Template talk:Chabad

Order, order!

I put a good deal of effort into making this template, the first one I have ever made, and thought carefully about the order of the sections and what went in. Could you please discuss changes here first.

Chabad, Rebbes, History, Controversy. Those are the main articles. The other sections are composed mainly of tangential issued, major figures, schools, language, towns - those are tangential to the main idea of Chabad. The more tangential they were, the further down I put them. Also, most of the articles below controversies are stubby and short, while those above it are longer with much more info. The idea of a box is to make navigation of an expansive subject easy, that is all.David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from a case of WP:OWN. The template should be the way it is in the main article and especially now when the controversies article is full of POV problems. Chocolatepizza 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

not at all, I am merely suggesting that you engage in debate before making changes. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what I am doing by leaving edit summaries and writing here on the talk page. Chocolatepizza 20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining me. Why dont you expand on soem of the stubs, and then you will have a good arguemnt to rearange the thing . David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to cleanup the articles as you can see from my recent edits. Chocolatepizza 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. When arne't stubs anymore I could hear your point. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no wikipedia policy stating what kind of edits you have to make before you have the merit to edit a template. I thought that would be obvious. Shlomke 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Why is there no section of concepts. By concepts I do not mean terminology, but concepts within the philosophy . Each concept should ideally have its own page etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.248.239 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Moshe Schneuri and Deutch

It is daft to suggest that these don't belong in controversies of Chabad. I mean Deutsch you could make an argument, by Moshe, please. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Moshe, a difference between tradition and historical documents does not constitute a controversy Chocolatepizza 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no. He has been controversial since his life, the fifth rebbe even wrote about it. Your are simply puching Chabad POV all over the place, in an pointless way. And it is only going to make it worse for you in the long run. I suggest you engage in discussion rather than just deleting information that upsets you. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are not threatening me by saying that it will be worse for me in the long run. And yes, there is a long chabad tradition regarding what happened. It still has not been shown how a difference between tradition and historical documents constitutes a controversy . Chocolatepizza 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not threatening you at all. I merely point out that you extensive removal of sourced information will not stand in the long run, and will just mean there will be more articles that you don't like. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you come up with something relevant to the discussion at hand. Chocolatepizza 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are removing this information saying that these are not Chabad controversies. This is obviously wrong, as anyone reading those articles will know, and you havn't explained why this is not the case. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have explained multiple times why it is not a "controversy" however to save you the time of scrolling up a few sentences I will copy/paste it for you again. A difference between tradition and historical documents does not constitute a controversy. Chocolatepizza 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not the controversy, the controversy is that the son of the Alter Rebbe converted to Christianity! Everyone agrees that he did, but Chabad say that he was forced and did teshuva. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Chabad tradition says that he never converted, not that he actually converted. Assaf says that he found a document saying that he had converted. This discovery of Assaf, not only does not contradict the chabad tradition, but even if it did, would not make the chabad tradition controversial. Chocolatepizza 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Nope, chabad say that he convert, but (a) was forced and (b) was insane. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will look up the sources once again. For now I will not remove him. Chocolatepizza 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think Moshe should be in the template. As far as POV goes, It seems david spart is pushing an anti-Chabad POV from the articles and content he is constantly adding. Shlomke 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you remove Deutch and Moshe from the tempalete, and continue removing sourced information this will be escalated. I have tried to provide a non-hagigraphic accoun of Chabad on wikipedia - you are trying to return it to the way it was. 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

David do you realize you are now threatening?

Also I forgot to mention that the Chabad account is that Moshe DID NOT convert. Shlomke 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Strashelye and Kapust

I forget the names exactly are branches of Chabad. They are certainly part of Chabad history, they are discussed in the chabad history of the sixth rebbe (as by the way in Moshe, as you pointed out). David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see any information regarding why they are more significant than any other Hasidic group. Chocolatepizza 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The are branches of the Chabad movement. They are part of Chabad chasidus. read the articles on them and read some books. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your writing that they are branches of the chabad movement more than any other Hasidic group does not make them branches. Chocolatepizza 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you even understand that that Chabad and Hasidism are two different things? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand. And? Chocolatepizza 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Chabad is not the same thing as Lubavitch. Lubavitch is merely one of the various groups of Chabad. These two groups once were as big (or perhaps even bigger) that Lubavitch. So that is why they are on the Chabad template. Note, CHABAD not LUBAVITCH. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. However you have not shown how these offshoots are any different than the other Hasidic groups started by the sons or students of the Rebbe's of Chabad. Chocolatepizza 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No no, they were! Read around the subject a bit. They are NOT ofshoots of Chabad! Do you understand? They are of shoots of LUBAVITCH and they are a PART of CHABAD! Do you get it yet? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so from their perspective they were not offshoots, but rather the real chabad. However this was with all the gorups, not just these 2. Chocolatepizza 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. There were others, but they are not on wikipedia right now, and I don't know much about them. But these were the biggest ones. Nobody disputes that these groups were Chabad, they were set up amid some controversy perhaps, but they were even refered to by the Rebbe as Chabad "Admorim", and by 4th rebbes time they were all buddies. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty) was not an offshoot from LUBAVITCH, since Lubavitch (as the name of the movement) did not exist at that time. Shlomke 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

David what are your sources that Chabd and Lubavitch are two seperate movements? Shlomke 18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in this template

What is the Criteria for inclusion in this template? Whw do we establish who is a notable figure and if they merit being in the notable figure section of the template. One thing I think we can all agree on is That we cannot have all the articles in the chabad category on the template. Shlomke 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. (from over ten years ago!).

I do not know the answer, but I was planning to ask another (more specific) question, myself: ... namely, why there are some sections and templates that, (even though they DO include [for example] "the Friendship Circle"), do NOT include [for example] "Smile on Seniors" (as in, "http://smileonseniors.org" ... which, for me, was the second hit on the (Google) "search results page" for [a Plano vanilla (Google) search, for] "smile on seniors".) (The first hit was for something specific to "SOS AZ".)

Now perhaps there is no need to create a new "section" on this "Talk:" page, just for this "Smile on Seniors"-oriented question. The new question can probably just be added right here, in this "section", instead.

This new question is not just about [the fact that "Smile on Seniors" is missing from this specific template -- namely] "{{Chabad}}". It is also about the reason why "Smile on Seniors" is a red link -- ! --, (see the article about red links) -- that is, the fact that a Wikipedia article about "Smile on Seniors" does not seem to exist ("yet"). The red link which leads one to ask that question -- might also have something to do with, the reason why "Smile on Seniors" ALSO seems to be missing from [the "organizations" section of] the "sidebar" {{Chabad sidebar}}.

Of course, the "Chabad affiliated organizations" article itself, does not seem to have room to cover everything "Chabad"-related; so many organizations, [for example, "the Friendship Circle"], are "incorporated by reference" there, by including an instance of the template "{{Chabad sidebar}}". I understand that one has to draw the line somewhere. But IMHO the line should be drawn after there at least exists a Wikipedia article about "Smile on Seniors".

Maybe it is not too soon ... for someone to mention this to the SOS people! (right?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

communities

I see no reason to include here communities that are not specifically Chabad, but merely include a Chabad community. Crown Heights' Jewish population is almost all Chabad, so it belongs. As does Kfar Chabad. But not Safed or Jerusalem (until or unless separate pages are written describing those communities themselves). I'm removing them. Yehoishophot Oliver 10:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

what about Nachalas Har Chabad? How can I add that to the list of communities?Gavhathehunchback (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By creating an article on it! :)Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

This template looks like an ad for Chabad worthy of Chabad.org. Kindly note WP:NOT#SOAPBOX; WP:NOT#MIRROR; WP:NOT#WEBSPACE; WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, as well as violating WP:NPOV. Thus the $64,000- question, WHERE is the CONTROVERSY section that should be based on the Controversies of Chabad article, such as: Chabad messianism; Moshe Schneersohn; Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty); Malachim (Chassidus); David Berger (professor) and The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference and more in many sections. So take your pick and stick in at least five juicy disputes to balance out this pro-Chabad propaganda. No more free rides. IZAK 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Added

The final section of this template is now a Critism of Chabad section, which balances out, only somewhat, the propagandistic nature of the way this template exists now. IZAK 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They just keep removing it IZAK, they just are completely relentless. Lobojo (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told that i emailed IZAK about his complain that he should help out form a solution not just complain let me see if he continues to talk the talk or walk the walk--יודל (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello all: What is so complicated here? For the sake of WP:NPOV there must still be a Critism of Chabad section added, as I did earlier in May of this year [1] and which should not have been removed. And I said above in "Controversy?" I have not changed my mind. (To Yiddisheryid: There is no need to violate WP:NPA against me in the process of getting my attention.) The question is now how to resolve the dispute? Should it go to some form of arbitration? I would say we ask for input from the core reliable editors at WP:JUDAISM, some of whom are admins such as User:Shirahadasha and User:Jfdwolff (if they have the time), before jumping to other places. I will do that now. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have posted requests for help from a few trustworthy editors and at WP:JUDAISM and hopefully it will yield something. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda?

There is no propaganda in this template. If you think there is, please explain yourself.

I will be changing the template around a bit. It should be similar to other templates like, Template:Judaism. Shlomke 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If u r talking to Izak please write him personal there is currently no propaganda, negetive or positive, becaouse 2 good users yehoishufet oliver and lobojo have cared to start discussing the right balance for this template now.--יודל (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable figures

I think the whole notable figures section should be removed. It's quite big right now, and does not cover all notable figures in chabad, there are many many more. This would eliminate the problem of who should be listed in that section. Shlomke 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not even really great Chassidim? Yehoishophot Oliver 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then how do you decide who should go in and who shouldn't? Shlomke 13:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just reach consensus, I guess. Could we leave it for now? Yehoishophot Oliver 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave it and work on them over time. Shlomke 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebbes of Chabad

The section 'Rebbes of Chabad' is woefully incomplete: it is missing, inter alia, the rebbes of Strashelye, Nyezhin and Kopust—all part of Chabad. --Redaktor 17:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rabbes of Chabad will include the Chabad Lubavitch line, while the page "Chabad offshoots" include the rest. As much as at the time, the "offshoots" were independent groups, this won't apply today because Chabad-Lubavitch is the only surviving group. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Again!

It is one thing to tweak with links but to remove the entire controversy section from the template requires some nerve! Oh and by the way the template that Scientology does not have is Template:Scientology ChocolatePinchas. Lobojo (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep removing the section. This cannot stand. You ignore every point I have made. A good chunk of the information about Chabad on wikipeida is in the controversy section that you keep reverting. Lobojo (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep adding in the section. We didn't ignore your point, and you made only one, viz. that Chabad must be compared to Scientology. We responded that the precedent of the Judaism template is perfectly legit. to follow, being that it's a Jewish article.

You claim that "A good chunk of the information about Chabad on wikipeida is in the controversy section that you keep reverting." In your edit summary you said it was 35%. Well, I've gone and counted the number of articles in the Chabad section, and come to a total of 136. And how many "controversial" articles are being posted in this section that you insist on putting back, and putting right up toward the top? SIX. That's actually 4.41%, hardly notable enough. Quite a large miscalculation you've made there. Also, there IS already a link to the controversy article and section on the bottom. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The template isn't divided by numbers, the mesenisim and the yechi subjects are way more important than all other phenomena and subjects of this template that why it belongs in the top although it is not on top it is in the middle, most of the articles u talk about are about minor schools and minor orgs or figures to inflate its propaganda positively, we as editors have a right and duty to set the record straight, although we do not ask to delete those articles we must fight for the proper encyclopedic balance, please note that chabad has its own inside wiki, this is non chabad thus neutral--יודל (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the numbers of articles, I was referring the amount of information, note what I wrote. Most the 136 articles on Chabad topics are stubs with a few KB of info. The Controversy section has approx. 300 kb of info all together. Lobojo (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it back it should not be deleted only if discussion reaches consensus that its negative bio unwarranted for a neutral encyclopedia. thanks for your vigilance--יודל (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you, an admin? The simple reason that its inclusion is unfair was stated above, namely that it is based on the model of the Judaism template. That reason still stands and as such the restoration of the section has not been justified. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Oliver your words were added after mine [2] so it should not be above mine, but i will leave it there so other editors should see through these shenanigans, and no, an admin and a editor have the same rights regarding content formation, this isn't a problem of vandalism or edit against consensuses, most users want to be neutral and include the negative articles as well just or a fraction of the positive inflated subjects, even u write that criticism on chabad should stay, u only ask it should be in the bottom since the Judaism template has it in the bottom, which holds no water first of all because Judaism has no negative information and secondly whatever controversy there is its tiny minuscule not worthy for inclusion only as a criticism page which is one article and finish, in the other hand those controversies about chabad are very prominent and basic when writing about them, those are very well sourced and majorly discussed events while talking or reading about chabad, thus should be included in the template, although i do understand why it bothers u to read negative articles in the template, i ask u to consider that this in a non partisan wikipedia, not satmar nor Jewish project. Please respect our community and do not revert again to delete the chabad negative articles, please refrain form overruling the community with your personal POV, if u feel that the inclusion of the controversies isn't fair and balanced request insight form other users, on the Jewish project or from your chabad fellow editors personally which are numerous user Pincus and others, so a consensus can be reached do not simply revert the will of the community single handily thanks--יודל (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm genuinely sorry, I didn't realise it's a problem to post on a point before when responding to that point, and the time of my posting is clear.

2. There are PLENTY of controversial topics throughout the Judaism articles, and it is patently absurd to suggest otherwise, and that claim demonstrates that you have almost no knowledge of Judaism, never mind of the relatively specialised area of Chabad teachings.

3. Conversely, the blatantly anti-Chabad editors here are placing glaringly excessive emphasis on the handful of controversies related to Chabad ("controversies about chabad are very prominent and basic when writing about them (sic)") probably because that's most of what their knowledge of Chabad centres around, as is clear from the type of edits that they make in the Chabad section in general.

4. So you are not an admin, and you have no right to order around other members as to which edits they can and cannot make, when a solid precedent (viz. the Judaism template) was cited repeatedly, and that precedent hasn't changed.

5. As for your accusation of my not respecting the wiki. community, this is not my decision alone: PinchasC, ChocolatePizza, and Sholomk also support this version of the template.

6. Please take the time to write more clearly; I had difficulty deciphering your post--thanks.Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1. usually its not a problem only when u write that u already answered, while its a lie your answer came after mine, and it was put above mine to sound as if u answered before my comment.
2. In wikipedia nothing exists only if you source it, so don't make this personal.
3. that's most of wikipedias knowledge since it is sourced and well referenced as notable.
4. yes i can in wikipedia every editor has the duty and right to talk and request that others should follow policy and conduct themselves in accordance with consensus, a admin has the tools to block but we all have the same status in regards to forming and writing the wikipedia.
5. i respect Pinchas immensely and i don't see a clear discussion from them about this please let them be heard and we will reach a consensus. meanwhile only Izak lobojo and me 3 users have spoken on this matter against u and we have tried to explain.
6. i will try my best and i deeply appreciate your attention to my difficult English. i also tried resolving this by sending u private very frank email, lets hope we can formalise a solution best to all editors ability to bridge our gap of understanding here. thanks
7. bottom line this is a template and we can only link to the articles which exist and are sourced properly and as lobojo explained those subjects are the most populated information available in wikipedia on the subject, please take the time and change it so consequently the template will be more positive--יודל (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fear not your english is perfectly good enough and Oliver you dont need to try and embarass people here, if you have something like that to say you can do so by private email. Lobojo (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It remains clear that by all accounts Chabad is more controversial that Judaism. If you feel that "anti-Chabad editors" have added too much negative information on Chabad, it is your prerogative to start new articles and add sourced information to the current articles which you feel reflect well on Chabad. That will improve the encyclopedia, and everyone will be delighted. You can't go around removing or hiding sourced information, but you feel there is a lack of balance that is a great motivator for you to add sourced positive information. Lobojo (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The most important thing that you need to understand is that PinchasC created the Controversies page years ago as a POV Fork from the main Chabad and Rebbe articles. Really the Controversy article is an integral part of the Main Chabad article, and the rebbe article. Lobojo (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1. My point is clear, that these are only a handful of "controversial" articles. And there are approx. 60 stubs in the Chabad section, and 136 articles, so most of the article are not stubs.

2. "It remains clear that by all accounts Chabad is more controversial that Judaism." Do you have some basis and context for this wildly POV claim?! Conversely, there are plenty of things in Judaism that those who don't accept it find controversial, and this is reflected throughout the Judaism articles. So again, the precedent stands.

3. It seems highly POV to accuse another member of creating a "POV fork" when the Judaism section also has a criticism article. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No you misinterpreted me again. There is about 300kb of info (c. 30-40,000 words) under the controversy section. This is because that is how PincasC designed it, putting all the controversy into a few articles. Most of the articles barely have 200 words. Chabad is a controversial organization, there are plenty of sources for that statement in the articles, here is another and another and another and another, and we at wikipedia cannot sweep this under the rug for the benefit of Chabad. OK, when it was created it was a POv fork, since the Chabad article wasn't long enough to need it. But that is all history now, forgive and forget I say. It remains the case that Controversies is part and parcel of both the Rebbe and Chabad articles, and should really be linked right at the top of the template, in small letters under where it says "Chabad Hasidism". Lobojo (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Defining one group as more or less controversial is a purely subjective matter. Like I said, for many millions of people Judaism is a plenty controversial matter, witness the plethora of anti-semitic hate sites on the web, but the controversies link is not posted in the middle, but at the end of the template (and certainly not at the very top of it, how grossly absurd). Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again it is not a subjective matter. Most of the disccussion about Chabad in scholarly journals pertains to controversy, most current books abouut Chabad deal with controversy. Much of Chabads press coverage pertains to various controversies, there are hundereds of notable recent sources that describe Chabad as controversial. Chabad is not a religion, Chabad is not Judaism, it is a small relioguos organisation that has been embroiled in controversy for at least 50 years, but most importatnly we cannot hide 300kb of the best sourced information about Chabad in a link at the bottom in the corner especailly considering the fact that the controvesies and messianism articles are really part of the main articles on both the Rebbe and Chabad. Lobojo (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As User:Lobojo points out, it is beyond a doubt and recorded in multiple sources that Chabad is controversial, not just in the eyes of the secular media, but Chabad faces serious open critiques from Agudah, Satmar, and Orthodox outreach groups that know about it closely, and there are open and published verifiable sources for this, that must be reflected on a template like this not in an obscure way to hide the criticism but it must receive co-equal footing to all other facets of this noteworthy organization. IZAK (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that elsewhere, IZAK has called me a pro-Chabad editor, and has identified me as a member of the pro-Chabad group of editors on this site. As it happens, I have not taken an active interest in Chabad-related articles on Wikipedia for some time. But that does not mean that I have no intrest. I unerstand that IZAK has messaged a number of "trustworthy editors" in the hopes that they would come and lend their aid in the present dispute. I am puzzled why he did not message me, given that he has remarked numerous times on my involvement with the Chabad section of Wikipedia. I think the modus operandi here may be similar to the one IZAK employed during the AFD concerning Gil Student: He got Student himself involved, causing student to ask his blog groupies to vote against deletion, and thereby preventing the deletion when it was fairly clear that it would have otherwise passed. Of course, why should I rely upon conjecture and insinuation? IZAK has made no secret of his anti-Chabad animosity, (neither has Lobojo), and these editors' known anti-Chabad POV should be kept in mind when we decide whether to take these editors' suggestions seriously (or the suggestions of anyone who IZAK considers "trusted"). So though he has not asked me to come and lend my opinion in the present matter, I will provide it anyhow.

The reality is that the anti-Chabad editors, the NPOV editors, and the accused pro-Chabad cabal have all conributed to the various articles making up the totality of Chabad articles, and have not been shy about describing the controversies surrounding Chabad, not the least of which is the Messianist controversy. In IZAK's mind, the controversies are "coequal" in importance with the movement itself. That's silly. In every article, the controversies or criticisms section is saved for the very end. In most templates, when there even is a controversy section (which, as has been pointed out, is not always or even normally the case), it goes at the end. IZAK wants to start a new precedent that extends only to Chabad, and he has not provided any explanation as to why his suggestion makes sense other than th promise us that it is his emphatic suggestion. Somehow, he thinkis that dropping the names "Agudah" and "Satmar" will grant legitimacy to such a strange request. But this is silly. I don't see why the Controversy section absoultely *needs* to be included in the template (the article itself is unwieldy, and is full of subjective "information" (for lack of a better word). But if there is going to be such an inclusion in the template, put it somewhere close to the end, where it goes in every other case. --Meshulam (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you contribution to the debate I'm sure IZAK meant no harm in not including you in the "trusted" clique. I think that the positioning is valid "Chabad", "Rebbes", "History", "Controversy". All the headings below contain mostly very stubby and short articles about technical aspects of the movement, and tangential things like "Chabad communities". Considering the fact that controversy is such a major feature of the current movement (lets be honest), I think this is appropriate, compare Template:Scientology. Lobojo (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Thanks Meshulam. Indeed, nothing personal, but Izak's anti-Chabad stance is very blatant. Consider the fact that when lobojo created 2 (or 3)) consecutive articles about defrocked rabbis, Izak accused him of having an agenda similar to that of Der Shturmer, of dwelling on all the dirt in order to evoke hate in the reader. However, when Lobojo moves on from that campaign to a virulently anti-Chabad campaign, Izak has nothing but praise and support for lobojo.
2. Lobojo, there are countless newspaper articles released regularly interviewing Chabad shluchim on their activities that are highly favourable. These don't make it on to wikipedia because they're all somewhat repetitive. Chabad rabbi sets up day school. Chabad rabbi launches Hebrew school. Chabad rabbi visits lonely Jews in remote locations. Large crowd of non-religious Jews attends Menorah lighting. Ah, boring. Oooh, but if there's some "dirt," something that reflects unfavourably, then all the anti-chabad editors bend over backwards to put it in every article they can, for "balance", and it has to be right up toward the top of the template or article, in bold letters, and with flashing neon lights.
3. The reason certain members here think that the controversy aspect is "co-equal" is simply because these people's unashamed hate for Lubavitch goads them to spend a lot of time digging up all the dirt they can find--Der Shturmer style--so that's all they see. As for reality and the oh-so-controversial "messianism", the fact is that the overwhelming majority of shluchim are not "Meshichistin", as is clear from the 4 thousand who attended the Shluchim convention this year under the non-"messianist" umbrella org.
4. As for the template, the point made in the past by Sholomk, PinchasC, ChocolatePizza, myself, and now Meshulam (thank you), that the Judaism template serves as an acceptable precedent, stands. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly serves no such precedent. Thank you for comparing me to Der Strummer. Local puff pieces in village papers about menorahs dont belong in wikipedia you see. But controversies with books and millions of words of newsprint writen about them do. In this case in particular, where the long Chabad and Rebbe articles had the controversy cut off the end, we must make the information that was removed visible. The template must prominently display all the most important articles on a subject. In this case 2 of them are Messianism and controversy. Nowhere alse on wikipedia would people so readily call other editors nazis, while shamelessly trying to hide or delete information that they find objectionable. Lobojo (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, Reliable Sources are used for Lobojo 's claims. Yehoishophot Oliver calling Lobojo a Nazi (Der Shturmer? Come on) also violates WP:NPA. Abe Froman (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I wasn't calling him a Nazi, that's ridiculous. For those with reading and comprehension skills, I was borrowing Izak's past comparison here to describe the method of posters like lobojo (note that I didn't refer to him directly). lobojo: No one was hiding the link to the controversies article, never mind delete it. They were simply saying that it's unfair to have it in a separate section toward the top of the template, unlike virtually all the other templates. Nowhere else on wikipedia would people so readily make such preposterous demands. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Der Strumer was a Nazi organ, though I'm not going to persue this now, since I have thick skin please try to be civil in future. It was hidden right in the corner, and someone had used the piping trick to make Messiansim redirect to "Jewish messianism" instead of "Chabad messianism"! Again 2 of the most important, best sourced articles are Messianism and Controvesrys. They are also both effective POV forks of the other 2 main articles, "Rebbe" and "Chabad", and they must be fairly promient on the templpate, I am not suggesting it should be at the top, but that it should be the 4th section that it now is. Lobojo (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know Der Sturmer was a Nazi organ, and I explained what I meant by the comparison, that it was a comparison with the method of that rag in their campaign to arouse hate. I wasn't being uncivil, just pointing out the blatant methodology of your unabashed smear campaign. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yehoishophot Oliver calls editors he disagrees with Nazis, but does so in a civil way. Good to know. I object to branding any editing outside of your POV a "smear campaign." At the very least, this breaches WP:AGF and raises troubling issues of Article Ownership. Abe Froman (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop getting off the subject. It Yehoishophot Oliver probably intended to be be humorous, and he missed the mark widely. He made it clear that he doesn't think anyone here is a Nazi. But he probably should apologize. Lets get back to the issue. Lobojo, you keep saying that the controversies should be at the top, and that the fact that they were removed from the main article (I was against that, by the way) means that they should be at the top. Why? Why does that make sense?--Meshulam (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be at the top, I am saying they should be the 4th section down. The reason I say this is beacuse these two articles "conrotverys" and "messianism" are part and parcel of the "chabad" article, but have been split out of it in the past, and anything we can do to link these articles back together is welcome. Lobojo (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to be humorous. But I didn't intend to call anyone names either. I intended to draw an analogy used by Izak in the past to describe lobojo's editing style. In this context, I wished to point out lobojo's consistent agenda in his editing, which is to discredit Chabad, a worldwide movement devoted to spreading Judaism, as much as possible, in order to arouse in readers the same hate that he is so filled with. All this should have been obvious to those with basic reading and comprehension skills without a desire to "grab" someone on a wors. In any case, I do not apologise. As for the template, I have moved the section to the bottom, per the consensus on this talk page. The only one who thinks it shouldn't be on the bottom is lobojo, who contradicts himself: in the post above this one he says it should be 4th down, and below he says shamelessly: "controversy should really be right at the top." Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yehoishophot Oliver, please Assume Good Faith. People with a different POV from yours should not have to endure derision and name-calling from you.

Again, I didn't call anyone names. And I did assume good faith, but after I saw that there was none, I pointed it out. As Izak did earlier on a different matter. But enough of this. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yehoishophot Oliver: My original criticism of User:Lobojo was that to launch only one-sided articles that list only the negatives of rabbis is dirt-digging because articles cannot be based on "only" negatives -- just as I would say to you as emphatically: Articles, and templates, cannot be based "only" on positives! If there is known criticism that is coming from neutral reliable sources then they must and can be reported. The Sturmer was an analogy as it was only interested in flinging mud, that is why it was evil and that is why no-one should imitate it, but by the same token, as objective scholars, by now it should be very clear, that there is no room for selective hagiography (the study of "saints") on Wikipedia either. At least give me credit, I criticised User:Lobojo for going too far with his negatives and I am criticising you with going too far with your positives. There needs to be a balance in some middle ground. Its name is neutrality and objectivity. IZAK (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all: Point number one: I never contacted Gil Student at any time. He contacted me on my talk page. I have nothing to do with him (I don't even agree with most of what he says, but I do agree that he has many valid arguments) so I don't enjoy being lumped with him. Point number two: I did not say that I was going to contact and spam the world to get more input here. I am entitled to contact editors that I know are fair and reasonable people. Unfortunately User Meshulam (talk · contribs) has adopted a hostile stance towards me many times and I never know when he is going to attack me again. At any rate, most of what he says against me are total fabrications and clearly violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And point number three, I am neither pro nor anti anything! I oppose stupidity and prejudice no matter where it comes from. Unfortunately some people think that if you create a truly WP:NPOV article, with the pluses and minuses included then you are either "pro" or "anti" something. User:Meshulam obviously knows little about my record. Long before he ever heard of Wikipedia, I had already created some very neutral and if anything, very flattering articles about Chabad and all the Rebbes. Just see these edit histories: I created the Chabad article 30 Dec 2002 with no negatives in it I assure you, that came later from subsequent editors. I created the: first article for Shneur Zalman of Liadi 20 Jan 2003; for article for Menachem Mendel Schneersohn 20 Jan 2003; first article for article for Shmuel Schneersohn 20 Jan 2003; first article for Sholom Dovber Schneersohn 22 March 2004; first article for Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn 20 Jan 2003; first article for The Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson 30 Dec 2002 (those first 2 anon edits were me, as you can see that I logged in after them.) In these articles you will see that I was basically reporting the Chabad POV verbatim, simply because I was relying on Chabad texts. So how "anti" is that? Anyhow, I will not stand for anyone calling me "anti-Lubavitch" when I was the one to welcome Chabad and its Rebbes onto Wikipedia first in a positive way. However, unlike some "true-believers" I do not think it is my duty to check my brain in at the door the minute I log on just because I am aware of the positive or negative qualities and strengths of something. The problems and controversies cannot be ignored and must be reported. The Torah teaches that, as it did not seek to hide the failings of Moses or any of its heroes and the Chabad Rebbes and its movement are not better than Moses or the Torah. I hope that User:Meshulam and User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) will apologize and not fling unfounded false allegations against me or anyone in the future. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To User:Yehoishophot Oliver: In looking at the {{Judaism}} template, there are a number of critism articles in it. The mere fact that it starts with Judaism as having so many "denominations" is a sign of its diversity, and it specifically has in it's final "Related topics" Criticism (Criticism of Judaism). In the {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} template it starts with a controversial topic of Who is a Jew?, lists the split up denominations again, in the history timeline section it lists a number of "criticism" articles, such as Schisms (Schisms among the Jews), Sabbateans, Arab-Israeli conflict. And in the end it has all sorts of controversial topics that are inherently critical of each other, such as Jewish feminism. So the comparison with the Chabad template fails and since the Chabad template is now so huge, as if it seeks to encompass the whole world, it can also include a handfull of criticisms, otherwise this template may be a violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING because Wikipedia is simply NOT Chabad.org. Thanks for taking note. IZAK (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To Izak: I apologise for calling you anti-Chabad; please forgive me. I also see what you meant in your comparison with Der Shturmer then vs. mine here, and that it's different. Sorry about the mistaken comparison with your comparison on my part. I also now see your point about the criticism section in the template, and I have to admit what you say makes sense. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yehoishophot Oliver: No problem. You have done good work and you should continue to do so, but at the same time keep in mind that Wikipedia is more academic which allows for the variance of views. In short, we all need to agree to disagree here and there are ways to list disagreements, such as in creating "Controversy" or "Other views" sections or segments in articles and templates. IZAK (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How to do the hide/show trick

I think the main problem is that the template is too long perhaps. The ideal would be to have all the headings using the show/hide trick. Does anyone know how to do this? Lobojo (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Needs to made in a "footer" and there is someone who is very good at that. User Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs) created the {{Jews and Judaism}} template, and others like it. Real gems! I will contact him. See User talk:Yahel Guhan#Help create a new footer. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he's just designed it. Now we need to decide what's going on here. Are we going to have the same balagan that exists with the Judaism template, that thanks to Yahel Guhan footer template we now have two identical templates on the general Judaism pages, or is this template going to be replaced with the footer. Are there precedents and rules somewhere describing what to do in such a situation? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Footers are generally a lot better because full boxes on pages, especially when they are huge, just drown out the articles. What do others think? IZAK (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the long articles can do with both versions - sidebar and collapsed footer, while the short/stubby ones should just have the expanded footer. Hip hip hooray for Yahel Guhan! Lobojo (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I thinkit's silly to have two templates with the same info., and I think there should be one standard template to prevent conflict when one template is edited and not the other. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They both have their uses. Lobojo (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant

My question wasn't this exactly. What I meant to ask was how to make the sections in the sidebar individually collapsible to enable the sidebar to hold huge amounts of information without being unwieldy? Is this possible to do? IE Each setion would have a hide/show switch and pressing it would expand that one section. Lobojo (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Two comments

(a) Section "Other Chabad dynasties". Why "other"?

(b) Section "Controversies" must be at the bottom, not on the top.

`'Míkka>t 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also removed Nizhyn: there was no dynasty. `'Míkka>t 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be at the top? Didn't you know that the very word Chabad is synonymous with controversy? It definitely belongs at the top. In fact, the rest of the articles are really not so relevant after all, as they're not all that controversial, and so to maintain balance it's best to only include the controversy section in the template. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to vent any political or religious disagreements. No I don't know the Chabad is "synonymous with constroversy". In wikipedia we write artices literally, not figuratively, so that readers will not require rabbi to explain the text for them. Also, please explain your phrase "the rest of the articles are really not so relevant". Are you saying that the rest of the articles do not describe topics about Chabad? `'Míkka>t 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can suggest a few good books on the subject, if you are interested, but Chabad is the most controversial group within Judaism at the moment, and is controversial from a number of differing perspectives. Most of the other articles are just stubby things and to put controversy after these is not appropriate considering that these articles are already basically POV forks and anything we can do to mitigate this is a good thing. Lobojo (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

re:"I can suggest" - I was referring to your ironic phrasing. As for controversies, to put Barry Gurary on top of the template, above Chabad schools, texts and organizations is beyond any common sense. re "basically POV forks" - all 40+ of them? If they are pov forks, then deal with it and this issue is irrelevant. A normal practice is to discuss opinions and controversies after the facts, not before. Go try and put "controversies/criticism" as section #3 in George W. Bush page. It is in the end and it is a common practice however much many dislike Bush: "Criticism of George W. Bush" is twice as large as his main article. `'Míkka>t 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No I mean that "Controvery" and "Messianism" are tantamount to POV forks, through they are legitimate since the main article would be too long with them back in. What goes in the page and the template are two differnt things, especially in this case because of the desire to make two of the longest and best sourced articles (which are POV forks of the main article) stand out against a background of articles that are far less importance. A good comparitor is the Scientology footer template. Lobojo (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikka. If you look at the previous discussion, you'll see that I was just using sarcasm to make my point about the absurdity of lobojo's demands. BTW, lobojo's definition of a POV fork is an article that has no "dirt" in it. Obviously, lobojo's opinion about the relative "controversialness" of Chabad is blatantly POV, as should be obvious. If the other articles are stubs, then that's a reason to develop them, but they deal with significant areas related to the movement. As Mikka says, standard practice is to put the controversy link last on the template.--~

Not at all, I am saying that they are tantamount to POV forks, becasuse they are just an expansion of the Controversy section that really belongs in the main article. I never use the word dirt, but you can't very well have a seperate section on say "Criticism of Noam Chomsky" and expect it be all rosy from his perspective can you? Again to say that Chabad is controversial is not a POV problem since there are probably 100's a valid sources that say those exact words - a gave you 5 in 3 minutes, last time you asked me for some. As such controversy should really be right at the top, in small letters under where it says "Chabad Hasidism". Lobojo (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"As such controversy should really be right at the top". Because all those non-controversial articles about Chabad are really peripheral expansion of the controversy section. NOW I get it! Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it should be on the template, but the positioning shouldn't matter. As an aside, Yehoishophot Oliver's failure to adhere to WP:AGF is troubling. He is branding any editor with a differing POV a scoundrel. Abe Froman (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is troubling. Lobojo (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: " !was just using sarcasm" . Please don't. For a newly arrived person like me it is extremely confusing as to who stands for what. Sarcasm, innuendos, etc., are good in political fights. In wikipedia the goal is to find a common ground, called neutral point of view, not to defeat one another. `'Míkka>t 05:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mahane Israel

Can someone please add that to the template and maybe fix it up a little. also is it better to change the name to Machne Israel because a few pages link there already, or should those links be changed to Mahane Israel Larryyr (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

History and notable figures

The history section is a disparate collection of minor holidays and buildings/institutions. The notable figures section is a mix of administrators, head shluchim, renown mashpiim, and 17th century kloiz characters. I suggest both be replaced by 2 sections: organization/administration (Aguch, Merkos, etc..), and Holidays.Oysvorf (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, kind of. I've separated Community rabbis, Mashpiim and general "notable figures". I think this is a good start. But is there any way to format it to show these groups as subsections of "People"? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

CH riot

I think the Crown Heights riot, as written on WP's article on the subject, does not appear as a "chapter in Chabad history" and should not be in the history section. The riot involved Chabad, but is a) a local incident, b) one of general Jewish-Black relations. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)