Jump to content

Talk:Chabad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge of Chabad outreach into Chabad

[edit]

Content FORK I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation

[edit]

I came here hoping to get some clarity on the degree to which Chabad has been institutionally unified or not in the years since the death of Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The article hints that it hasn't been, but doesn't really say much. I believe this is something that belongs in the article, and I would presume that there has been enough written about the topic that there ought to be plenty that is citable. - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue leadership section

[edit]

The seven hugely overweight expanded biographies front-loading the article need slashing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add to list of films

[edit]

Chassidim - the Joyful path to G-d : A 1966 documentary of Chabad Chassidim in Kfar Chabad, Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOqzo_HnPUc Chamyv (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important

[edit]

I will tell you more and I need to go out soon from this country it’s knot same as ou know it before this leader are same thing else !. 2001:4647:C947:0:D573:390:96FA:511D (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Tzvi Kogan

[edit]

Your Chabad House section needs updating after the murder of this relative of Rabbi Holzberg on 14th November 90.196.131.139 (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the AI slop

[edit]

Why are (you) using ai generated image? 123.253.134.153 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, someone needs to fix this ASAP. ~2025-38548-26 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article needs urgent deletion. It's simply a pamphlet.

[edit]

I came to this page bc someone mentioned they came from a Chabad background and I was curious where they fit in the Jewish spectrum. But instead I found an unhinged pamphlet that looks like it is addressed to yet-unconverted Jews praising this group's 'achievements' with massive subjectivity, embellishments and exaggerations, but more importantly, this is frankly not an encyclopedic article full-stop. Wikipedia isnt religious recruitment tool, no matter what you believe in. I don't even understand what this article is trying to achieve here. It's an extremely frustrating article because the authors clearly are experts but plain refuse to give us information that helps me understand anything. The first paragraph sort of helps - vaguely - but from then on it's showtime: just a few things from just remembering reading it now, this isnt even a real analysis yet: - Absolutely no perspective or views from other Jewish communities. Nothing that invites any comparison or god-forbid criticism or even a perspective for a non-Jewish reader who is genuinely curious. - it's classification is not neutral. instead of "Chabad understands itself as the unifying institution and representative of modern orthodox Judaism "(or whatever is true) the article is written AS IF IT PLAINLY "IS" the case. If i wanted to read about the conservative Shia religious group(s), then that article would list what they believe in, not: "Oh, the Ayatollah says this! Oh the the ayatollah confirms that!" -it's massively imbalanced on listing its outreach programmes. I'm sure the Jehova's witnesses or the Hari Krishna's also have a lot going on, but listing them excessively is inappropriate beyond a few sentences describing that group XYZ has large-scale global outreach and conversion initiatives. - an article about a religious group should feature its ideology, tenets, some core principles and/or features of daily life, where is this? I still know nothing about Chabad itself or living within the sphere of Chabad, but I know tons of detailed information and years and Baltic Rabbis that are not contributing to understanding Chabad to me. It lists no such things for the fear of not being a pamphlet. -Why is there a picture of a "ROOM302" and then no explanation? Other religious people also have offices, I'm sure. What does this mean? - Quoting "journalist XYZ says the Chabad is incredibly important to XYZ" HOW? WHAT? CONTEXT? WHY? My mum is also convinced I am incredibly amazing but i wouldnt put that as a helpful wiki source - it should list rough numbers adherents in a helpful way and cite credible sources for this, massive embellishments about a supposed global impact that is merely self-perceived are irrelevant. I am curious about its impact, but writing "everything they do is amazing" is unhelpful. - This entire spiel about what their leader thinks of things is not a replacement for objective information. You can say "Position towards the State of Israel: Unlike most Hasidic (I dont know if this term is correct bc this article explains nothing) groups Chabad acknowledges the legitimacy of modern Israel, it affirms a staunchly hawkish position, congruent with right-wing Israeli parties when it comes to its borders etc etc." or whatever is best in this current climate. What is this nonsense about their leader justifying why it does that? again, this is an encyclopedia. - if you don't list real positions on things then there is no point listing "controversies" since the entire article lacks the encyclopedic character that is needed to list such things. Instead we find some absolutely unhelpful essay about several internal leaders claiming leadership. That would have sufficed as a sentence and is also NOT what a controversy is. The Catholic Church does NOT list controversy bc "some people disagree with the decree of Nicaea" but because of THE MASSIVE GLOBAL CRAP THEYVE DONE AND DO, so why can't the author of this have some self-respect for what wikipedia is. 219.79.73.72 (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad messianism

[edit]

The assertion that "most Chabad followers continue to believe in Schneerson as the Jewish messiah." is unsourced and false. The cited article clearly states an opinion and even that opinion is not supported in any way. no data whatsoever is provided. ~2026-14331-72 (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]