Talk:Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)

message: I don't know that there's enough information in the article to have a complete template. But I will do what I can.  Of course, it may take time.
As for the verifiability of the informtion: Which information in particular needs verification? I referred to Hillman at the bottom of the page.  That's where most of the info comes from.  The information about the TAY Rebbe I read in a book somewhere. I forget where. But its something that is known in the Chassidic world.  Most "information" about Chassidism is spread that way, rather than being written in a history book somewhere. Most of the Satmar stuff about the Z-A conflict is not "verified," but is nonetheless true. Ask anyone in Boro Park :-). If you're more specific, I'll be better able to comply with your requests. 
Thanks,
--Meshulam 15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

message: does this group exist today? Jon513 14:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: On what basis is this aticle being considered for deletion? It has many facts, which all come from books that have been cited. --Meshulam 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:DP, WP:SK and WP:SNOWBALL, and inasmuch as the only delete "vote" was from the original nominator, who requested that the nomination be withdrawn, I closed this as a "speedy keep"; a consensus was altogether unlikely to develop for deletion and, in any case, speedy keep was appropriate in view of sundry AfD adductions and the requested withdrawal (even as a nominator no more owns an AfD page than he/she owns the underlying article, where he/she is the only "delete" supporter, and where "keep" appears consistent with all applicable policies or guidelines, such withdrawal, and concomitant AfD closure, is, IMHO, appropriate).  Joe 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: The nomination for deletion took place during an edit war between the initial author of the article and the nominator.  He also nominated a different article (of which I was also initial author) for deletion. Both were hardly even considered. The nomination reeks of retaliation.  But I will not pursue the issue any more than to mention it here.--Meshulam 21:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Nomination 

message: In this link:  the last post all the way on the bottom claims that the in Sukkos 5731, the Rebbe encouraged Kehot to print the Strashelye's chassidus.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the Strashelye

message: See similar discussion and situation at Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group" and Malachim (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group", namely "A recent move was made by User  to downgrade this group from "dynasty" to "group". The one making these changes did so from a pro-Chabad POV that views Breslov as their rivals. The name "Dynasty" is a generic name for all the Hasidic "groups" on WP since for a long time now, it has been standard procedure not to use the label "sect" because it is demeaning, likewise "group" sounds common-place and not far off from "sect". A "dynasty" denotes a "group" too, even if the seat of power is not held by a direct family member, the "monarchical" and dynastic nature of such Hasidic movements stay intact through each generation that rules in the name of both living and dead rebbes. Such is even the case now in Chabad where the "dynasty" continues even though there has been no succession and no single rabbi has been appointed to the "throne" in the present, yet the movement bases itself on the authority of its last deceased leader. :Category:Hasidic dynasties makes clear that this naming convention has been the universally accepted naming convention on WP for many years and changes should not be made without seeking very wide and extensive input. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to Breslov, this article states that there was a Second Rebbe, so the name is justified. -- -- --  00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynasty vs "group"