Talk:Breslov

message: The photo on this page identifies Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser as "The Head" of Breslov Hasidism.  This is not correct.  First of all, he is now deceased (died 1994).  Second, there is no one "head" of Breslov Hasidism.  There are several different groups of Breslov Hasidim today, with many leaders whom different Breslovers look up to for advice.  This caption would better read something like, "Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser, a respected leader (but not the Rebbe) within Breslov Hasidism.  Died 1994."  I would have changed it myself but I don't know how to do captions yet.  Please do so.  (Posted by Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, webmaster at Hasidism.info, and a Breslover Hasid.)
Update: I figured out how to change the caption.  (Rooster613 is Rabbi Gershom's ID here)
Rooster613 06:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of Breslov's "head"

message: Perhaps a section should be put in on the N-Na-Nach-Namchma-Nachman.http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1172--PinchasC 13:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Na Nach Nachma

message: The photo that was added on 21 Sept is not how the grave looks today. This picture was probably taken before 1999. Yoninah 19:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The former caption read that this was how the grave looked "for over 50 years."  That is also not accurate.  At one time, there was a small white  building for the pilgrims to pray in.  This was later destroyed (by the Nazis?) The Breslov on the Internet site has a colorized photo of this building circa 1922.  During the Communist regime, there was nothing so overt on the grave -- simply a flat, ground-level cement slab to mark where it was, and a rickety old wooden bench to sit on.  This gave it the appearance of garden landscaping, to mark where the grave was.  (It had been located after the Nazis destroyed the cemetery by finding the remains of the foundation of the building mentioned above, and preserved by the family whose house was later built on that land.)  I have some old books and pamphlets with photos of this slab and bench.  (Unfortunately, the pics are not in the common domain.)  The lovely gravestone and embroidered covering was probably not added until after the fall of Communism in 1989.  (Anybody know for sure?)  It did look like this pic when I was there in 1997, so let's say "around 1997" for this pic caption, OK?  Rooster613 12:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on a book that is about to be published by Breslov Research Institute, the grave remained a slab of cement on the ground until 1991, when a low concrete monument was placed over it. In 1992, with the help of Reb Michel Dorfman, this monument was replaced by a marble one. The whole house was redesigned to incorporate the grave in 1999. So let's say this is how the grave looked in the 1990's. I hope to add significant detail about the grave, the house, and the whole story of how Rebbe Nachman's grave was rediscovered in the article about Uman, Ukraine. Yoninah 14:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of Rebbe Nachman's grave

message: This article begans with the rather emphatic declaration that "Breslov is not Breslau or Bratzlav or Bratislava." However, someone is making redirects in other articles about Breslov personalities, to the effect that any mention of the town of "Breslov" redirects to "Bratslav." On the Bratslav page it says specifically that this is the town in which Rebbe Nachman lived and taught. Could someone please clear this up? If Breslov is not Bratslav, what is it? Remember that towns in Ukraine didn't have Jewish names to start with. Yoninah 11:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found this entry on the breslov.org (Breslov Research Institute) FAQ page: "Breslov is sometimes transliterated as Bratzlav or Braclav, and should not be confused with Bratislava in Czechoslovakia or Breslau in Germany". Based on this, I'm going ahead and changing the sentence in this article to associate Breslov with Bratslav. Yoninah 21:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bratzlav or Breslau?

message: Until now, everyone's been writing "Breslov" whether they're referring to the hasidic dynasty or to the town. I just went through all the links to this page and make sure everything links to [Breslov (Hasidic Dynasty)]. All references to the city should read: [Bratslav|Breslov]. Thank you. Yoninah 16:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please distinguish the movement from the city

message: The external links section is beginning to look like a posterboard for any organization or person who has "Breslov" in their title. Is this proper Wikipedia style? Yoninah 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Hi Bresolver: Yoninah's concerns are legitimate. Kindly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and especially please read:
*Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
*Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider
*Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
If you have questions, feel free to ask. IZAK 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Wikipedia is not

message: "The well-known tune to Ani Maamin ("I believe") is attributed to Breslover Hasidim who sang it on their way to the gas chambers." The song is from modzitz hassidim, you can find the history here: http://www.modzitz.org/ in the part of the storys.
Kol tuv 
(sorry for the ortography mistaques) 
Bresolver 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this page needs a significant stylistic overhaul. However, I just don't have the time right now to do it. Yoninah 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: Dear Bresolver: I appreciate your sincerity and attempts to make this a better page, but am finding it very hard to deal with your spelling errors. If every time you add something, someone else has to fix it up, you will find that your words will also be changed. Perhaps you could find an English dictionary or a friend to help you before you change the page? Thanks, Yoninah 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling errors

message: The Name is Breslev and not Breslov, breslev is a game of words "bris-lev -cincursicion of the heart" like is write on Sichot HaRan.
:To whoever is posting these anonymous comments: They really hold little weight with us regular editors. Perhaps you could log in with a user name and join the discussion as a legitimate participant? Yoninah 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see the segols in Reb Noson's writings? I'm sure he didn't write with vowels; these were put in by 20th-century publishers. I am familiar with Rebbe Nachman's play on words, but I think he was just putting vowels under the letters of B-R-S-L-V, not telling you how to pronounce the name of the town. The case for spelling it Breslov or Breslev — or, for that matter, Bresleyv, since we're talking about hearts — really boils down to personal preference when you're transliterating from Hebrew to English. I think it's adequate to put all the alternate spellings in the lead (as it is) and leave the title alone. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

text: You are right, Rabi Natan printed without nikud.  Fine, I'll defer for the sake of organization and use Breslov in titles.  169.226.141.212 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the movement

message: Rabbi Schick- Yavniel branch of breslov should be addressed as well...
Famous curse:  there is a story that when Joseph Kennedy just before WWII used his influence as the U.S. Ambassador to the UK to prevent Jews in German held territories being granted visas (and safety) to the US, the Rebbe cursed him and his entire family for his actions - many believe that the problems of the family (down to the drunk driving accident of Patrick Kennedy) all date to that curse - does anyone want to place that in the story?Incorrect
:Are you sure you're not mixing up rebbes? Rebbe Nachman died in 1810, and Breslov hasn't had another since. Yoninah 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbi Schick- Yavniel 

message: As the article states correctly, this article is about the Breslov movement or branch of chasidus. It cannot be about the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) for the simple reason that Reb Nachman had no successor and therefore did not start a dynasty. In the interests of accuracy, can we move the article to "Breslov"?--Redaktor 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing the name to Breslov (Chassidic group) based on the above consensus.  Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yehoishophot: There is no "consensus" just some comments accumulated over the last few years, that express a variety of views. You need to seek more input before making changes to long-establsihed articles like this. Move it back please. IZAK (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yehoishophot is 100% right. I'm moving it back to Breslov (Chassidic group) Breslov (Hasidic group). Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) will remain as a redirect. -- -- --  20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This statement, "Its Hasidim see Torah life as the means to a joyful existence," is not accurate. The wording should be reversed to, "Breslov Hasidis sees a joyful existence as the means to living a Torah life." Rebbe Nachman never said doing mitzvahs will make you happy, he said being happy will help you do mitzvahs, and is a mitzvah in and of itself which a person is obligated to keep regardless of how he feels. Also it should be pointed out that the definition of joy is different from the Western definition. Shia1 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Please edit accordingly. And add a source if you have one.--Redaktor 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not accurate

message: The article says that Rabbi Nachman and his followers make use of a mantra. This is a big fallacy started I believe by the late Rabbi Arye Kaplan OB"M, although a tremendous scholar who did priceless work for Judiasm his bias for the esoteric led him to deviant interpretations. Rabbi Nachman taught the importance of secluding oneself with G-d and engaging Him in conversation. Primarily one should be trying to speak about new topics and ideas (Likutay Eitzos; Hisbodidus 2), however since this is a very high and hard level and more often most people can't even open their mouths to say anything, Rabbi Nachman advised and encouraged people to stubbornly stick to whatever it is they could say. If there was one request they had that they were able to verbalize, they should repeat it over and over until they would be able to come up with something else. And if one could not even mouth one complete request, then emitting the entreaty and call of longing, "Master of the World" would have to suffice and should be said over and over again until one could advance further. Sometimes people can't even open up at all, Rabbi Nachman said even still they should be stubborn sitting silently in front of G-d, eventually maybe only after years the person will break through. R. Arye Kaplan got very excited by the part about saying one thing over and over again because that's like a mantra! But anyone who sees it in context can see clearly that the intent was nothing to do with a mantra, I am not denying that a person heeding this particular advice of Rabbi Nachman might benefit as people can from a mantra, however that was not the purpose or the focus of the task advised by Rabbi Nachman. Not that this needs any further proof, rather to further the development of this discussion, I refer to Rabbi Nussun bragging about his prize student R' Moshe Breslevor (from whom the Nanach have the unique and strongest tradition of the ways of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov - see nanach.net), who was able to say "Master of the World" 500 times in succession. This is a paltry number for someone attempting to reach higher consciousness by mean of mantra. However for a person experiencing estrangement from G-d, and even still musters the courage to seek out and call out to G-d, 500 times that is definitely something to brag about.
The article then continues to discuss the true chant and song of the Breslover Chasidim: Na Nach Nachmu Nachman MayUman! This maybe in fact considered a mantra, if one would include songs of spirit, extisy, devotion, and supernal binding as a mantra. Just as the Arizal commanded his prize student, Rabbi Chaim Vital, to call out Akiva Akiva 10 before every prayer so that he would bind his soul to the soul of the Tanaic Sage and Martyr Rabbi Akiva, so and much much greater do those who pronounce this holy song Na Nach Nachmu Nachman MayUman - bind themselves to the holy soul of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov! Even if the article discriminates against the Nanach, it is clear that it is the Nanach that are binding themselves all the time to Rabbi Nachman and thus are clearly the strongest to be associated to Rabbi Nachman! 
Anyone who would like to understand and better yet, taste, real Breslov Chasidus, the Real Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, should visit nanach.net.Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantra 

message: call 718 855 2121  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emes5767 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  breslov sheurim 

message: What is the correct spelling in English — Breslov or Breslev?
Google actually give smore results on the latter one. And there are many hassidic sites that use Breslev, not Breslov.
I am Russian and cannot think of a grammar rule or a similar case that would allow to interchange these two.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as we don't put (shudder) "Bratzlav" :-). Mzk1 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  So which is it O or E? 

message: What about solving the problem from the other end? Instead of categorizing everything as a Hasidic dynasty, categorize it as a Hasidut. Like Ger Hasidism, Belz Hasidism, Breslov Hasidism (which by the way has already been done on the category pages: :Category:Ger Hasidism, :Category:Belz Hasidism, :Category:Breslov Hasidism). Yoninah (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; I support such a resolution and would vote for such an amendment to the current naming convention. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Yoninah: I have also thought about this, of perhaps "solving" it that way. But, the "Dynasty" articles focus on the leadership and it's personalities, while the Categories are meant to include all manner of subjects remotely connected to that subject that is not exclusively for the leaders and leadership alone. IZAK (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's just call everyone a Hasidic group? E.g. Belz (Hasidic group), Breslov (Hasidic group). We really have to be all-inclusive here. Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoninah: The problem with "group" is that it's not much better than the pejorative term "sect" which is deliberately not used on WP (just as "ultra-Orthodox" is not used since it's a pejorative) and that was one of the main reasons that the better term "dynasty" was deployed over many years. Another reason why "dynasty" is more accurate and appealing is that it directs itself primarily to the leadership aspect of each Chasidus whereby Rebbes are deemed to literally rule in the style of a monarchy via their malchus as they set up "royal houses" that can go on even after their death without them or a clear heir, as we see with Breslov and some other others, and which is what each Chasidus is, a miniature or sometimes even huge malchus/monarchy/dynasty, and sometimes such dynasties go defunct, but that does not mean that the once royal house and its illustrious progenitors must have their historical line and judgment reduced to a mere "group". To use another yard-stick, kingdoms or nobilities are kingdoms and nobilities regardless if they are small or large. The present system has worked well for years, except for the three times that User Yehoishophot Oliver made his changes, causing the inevitable present road to confusion as you rightly note, whereby some would be "dynasties" some "groups" and next year someone will come along and say hey they are just "sects". Thus let's leave well enough alone. Why imply that some groups are lesser than other and there is no need to sink to the "lowest common denominator" just because one editor says WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's better to elevate such a subject, as dozens of editors have done by adding so much valuable information about each Hasidic dynasty over the years, than to grind it all down by attrition. IZAK (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, pointing out the technical dictionary incorrectness of the term dynasty in this context is not in any way a violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it is quite uncivil of you to make that insinuation. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, I think you have expressed your reasoning most eloquently, and I agree with it. I stand by my original vote not to deviate from the current naming conventions. Yoninah (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoninah, so we agree to agree and leave well-enough alone and refer to all rebistivas as Dynasties. A fair and equatable solution to all with a call to avoid WP:LAWYERING that would create artificial and divisive changes. IZAK (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Izak, please provide credible dictionary proof for your claim that the word dynasty can logically refer to a type of rulership to which there is no succession, and that there is any pejorative connotation to the word group. Also, I was not clear on your reasoning for opposing the change to changing the name of the cat for all groups to :Category:Breslov Hasidism and the like; wouldn't that solve your concern with the term "group"? Thank you. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

text: "Hassidic group" works for me. If any of them are dynastic in nature, that should be mentioned separately. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This just makes us go round in circles because the word "group" is meaningless when applied to Hasidim and Hasidism, it in fact sucks out the unique nature of a Hasidic court, and they are all like royal courts of monarchies, there is no other way to describe or explain them. That's why "group", like the abominable word "sect", makes it a mundane non-entity implying that it's just, well, a "group" and not a higher-order royal-like entity with a dynastic type of executive government/rulership/lordship, regardless if that ruler is alive or dead, whether he left heirs or not, and regardless if what he built is defunct or still functioning or how many rulers in a Hasidic court there are or have been. In short, uniformity and consistency in terminology should win over nitpicking over words for very vague and questionable reasons. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well sorry sir, but everybody else seems to like "group", and seems to think that those "very vague and questionable reasons" aren't all that vague or questionable. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, there is no "rush to close" here. Secondly, there is absolutely no consensus about changing to "group" and in fact there is discussion if the word "Hasidism" should be added instead of "Hasidic dynasty". Thirdly, on the contrary three users so far, including Yoninah, Shuki and myself oppose any changes to the use of "dynasty" while only Yehoishophot has really made a serious good faith effort to offer up other reasons, and you just seem to be doing a knee-jerk reaction to back him up. Fourthly, and this brings us back to the big underlying problem all along here, is that proven pro-Chabad POV warriors like you and Yehoishophot should not be making changes to movements that are essentially rivals to everything Chabad does, without seeking massive outside consensus. So nothing changes until a broader consensus can be brought in, and at worst this is a stale-mate and this article should be left the way it was before Yehoishophot changed it. Finally, by extension from this page and dealing with other Hasidic movements, the changes to the Strashelye and Malachim dynasties articles made by Yehoishophot remain overturned because of the same concerns and issues here since both Strashelye and the Malachim are tied in with the the history of Chabad and broke away with their own leadership (Strashelye is now defunct but the Malachim still exist). So let's stop going around in circles and lets move on to other topics please. IZAK (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  Why do you always have to mix Chabad in? As though that refutes a perfectly good argument. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Debresser: Let's get this straight, the issue is not Chabad which deserves and gets lots of WP:NPOV from me and other editors, the issue here is the proven pro-Chabad POV editors who need to exert utmost care when entering a domain that has potential WP:COI with the subject matter at hand, since it has been proven again and again that when a controversial topic intersects with so-called Chabad party lines, then proven pro-Chabad POV editors such as yourself, Yehoishophot and Winchester jump in and often create a WP:WAR, when if they just stepped back, and at least focused on the pure Chabad topics it would be more understandable and productive for them and the rest of WP. IZAK (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

text: It's my understanding that the use of the word "dynasty" in relation to the Kennedys is used rather loosely, as compared to Yehoishophot Oliver's elucidation of the dictionary definition of a dynasty as a chain of succession. We all know that Joe Kennedy Sr. bought his sons their offices. I don't think that "political dynasties" — if that's what you want to call them, Winchester — have any place in this discussion. Hasidic dynasties are very real, usually being handed down from father to son, although also to sons-in-law or close students. Sons are groomed to inherit their father's position as Rebbe, and often acquire deeper spiritual powers as they assume their new role. In the case of Breslov, Reb Noson was the logical successor to Rebbe Nachman; he just refused to become the next Rebbe and instead did all he could to perpetuate the movement so it could keep running from generation to generation under the tutelage of each generation's Breslov leader (who, by the way, inherited the mantle of leadership from the previous leader; e.g. Reb Noson to Nachman Chazan to Nachman Goldstein to Abraham Sternhartz to Levi Yitzchok Bender and Eliyahu Chaim Rosen, which brings us to the present generation's group of leaders). If only Reb Noson had agreed to be the Rebbe, we here at Wikipedia wouldn't be squabbling over whether the movement he perpetuated was a dynasty or not... Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Yoninah, your superb knowledge and mastery of Breslov is greatly appreciated! IZAK (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to disagree with Yoninah. These successive leaders of the Breslov chassidut were not "groomed" and prepared for their role, as in a real hereditary dynasty. It is just that those were the influential rabbi's at the moment of the previous rabbi's demise. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they weren't. They were the primary disciples of the previous leader, and they were groomed to perpetuate the Breslov movement; otherwise, the movement would have folded with the first disciple who "refused" to take on the leadership. Rebbe Nachman himself intimated this type of succession, as he encouraged his students and the students of his students to write their own chiddushim on his and rabbinic writings, thus keeping the Breslov Hasidut ever-fresh. Yoninah (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The concise Oxford Dictionary says not like you: " Dynast: 'Ruler, member of dynasty'; Dynasty: from the Greek word dunesteia for 'lordship'." Therefore, it can be used in the singular, especially when it's part of a broader chain, no "relationship by birth" is a criterion. There is a broad and a narrow way of interpreting subjects and words. While you may choose to focus on a narrow interpretation, that does not mean that the broader one is excluded. No Rebbe exists in a vacuum in any case. IZAK (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The word "dynasty" may be unique. So is the word "blatant idiotism". It is just the wrong word... Debresser (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note WP:CIVIL.  There is no such word as "idiotism" in English the correct word is "idiocy" in any case. You just sound angry and are not making any clear points. Please stop it. IZAK (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then let me spell it out for you: DYNASTY IS JUST THE WRONG WORD. It seems obvious to me that this was my point. Apparently you are one of those people who don't get the point till you shout it in their ears. Mind you, I shout not because I would supposedly be angry (perhaps you need to be reminded of WP:NPA?), but because you don't seem to hear well. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you just wish to keep on fighting and quite obviously violate WP:CIVIL yet again? There are better ways to be productive, try devoting serious time to improving as many articles in your supposed realm of expertise at :Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism and not running and rushing to attack subjects and editors you don't like. IZAK (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it back to Breslov (Hasidic group). (Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) will remain as a redirect). Breslov (Hasidic group) is definitely more accurate; although Breslov (Hasidic sect) or  Breslov Hasidism would also be fine. There is absolutely nothing demeaning about the word 'group', nor about the word ‘sect’. Enough has already been written, and your svaros, Izak, are not necessarily correct. I will not further comment on this matter. (By the way, Izak, I do not belong to Chabad). -- -- --  21:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Finally, someone who is interested in precision of language! Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when do we make such global changes without consensus? Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking a resolution

message: See similar situations at Talk:Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group" and Talk:Malachim_(Hasidic_dynasty)#Dynasty_vs_.22group.22. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those discussions link here. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strashelye and Malachim Dynasty vs "group" 

message: The talk page still says Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)
אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: by User:Anthony Appleyard. Thanks. -- -- --  03:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Breslov (Hasidic group). 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  tag to http://www.breslovbooks.co.il/.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130133455/http://breslovworld.com:80/ to http://www.breslovworld.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218160410/http://breslev-midot.com:80/ to http://www.breslev-midot.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Breslov (Hasidic group). 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/20100308135055/http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/984972.html to http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/984972.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://breslev-midot.com/
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) 06:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sefaria has a complete English translation of this text, presented in parallel to the original.  It was translated by Moshe Mykoff, published by Breslov Research Institute, and released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license, in exchange for Sefaria compensating the publisher.
I believe that a link to this would fall under section 2 of WP:ELYES.  
I have a COI (I work for Sefaria). My team has discussed this COI on WikiProject:Judaism and it has been adjudicated and resolved favorably at COIN#Sefaria_requested_edits.
Links should probably be to Likutei Moharan.  It could go in the external links section.  Since this article has links to external texts in the body of the article, perhaps it could go there.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LevEliezer (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Edit - CC-BY-NC English Text 

message: It's not clear what changes are requested to be made, or why those changes which were mentioned in WP:COIN and described as "resolved" where not taken care of in those forums. "Resolved" typically means no further action is required. Please advise. Also,   Spintendo  18:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 25-JUN-2019