Talk:Kabbalah Centre

message: RK, I can sense trouble. What on earth does this article benefit from Marc Shapiro's minority interpretation of Maimonides' 11th principle? Sechar wa-Onesh (reward and punishment) are the fabric of Orthodox thought, and it is actually Albo's third principle of Jewish faith. This is not the place to emphasise Shapiro's view. JFW | T@lk 00:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maimonides

message: People who join and follow the teachings of the Kabbalah Centre are referred to, and known as: Follower/s of the Kabbalah Center or Kabbalah Centre follower/s  because one cannot equate amateur dabblers to (the) truly great classical rabbinical scholars of the Kabbalah all of whom were famous and respected Jews -- whereas many followers of the Kabbalah Centre are not Jews and even those Jews who follow the Kabbalah Centre are shunned and ridiculed by all the Jewish denominations. No-one would have the audacity to claim that by listening to a few lectures about "popular science" and by wearing a white coat that a person is "transformed" into a "scientist" ! IZAK 03:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Followers of the Kabbalah Centre"

message: I totally fail to see any value by the inclusion of the logo on this page. It looks more like a cheap advert rather than a serious article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.188.194 (talk • contribs) 
:I would agree with the above unsigned comment on that one. The tagline is a little....shall we say POV? I don't see why, if we strive for NPOV in an artical, we should not do so for pictures. I couldn't imagine having a Coke logo that said 'Because Pepsi is just darn awful' as an image here. --Narson 11:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. If the logo is rather ubiquitous, as is the Coke logo with its "swirl" and other design classics, it is worthy of inclusion. I have no idea if the Centre advertise; I'm not sure if there is Wikipedia policy on including logos, but I think it is generally a good idea. The image caption should mention when the Centre started using the logo, and ideally who designed it and whether it contains any (hidden?) symbolism. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see what the logo looks like. If it is POV, that can be pointed out. --Hugh7 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo is unnecessary

message: They are _Rabbis_ I am shocked. ems 17:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbis? 

message: It may make sense to verify the target audience list and reduce it to a managable size and/or make a list of targets. JoshuaZ 04:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm going to wait about a week and if no one has any objections by then, I'm going to leave some of the more promient ones here and split a list off for the others. JoshuaZ 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience 

message: Ok, I've branched the list of affiliated celebrities off into a separate list. Three things need to be done: 1) Which celebrities stay on this page needs to be decided. 2) We need sources for all the claimed celebrities (somewhat similar to how List of agnostics is sourced). JoshuaZ 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New List- Need Help! 

message: Another example of non-encyclopedic writing:
"Kabbalah is not a religion -- it actually predates the beginning of religion itself. Kabbalah is a 4000 year old living wisdom meant for everyone, regardless of religious background, nationality, or level of study."
Well, obviously that depends on the way one uses the term religion. Many Christians who feel their faith is current and vital prefer not to call their "walk of faith" a religion. But, that doesn't prevent it from being one in the encyclopedic sense.
Kabbalah is a spiritual pursuit, a set of spiritual disciplines and teachings. It's a religion. Maybe it's hip, but it's still a religion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltag (talk • contribs) 
: That section obvious needs work, but on the face of it, no kabbalah is not a religion, its a series of traditional notions about metaphysics and mysticism. It is not, in of itself, a religion any more than any other form of mysticism is a religion by itself. JoshuaZ 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a religion? 

message: I think there should be added the response of the Kabblah Centre to these criticisms. The Kabblah Centre has not been silent to its critics from what I am aware. They claim that the majority of the criticism comes from the Orthodox Community, whom they believe are criticing them for teaching Jewish beliefs to non-Jews. As far is the "charging huge sums of money", they claim otherwise, that their courses actually pretty cheap, and that charging money is a needed evil because spreading the word of Kabblah does in fact cost them money. Masterhomer  23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV: The Criticism Section 

message: Looks like the Philip Berg article is also going to need an overhaul, since it's full of unreferenced information. --Elonka 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related article

message: I have removed the following:
:There are documented cases  of people on social assistance, disability pensions and welfare who have been allowed to take one course at no cost, and then are pressured to donate 10% of their income to the Kabbalah Centre, despite their poverty. The teaching that the poor are to tithe as well is controversial.
It's not appropriate to keep suck an attack in the article unless the editor who wishes to include it can provide proper, sourced, evidence to back up the allegation.  It's not acceptable to leave such material in place and simply tag it as 'citation needed'. A citation should be provided by the editor wishing to add it.--MichaelMaggs 21:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More disparaging POV edits 

message: 1)Israeli police decided that kabbalah centres leader Shaul Youdkevich not guilty in Leah Zunis case.
2)Kabbalah Centre says that there are many people which where cured by kabbalah technologies
and its not fair look just on one side of the story.
3)External link also include one sided negative information and using some lies—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.221.8 (talk • contribs) 
People in the Kabbalah Centre do not call themselves Kabbalists; they by and large only use that word as a title of respect, in particular towards Rav Berg and his wife Karen. Msteven1 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting part of controversory and external link

message: I have noticed this sentence in the article that I find intriguing: [Start Quote]
:"Jewish organizations distinguish it as non-Jewish and often consider participation by Jews in it a problem since classical Judaism forbids Jews from participating with non-Jews in religious rituals.[5]"
Previously I had never read or heard about such a prohibition. Can anyone cite its source, PLEASE? Regards, --AVM 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An important question

message: There is a separate list of associated celebrities. Ideally people on that list should be sourced. Help finding sources would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celeb list 

message: I have removed:
Many consider the Centre to be a dangerous cult.  What is taught and disseminated at the Centre has little connection with the actual and proud Kabbalistic textual tradition of Judaism.  Instead, superstition and celebrity worship are the norm for this questionable operation
"Many consider..." - "Many" is an unwikipedia-like word... is many 100? 1000?
It refers to the place as "superstitious" (this would not fly on any spiritual article). 
"Celebrity worship" is not promoted by the Kabbalah Centre. Red-strings, yes. Celebrity worship, no. No matter how many Madonna's and Demi Moore's are affiliated with it, people are not instructed to worship celebrities. The closest thing would be their belief that you can get spiritual inspiration from visiting the grave sites of deceased "great Kabbalists."
KC is not Judaism or any religion. It's clear on that site. Over the years there have been many different interpretations of what Kabbalah is, including in some occult circles which are not Jewish. 
This section is not sourced. If the above listed information is to be included in the article, it needs to go in a relevent section on criticisms and needs to be sourced.
Some teaching analogies utilize a folk understanding of science, rather than an academic one.
No source, not explained or supported. "Folk understanding" seems condescending.
Also, I modified the preceding paragraph so that rather than saying KC "often attempts to relate" kabbalah to modern sciences, it often cites kabbalah as the inspiration. These claims are made on their website. Objections to such claims would need alternate sources.
I cleaned these up, and explained a few other facts. There are a few parts of the article that still seem sketchy, such as the claim that Judaism "surpressed" astrology is false. It wouldn't surprise me if it was, but the way it's worded still seems unencyclopediac.
The criticisms section seems well presented and well sourced.
--Kilojake (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning Up "Opinion stated as fact" Parts

message: The Madonna entry seems to go off on a tangent, with "Jewish authorities have called his teachings and doctrines 'Bergism.'" What exactly does that have to do with Madonna's participation? Msteven1 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Madonna entry

message: I am concerned that this paragraph
Berg left Brandwein's niece, his first wife and their eight children to marry his second and current spouse Karen. They have two sons, Yehudah and Michael--"the heirs." But according to reports "outside of his own Centre and circle of followers, neither the academic nor the Jewish religious worlds know anything about him except for the anomalies of his centers." And "he is universally condemned by both the orthodox rabbinate and contemporary schools of Jewish mysticism in Israel, the USA and elsewhere, as a charlatan." In one interview Berg admitted that "in fact -he has no academic degree at all."
may violate Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living people, WP:BLP. It coincides with what I have heard also, but I am not sure that its being true (if it is) justifies its inclusion in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: This section, as it is now written, amounts to nothing but promotion for the Kabbalah Centre. It is not neutral, and does not cite sources for some rather amazing claims. It probably should be deleted in its entirety. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be removed (ideally), because it's rather important to a reader to know what exactly is being taught there.  It is far too promotional, though (as you say), and needs to be neutralized and substantially reduced, to 1-2 paragraphs perhaps.Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no sources listed, and the material appears like it may have been copied. Much of it was added in a single edit. Unless someone shows up promptly to fix this I'm going to revert it back to the much shorter version that existed before that edit.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A thorough check shows that the material was not copied and is compatible at a cursory level with the secondary and primary source material available online. Some of the material added in that group of edits, such as the sexuality section, is, in fact, sourced. If you want to edit the content to make it less promotional, as the prior user suggested, or spend time finding more citations for it you are encouraged to do so. I added a few to get the ball rolling, it is clear that this information is out there. FYI it is considered good etiquette to notify an editor that has made significant contributions to an article and bring up the issue of citation when planning to remove large amounts of their content. Trickrick1985 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What was your original source for that material when you added it?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Various printed and audio Kabbalah instructional materials from their NYC centre 2007. This is as much an encyclopedic digest without OR as I could make, there are no copied or altered sentences, but my familiarity with the material obviously made it come out sounding supportive. That's why someone should edit it for promotional tone. Trickrick1985 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please add the citations to the materials you used?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the materials in ages, but I'll see if I can dig them up. Google appears to provide duplicate online sources for citation of all of the material as well.  for the 99% section for instance. I can try to fit those in too as I have time. If it's an acceptable source, all or most are verifiable by their own online publications . I don't think there's any doubt, as has already been posited, that the beliefs provide important context to the article: they're at the heart of their significance, as a spiritual organization. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Note that there were limited citations originally, and I have recently added more. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the beliefs are important, but it's also important that we describe them correctly.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can all agree on that. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Teachings section

message: The organization was referenced in a Family Guy episode, inferring its participants were "a slave to trends". S06E01 "Blue Harvest" :
* Do you believe in anything?
* Uh, yeah. Didn't you see my Kabbalah bracelet? [shows red Kabbalah Centre bracelet]
* What's Kabbalah?
* About a buck seventy-five.
:Honestly, I have no idea. I'm just a slave to trends.
Can someone with more experience figure out if that should be in a cultural references section? There's probably a more official script source than that available if so. Thanks. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be an overreach to say that the material talks about participants other than the speaker. He doesn't say "we're slave to trends". A good rule of thumb for whether a cultural reference is significant is if it's been mentioned in a secondary source. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles.  "Family Guy" references seemingly dozens of cultural topics in every episode, most of them in a trivial manner. There's been a backlash and some editors have gone through and removed "Family Guy" references from articles.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be very clear about the rule: "Individual lines in books and songs, or appearance in film should be included when their significance is demonstrated with secondary sources." Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Guy reference 

message: Do not the claims of celebrity association in Kabbalah Centre#Others all require source citations under WP:BLP?  Only a few have associated sources, and especially given the controversy surrounding this organization, it would seem that allegations of affiliation would need to pass WP:V and WP:RS.  I am tempted to delete (or possibly spend a modicum of time researching) the uncited claims, but would rather seek consensus on this before going all WP:BOLD. (E.g., I know Sandra Bernhard mentioned it in one of her broadcast stand-up shows, but I'd have to find out which.  While not technically subject to BLP anymore, the late Elizabeth Taylor also should probably be sourced.) --KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible BLP violations 

message: Under Teachings: Approach, there is the following sentence: "The Kabbalah Centre often cites Kabbalah as the inspiration for recent scientific discoveries, including The Big Bang, String Theory, atomic structure, and Newton's Third Law." This is a very serious (and possibly outrageous) claim, and should be accompanied with what evidence they cite, and whether or not there is any additional reliable sources for such claims to be true. Ouizardus (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and removed. Yworo (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration for scientific discoveries??? 

message: Surprising that LGBT issues are not addressed by this article, considering most sources seem to indicate Kabbalah Centre is accepting of homosexuality and bisexuality, though their views on transgender people seems unclear? Any competent reliable sources available for this information? Laval (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What LGBT issues with the Kabbalah center are you referring to?  Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT issues

message: After all these years, lead is still a semi-promotional mess that lacks appropriate encyclopedic context. Likewise, rabbinical and scholarly consensus rejecting kabbalah centre as an authentic expression of kabbalic mysticism is barely addressed.Laval (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead rewrite

message: The phrase "take a deep breath" is misleading because the breath isn't something we can just "take." Breathing is a gift, a miracle, offered to us over and over again, but we often take it for granted. I say we start accepting this gift with gratitude and appreciation the way we accept all presents, by saying "thank you!"
Society can seem disgruntled and ungrateful, and yes, this world appears to no longer be appreciative, but some of its people still are! And therein lies the promise. So accept a few deep breaths with a smile on your face and your eyes closed. What a joy it is to be alive...from my book kaballah..get your copy...Remember You Have GREATNESS Within You...Happy Wednesday...Namaste_/\_ Brian cole (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  breathing is a gift 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kabbalah Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101031511/http://www.kabbalah.com/03.php to http://www.kabbalah.com/03.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified