Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebbes of Chabad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - however I have userfied the article in case any of the additional material here is useful for the Chabad article (and provided a consensus exists for its inclusion). Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebbes of Chabad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a blatant content fork of Chabad, and also jumbles all the "rebbes" – dynastic and otherwise – into one synthesized hash. Recommend speedy delete. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being mainly a fork of Chabad. This article also mentions rebbes from other Chabad offshoots, like Kopust (not Kapust), which are not Lubavitch, but that seems arbitrary, and the need for such a list (which is basically all this article is) and such a grouping unclear. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per Debresser above, as this is clearly a violation of WP:CONTENTFORK. In any case, Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch already does the job and is more than sufficient as a collection of this information. IZAK (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch does not include offshoots of Chabad. On the page there are currently 3 branches listed, Strashelye, Kopost, and Liadi. I know that there are at least another 2 branches of Chabad similar to Liadi (as Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn had 4 sons who assumed the position of rebbe), plus there is the Malachim.

The main Chabad page is pretty long as it is and content could be summarized on that page and placed on the new page instead.

Changing the category might be another option. But please remember that a page or category including just the Rebbes of Lubavitch is the Chabad-Lubavitch POV. The NPOV description of the leaders of Chabad Chasidim is that there are 6 different Chabad dynasties/branches, but only one remains today.

With regards to forking, The Rebbes of Chabad page should not be considered a fork do to:

The number of Chabad offshoots and branches bumping up the number of Chabad Rebbes from 7 to 13+ (7 Lubavitch, 2 Strashelye, 3 Kopost, 1 Liadi, and then there are another 3 not on the page)
The view that there is one dynasty in Chabad and that there are just one or two offshoots is the Chabad-Lubavitch perspective. Following Shneur Zalman of Liadi's death, Strashelye was a real option for Chabad Chasidim. Following Menachem Mendel Schneersohn's death, Chabad literally splintered into four. The Rebbes of Chanad page can present a NPOV article listing all Chassidic rebbes branching from the founder of Chabad.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, I.am.a.qwerty, but I don't understand your logic. A Hasidic dynasty is a father-to-son, father-to-son-in-law, or rebbe-to-talmid line of succession. The seven Rebbes of Chabad are a clear-cut dynasty of father-to-son and father-to-son-in-law. The grandson of a Rebbe who puts together his own Hasidut is not considered a scion of the dynasty, but a progenitor of a new dynasty. You should be working on the individual dynasty pages of Strashelye and others rather than trying to present them as one big Chabad-Lubavitch family, which they are not. Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yoninah, perhaps I've got the categories confused, the article is meant to include all Rebbes of Chabad, not just the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty. I don't know what would be the best course of action, placing all non-Lubavitch Chabad under an offshoot label, put each offshoot under its own label, or change the Chabad label to include all Chabad rebbes.

My argument ultimately boils down to this, the same way we wouldn't put the presidents of a country under a category label alone, but have a page (or a section under a government page) listing the presidents, their predecessors and successors.

What makes the Chabad case unique is that it appears that most of the offshoots considered themselves legitimate successors of the first and third rebbes.

I suggest that the category be temporarily removed, the article expanded, and start a disscussion to decide how the Chabad rebbes should be categorized.

And once again, my argument why the article is not a fork is due to the POV aspect of having just a main Chabad-Lubavitch page. That setup would automatically throw all the other rebbes into some corner and push aside their historical significance. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But who needs all rebbes of Chabad in one article? It is not a logical grouping, being that these were separate branches of Chassidism. If anything, that is why there are categories (or even lists). Debresser (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change and New Focus

You know, after looking back at the main Chabad page, it hit me that the offshoots are more like a historical footnote than a current, ever expanding subject like Chabad-Lubavitch. Maybe this would make sense to do considering how many offshoots there are and POV/NPOV issues: the article can be renamed to Chabad offshoots or the like, the reason why it should not be in the main Chabad page is for POV/NPOV issues (the slant would be from and within the Lubavitch article...), and making a new category for the offshoots confuses things as what is missing here is a section/article addressing the branches of Chabad. Currently the Chabad page is not about Chabad in general but Chabad-Lubavitch in particular. And being that the other branches are extinct, any section in the chabad page would appear out of sync, as the bulk of the page focuses on Chabad-Lubavitch philosophy, history and activities.

The rebbes of Chabad page can be renamed to something along the lines of "Branches/Offshoots of the Chabad Movement". In that page will be a background on the offshoots, surrounding controversies, the other rebbes, relations with and influence on Chabad-Lubavitch.

This way, we can have a central article for groups that thought themselves to be Chabad without the POV nature of a Chabad-Lubavitch article. The NPOV nature of a separate article will allow for expansion and inclusion of topics such as Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach and his followers, Zalman Schechter and Jewish Renewal (two groups founded by former Chabad Shluchim)

Instead of having the average reader happen to find out about the Chabad roots of so many groups, we can put it in one spot without the influence of a Lubavitch perspective.

Does this make sense? The wiki fork page had a section on POV natured articles. Does that apply here? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we would do the name change thing, I'd remove the section on Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty, rewrite the opening and provide a little background. I believe there is enough scholarly material to provide a setting to explain how the Chabad groups split off. The dynasty tag would have to be removed, a short description of the dynasty would have to be added, and the sources for the other two sons of he third Chabad rebbe would have to e located. I think this is both doable and worthy of inclusion as an article

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, Debresser, let me clarify. I don't mind categories or lists, so I've suggested that the content on this page be moved to a new page dealing with a historical phenomenon worthy of encyclopedic treatment, namely, the numerous offshoots of Chabad founded by their rebbes.

Once again, the page as it exists right now probably can be replaced with a list and a small section in the Chabad article, but the subject would have a Lubavitch POV slant. The subject is significant enough to be addressed, and so far it has appeared only through the lens of the current Chabad-Lubavitch movement. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.