that the Maggid was the successor, with no mention of Reb Tzvi. In summary, since their is no evidence of succession, I am changing the name of the article from Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty) to Strashelye (Hasidic group). Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kapust dynasty was also from Chabad, but people always refer to them as Kapust (vs. Chabad-Kapust). I dont think we should give an article a name which it doesn't already have. This is just my opinion. Giving it the name Aharon HaLevi Horowitz seems fine, but leaving the article with the Current name seems better, since it is the standard naming format. I would like to hear the opinions of other Wikipedians who'v been around for a while so we can get a consensus on how to name this and all other article's of this sort. Shlomke 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, a consensus about R'Aharon HaLevi... That implies that more than the two of us are interested in him to begin with. Perhaps this comment belongs in the Chabad-Lubavitch section, but the truth is that even the name Chabad-Lubavitch is relatively new. In Illinois, for example, the official name is Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois. The reason is that there was no set name (either Lubavitch-Chabad or Chabad-Lubavitch) so their way made as much sense as any. Perhaps the Chassidus was just called Lubavitch (like Kapust, Nezhin, Bobroisk, Liadi, etc.) and it was a known thing that Lubavitch was a Chabad Chassidus. Since there is now a "Chabad-Lubavitch" article, and a "Strashelye" article, it makes it seem like Lubavitch was the rightful heir to the Chabad name (to the exclusion of all other Chabad dynasties). While that conclusion may seem reasonable given that Lubavitch is the only remaining Chabad dynasty, it is contrary to the specific and stated desires of the heads of all of the other Chabad dynasties. But, like I said, that's a complaint for the Chabad-Lubavitch page. I'm happy with the name of this article if you are. (And I would be interested in seeing what a consensus would decide).--Meshulam 13:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

On what basis is this aticle being considered for deletion? It has many facts, which all come from books that have been cited. --Meshulam 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DP, WP:SK and WP:SNOWBALL, and inasmuch as the only delete "vote" was from the original nominator, who requested that the nomination be withdrawn, I closed this as a "speedy keep"; a consensus was altogether unlikely to develop for deletion and, in any case, speedy keep was appropriate in view of sundry AfD adductions and the requested withdrawal (even as a nominator no more owns an AfD page than he/she owns the underlying article, where he/she is the only "delete" supporter, and where "keep" appears consistent with all applicable policies or guidelines, such withdrawal, and concomitant AfD closure, is, IMHO, appropriate). Joe 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Nomination

The nomination for deletion took place during an edit war between the initial author of the article and the nominator. He also nominated a different article (of which I was also initial author) for deletion. Both were hardly even considered. The nomination reeks of retaliation. But I will not pursue the issue any more than to mention it here.--Meshulam 21:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Strashelye

In this link: [1] the last post all the way on the bottom claims that the in Sukkos 5731, the Rebbe encouraged Kehot to print the Strashelye's chassidus.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) The Strashelye passed away Tishrei 25 1833 [2]Gavhathehunchback (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) [moved here from Talk:Dovber Schneuri Zsero (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Dynasty vs "group"

See similar discussion and situation at Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group" and Malachim (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group", namely "A recent move was made by User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) to downgrade this group from "dynasty" to "group". The one making these changes did so from a pro-Chabad POV that views Breslov as their rivals. The name "Dynasty" is a generic name for all the Hasidic "groups" on WP since for a long time now, it has been standard procedure not to use the label "sect" because it is demeaning, likewise "group" sounds common-place and not far off from "sect". A "dynasty" denotes a "group" too, even if the seat of power is not held by a direct family member, the "monarchical" and dynastic nature of such Hasidic movements stay intact through each generation that rules in the name of both living and dead rebbes. Such is even the case now in Chabad where the "dynasty" continues even though there has been no succession and no single rabbi has been appointed to the "throne" in the present, yet the movement bases itself on the authority of its last deceased leader. Category:Hasidic dynasties makes clear that this naming convention has been the universally accepted naming convention on WP for many years and changes should not be made without seeking very wide and extensive input. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

NOTE: Please keep all discussions centralized at Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group". IZAK (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Breslov, this article states that there was a Second Rebbe, so the name is justified. -- -- -- 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]