Talk:Hasidic philosophy

message: Hi,
Ummm I know next to nothing about Hasidic philosophy, so I'm not really in a position to clean this article up, but some of it (especially the section on "The Key To All Wisdom", which somehow manages to bring Star Wars into the discussion) looks like it could do with a clean. The grammar and spelling is off in a few places and looks like it has been text-messaged in (ie, lots of "Torah is all the names of Hashem, not a/t definite just the way u call them" and "you have all kinds of wisdom w/o putting in years studying it. U’ll automatically understand everything in the world." and "Cuz God is choosing without any external influences that he wants exactly like that")
Anyone else have an opinion on this?
cheers
--Gregrosman 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: What gives? We've been discussing this for months and you go and unilaterially merge the entire article, effectively wiping out months of work and nobody get's a say about it. 
If you don't like the emphasis, edit it. Help it. Make it better. Join the discussion. Don't just remove it. That is wrong in my opinion no matter where you stand.72.89.212.50 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over Chabad 

message: Jdwolf:
If you think this article "adds nothing to the Chabad article" or the "hasidism article", then you haven't seen the Chabad or hasidism articles. They don't even scratch the surface of what Hasidic philosophy is all about nor does any other article I have seen on any hasidism related topic. 
I have seen several complaints on wikipedia talk pages for the past couple of years, that no one has attempted to explain what Hasidic philophy actually is all about. "What do Hasidim actually believe?" is a common question. Especially since the growing visibility of Hasidic Jews in New York, in movies, in the media and especially with the recent popularity of regggae artist Matisyahu. In that sense, this article fills a very great need. 
As said before, the main discussion of this article is the teachings the Baal Shem Tov who predates the distintions between different groups of Chassidim. Sure the Tanya is mentioned but that is one the most well-konw works of hasidic philosphy and the article would be remiss not to mention it. If you think a particular line or sentence in the article is unfairly exclusive to Chabad, then tell us which one it is and let's talk about it. 
Thanks.68.161.101.218 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JdWolf's attempts to delete article 

message: Okay what's with the weird Baal Teshuvah driven stuff about the Satmar Rov vs. Chabad and Breslov. (For whoever wrote the stuff, Breslov in Jerusalem and Monroe is a virtual satellite of Satmar.) If you can't source the stuff about R' Teitelbaum being the evil darth vader of the chasidic world and making it all extreme when before it was fluffy, I'm going to erase the whole thing as unsourced. 79.183.238.107 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the .... 

message: I'm creating an entire new section on Chabad et al. on it.Wikipedia, with respective "Chabadfooter" template, links, images, references. The works. 
This article is part of the program: naturally, I'm going to edit it a bit, but not tooooo much. 
 Wish me luck!--Daubmir (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gonna translate the whole kaboodle into {{In lang|it}}

message: I think the examples in this section are completely superfluous. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English literature on Hasidic thought  

message: User April8 posted on my talkpage that "Hasidic thought" would be a more correct name for this article. I have been convinced by his arguments. At the moment Hasidic thought redirects here. Any opinions? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens automatically. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasidic "philosophy" or "thought" 

message: You tagged Hasidic philosophy with a  tag. Please see the edit summary of my consequetive edit: this one. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Thank you. Apart from being written poorly and relying on sources such as "AskMoses.com", all the talk about Nistarim  and the "aims of Hasidic thought" strikes me as OR. This article should be put on a crash diet, especially the sections relating to Kabbalah in general. AddMore-III (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I cut some paragraphs (>8.5 thousand characters) and still this article is ridiculously inflated. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Debresser, thank you again. I'll take a more thorough look here and try to give a hand after I'm done with Hasidism itself. AddMore-III (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text: User:Oshwah, I refer you to the discussion here. AddMore-III (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: AddMore-III - Thank you for pinging me and bringing this discussion to my attention. After looking through all of the content you removed, I agree that there were problems with a significant portion of it, and that removing it was correct. I've reverted the article back to the revision of your last change. While I think some of the content was sourced, I think that further discussion should take place before any changes are made; it'll be easily sorted out using DR. Thanks again for the ping :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)  09:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Debresser, how is this paragraph relevant for this article? This is one *long* (and inaccurate) etymology section. I'll add a concise one to the main article. AddMore-III (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  First of all, why would you say it is inaccurate. Furthermore, etymology sections are always relevant, per definition. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research tag 

message: After culling this article from a ton of low quality OR+syntheis, there is little left. The section "the term Hasidus" covers the etymology of the term. It has nothing to do with Hasidic philosophy, and there is a parallel and better one in the main article Hasidism. "Overview in historical context" actually covers the history of the movement, yet again surveyed better in the main article. Without these two, we're left with "in general" and "characteristic ideas" - which I find both lacking and badly written, but especially *short*. There is really nothing here that merits its own article. When you compound this with the problem of defining a distinct Hasidic ideology, I see no reason not to make this a redirect to the segment "philosophy" in the main article. AddMore-III (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is enough left for a standalone article, and also to avoid overstraining the general article. In addition, I think the subject deserves a standalone article. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's very little here that merits its own article - really only the section on 'characteristic ideas.' In fact, the section on Hasidic philosophy contained in the Hasidic Judaism page seems to me more comprehensive than what we have here. I think any strain on the general article is due to the overly in-depth and non-encyclopedic style used there.Jbrzow (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article deserves its own page, as it is a valid topic. That said, the article in its current state needs a good cleanup (I've started with bits and pieces and hope to continue). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge tag removed. Sections from main Hasidic Judaism page moved here, and I've redone the section there so it is a nice few paragraphs, now with a main:article link. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the writer of almost all of Hasidic Judaism, I don't understand your edits. You just moved material (quite randomly, it seems) between the articles. Now the content I wrote there appears also here: the important "distinctions" paragraph which opens the main article was copied and became "In Jewish scholarship" here, completely out of context. I thank Jbrzow for his support, the non-copied matter here is just bad and disorganized. AddMore-III (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The article talks about "Hamschat ha-Shefa," "absorption of effluence" but there are no references, and I can't find any mention of this in any books on Hasidic Jewish thought.  The article claims that this idea is:
> The complementary opposite of corporeal worship, or the elation of the
> finite into infinite, is the concept of Hamshacha, "drawing down" or 
> "absorbing", and specifically, Hamschat ha-Shefa, "absorption of effluence".
> During spiritual ascension, one could siphon the power animating the 
> higher dimensions down into the material world, where it would manifest
> as benevolent influence of all kinds.
I just can't find any evidence of this belief anywhere. I think that this needed verifiabl references or we need to remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8202:14B0:E9AF:754C:3C6B:5A4 (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a real Hasidic idea? Hamschat ha-Shefa  

message: This article is not about philosophy but about Hasidic Judaism and should be redirected to that article. Editor2020 (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I think it's too long for that, see bellow. Editor2020 (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Shouldn't this article's title be changed to Hasidic thought? Editor2020 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy?