Template talk:Chabad

message: 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. (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: not at all, I am merely suggesting that you engage in debate before making changes.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I am doing by leaving edit summaries and writing here on the talk page. Chocolatepizza 20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 .  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to cleanup the articles as you can see from my recent edits. Chocolatepizza 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic. When arne't stubs anymore I could hear your point.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Order, order!

message: 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).  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The are branches of the Chabad movement.  They are part of Chabad chasidus.  read the articles on them and read some books.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you even understand that that Chabad and Hasidism are two different things?  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand. And? Chocolatepizza 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Strashelye]] and [[Kapust]]

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Added

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Propaganda? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not even really great Chassidim? Yehoishophot Oliver 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but then how do you decide who should go in and who shouldn't? Shlomke 13:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reach consensus, I guess. Could we leave it for now? Yehoishophot Oliver 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets leave it and work on them over time. Shlomke 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable figures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rebbes of Chabad 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: They both have their uses. Lobojo (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to do the hide/show trick

message: 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)
thread_title: What I meant

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Mahane Israel (Chabad)|Mahane Israel]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History and notable figures 

message: 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)
thread_title: CH riot