Jump to content

Talk:Breslov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Photo of Breslov's "head"

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)The full quote regarding Rebbe Nachman's opinion on the nature of a Tzaddik's soul is as follows. I am putting this here rather than on the page itself (where I did add the source and page ref.) because I feel it would clutter up the article to put it all there.

Nathan of Nemirov (Rebbe Nachman's personal secretary) wrote in Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom: "The Rebbe (i.e., Nachman) spoke out very strongly against those who thought that the main reason for a Tzaddik's great attainments was the high level of his soul. He insisted that this was not true, maintaining that it depends completely on good deeds (mitzvot)and effort. He was very specific in emphasizing this. He said, 'Every person can attain the highest level. It depends on nothing but your own free choice... For everything depends upon a multitude of deeds.'" (page 29) On the same page Rabbi Nathan also quotes Rebbe Nachman as saying that he was not automatically a Tzaddik because of his family background (as great-grandson of the Baal Shem Tov), but only through his own efforts and "Devoting his entire being to the service of God." User:Rooster613

Na Nach Nachma

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)

Excellent idea! I will gladly do it (unless somebody else does first) but probably not until after Pesach. Maybe we should also have a separate page on Rabbi Odesser (who introduced the Na-Nach-Nachma-Nachman-m'Uman chant.) I have some bio info on him, and we already have a photo here. Rooster613 01:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is best that you do it, being that you seem to understand Breslov, and its customs, as opposed to somone else that will only write on what he sees and not on what really is.--PinchasC 01:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's finally done! Follow the link Na Nach Nachma to check it out. Re: use of the word mantra: I realize this is not an authentically Jewish term, but it has entered the English language, it describes the process, and there's a Wiki page on it. So it makes sense to use it here. Rooster613

Photo of Rebbe Nachman's grave

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)[reply]

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)Rooster613[reply]
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)[reply]

Bratzlav or Breslau?

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)[reply]

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"[1]. 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)[reply]

Please distinguish the movement from the city

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)[reply]

    • That's appropriate, but keep in mind that many Hasidim do use "Breslov" for both the movement and the town itself. Also, it was primarily Martin Buber, writing in German, who made the mistake of calling him "Nachman von Bratzlaw" (W=V sound in German) confusing the German city with the Ukrainian one. (I ran into this while speaking in Germany.) From there it became "Nachman of Bratslav" or "Bratslau" (mistaking the German -aw for the "OW" sound in English?) in academic works based on Buber, etc. In academe "Bratslav" is still used for both the movement and the town. However, since the Hasidim cal themselves "Breslov" I think that should be the main usage for the movement. Rooster613 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Rabbi Yisroel Karduner, one of the 36 hidden tzadikim, and one of the main transmitters of the correct Breslov tradition, also made the mistake, upon learning about Rabbi Nachman he journied with great self sacrifice to Breslau only to learn that he wanted Breslov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Answering your question, first mi nick name es "Bresolver" no "Breslover", OK?. And the links are to Breslov's pages, and this are what breslov pages said. Bresolver 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not

Hi Bresolver: Yoninah's concerns are legitimate. Kindly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and especially please read:

If you have questions, feel free to ask. IZAK 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please, explain me why you think i put wrong links? I just put breslovers links! Bresolver 04:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide factual information in a neutral, journalistic approach that we call N-POV (Neutral Point of View). This does not mean we must list every single Breslov site on the Web. Sites that are simply promoting a particular yeshiva, radio station, book, rabbi, collections of sermons, or whatever without giving much factual info that would be useful in research ABOUT Breslov seem inappropriate to me. Some of the links added recently, such as Radio Breslov, are already linked on the link launcher, "Breslov on the Internet," hence redundant. (However, that site DOES want to list everything on the Net, so if you get listed there, your group is indirectly linked anyway.) And I do not think that sites primarily in Hebrew are useful to an English encyclopedia. I went through every outside link today and removed those that seemed inappropriate. Granted, this is my personal call, but I have put in a lot of effort trying to keep this and other Breslov pages reasonably N-POV. Rooster613 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Correction

"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)[reply]

Thank you for the info. Regarding "Ani Ma'amin," I have heard form several Holocaust survivors that Breslovers popularized it in the camps. However, this would not negate the tune coming from Modzitz. Perhaps both are true? Rooster613 00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Maybe both are true... The Breslov page is one of the worst of all the hasidic dynasties, Dont you think? 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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)[reply]

Spelling errors

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)[reply]

Okey, but i haven't a lot of time...excuse me im trying to do the better. Bresolver 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is productive to make statements about which Hasidic dynasty has the worst page(s) -- this rings to much like sectarian quarresl. If a page has problems, please contribute some content, not flames. Rooster613 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the movement

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)[reply]

What is the difference? is the real name of the movement is breslev, don't care if i'm log in or not.

Logging in gives you some credibility as to who you are and what your sources of info are. Now, it is true that the spelling "Breslev" is used by at least one group in Israel, so perhaps this should be mentioned as an alternative spelling and disambiguated. However, In the English language, the spelling "Breslov" is the one most commonly used by Breslover Hasidim. (The difference may well be one of regional accents -- Ashkenazi vs Sephardic or some such, since only one vowel change is in dispute.) Breslov is also the spelling used by the Breslov Research Institute (for which, perhaps, we should have a page?) -- a major publisher of Breslov materials in English. Rooster613 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name, according to Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Natan, is Breslev. In all the sefarim Rabbi Natan printed it as Breslev, with two segols. מספר רבי נתן: "עוד שמעתי שפעם אחת סמוך לכניסתו לברסלב מזגו לו כוס יין לקידוש ונשפך על הארץ ומזגו לו כוס אחר וקידש עליו. ואחר כך אמר: היום נטענו שם: ברסלביר חסידים. ושם זה לא ישתקע לעולם, כי לעולם יהיו אנשי שלומנו נקראים על שם עיר ברסלב" (חיי מוהר"ן קט"ו) למה דווקא בברסלב ניטע השם הזה? "דאיתא במדרש על פסוק "ונתתי לכם לב בשר", אל תקרי בשר אלא בוסר, שיהיה כל אחד בוסר בחלק של חברו. לב בסר אותיות ברסלב". (חיי מוהר"ן של"ט) Rabbi Natan writes: I also heard that around the time he entered Breslev [two segols here, as in all other instances] they poured him a cup of wine for Kidush and it got spilled on the ground and they poured him another cup and he made kidush on it. Afterwards he [Rabi Nachman] said 'Today we have planted the name "Breslever Chasidim." And this name shall never fade, for our people shall always be called after the name of the city Breslev (Chayey Moharan 115). Why was this name specifically planted in Breslev? Because it is brought in the Midrash regarding the verse "And I will give you a heart of flesh (lev basar)" (Eze. 36:26) -- do not read it basar/flesh, but boser (cholem tzeireh), for everyone will be "boser b'chelek shel chavero"/rejoicing in the good fortune of his friend [Yalk. Gen. 61]. "Lev basar" is the letters of Breslev. (Chayey Moharan 139) Accordingly, I think everything should be changed to Breslev and not Breslov. Nissimnanach (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach[reply]

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)[reply]
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)Nissimnanach[reply]

Rabbi Schick- Yavniel

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)[reply]

whoops, your're correct, I just checked, the story involves the Belz'e Rebbe, I've posted the above there. Thanks.Incorrect 02:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

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)[reply]

It's somewhat, kinda accurate. If you take dynasty to mean a passing of something down a chain of successors rather than as a herditary thing. (Which admittadly is more accurate.) Plus, you could just surrender to the fact that "dynasty" has come to be the English word for a Chasidic sect. Shia1 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no chain of succession, as there has been no rebbe in Breslov since Rabbi Nachman. And I do not accept that 'dynasty' is the English word for a chasidic 'sect'.--Redaktor 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Redaktor. What is this "Dynasty" business?! Everyone knows very clearly there was no successor, even Rabbi Natan never took any kind of Rebbehood, Moha-keit/Moho-keit, Admor-ship etc.! Nissimnanach (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach[reply]

I'm changing the name to Breslov (Chassidic group) based on the above consensus. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Not accurate

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)[reply]

Fine. Please edit accordingly. And add a source if you have one.--Redaktor 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not fine, although Shia1 has made a valid statement that Rabbi Nachman taught that it is a mitzva to be happy and this will help one do the mitzvos, and do the mitzvos in the most proper way, Rabbi Nachman taught MANY times that doing mitzvos brings happiness, often quoting the verse in Psalms "Pikuday Hashem Yishurim Misamchay Lev" - "the commandmends of G-d are just they bring Joy to the heart". For correct understanding of Rabbi Nachman and the practices of Breslov one should visit nanach.net.Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is written in the article that Breslovers have a mantra during Hitbodedut. This is not true. Hitbodedut by definition is spontaneous, individual prayer. R' Nachman never used a mantra himself. It may be that the confusion came from what R' Nachman taught that even if one has nothing to say by Hitbodedut besides to call out Ribono shel Okam, that's also good. There is no mantra, and there is no emphasis on the "oy" syllable. Breslovers may say oy during hisbodedus in order to express their broken-heartedness, but not as part of "riboynoy shel oylam" or some joke like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonriver9 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Well put, I have expounded on this in the next section entitled Mantra. For further reference visit nanach.net.Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra

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)[reply]

breslov sheurim

call 718 855 2121 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emes5767 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC) one should avoid the lectures of people who are just looking for honor and money. even when Rabbi Nachman was living he expected people to build their own personality and character and make their own decisions, and Rabbi Nachman avoided telling people out right what to do, and sometimes even expected people to disagree with what he told them (as in the famous story when he told Rabbi Nussun to become a Rabbi....). Much of Rabbi Nachman's teachings are available in English (from the original, without mutations, just mistakes that are always unavoidable), for FREE download at nanach.org. You can also correspond with live followers of Rabbi Nachman at nanach.net. This is the true way of Rabbi Nachman.Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BELARUS

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosh_Hashana_kibbutz_(Breslov)

So which is it O or E?

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)[reply]

The reference in Chayey Moharan 339 explains Breslev in relation to a verse about lev basar/heart of flesh. Then it refers to a midrash that talks about a "lev boser bchelko shel chavero"/a heart rejoicing in the good fortune of his friend. As you know Breslev is about the lev/heart. See also above for fuller citations and more discussion. Nissimnanach (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach[reply]

Just as long as we don't put (shudder) "Bratzlav" :-). Mzk1 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty vs "group"

A recent move was made by User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

I also oppose any unilateral diversion from the naming conventions. --Shuki (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of obnoxious conspiracy bunkum in total violation of WP:AGF. I see nothing demeaning about the word "group", but I do see that it is fully accurate in the technical sense, which dynasty is not. Dynasty means a chain of succession. Chabad is a dynasty in that there were successors to its founder who assumed his position over the course generations. The fact that there is no current successor is irrelevant. However, where there is only one Rebbe, there is no dynasty. In the case of Rabbi Nachman, it was always clear (according to my information, if I err, please correct me) that the rabbis who expounded his views in later times did not assume his position, but only expounded his views. Moreover, all the editors who discussed it on the talk page (albeit over an extended time--so what) agreed on this point. If you can think of another word that is technically correct but is even more elegant-sounding, which I welcome, please change it to that. Until then, kindly desist from your rudeness. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you asked Rebbe Nachman, he would call his group a "movement". Had his two infant sons lived, he might have started a dynasty, but as it is, with his main disciple Reb Noson promulgating the Rebbe's teachings but refusing to take over the leadership, we have what amounts to a "movement".
Comes Wikipedia and says, "Categorization is everything". In that case, making Breslov the odd-man out and calling it a "group" or a "movement" will be too confusing for novice readers. ("It's a Hasidut, isn't it?") An argument could be made that considering all the self-styled "rebbes" of the modern-day Breslov movement, like Rabbis Eliezer Shlomo Schik, Eliezer Berland, and Shalom Arush, Breslov has become a dynasty of sorts, with new leaders taking over from Rebbe Nachman :). For these reasons, I oppose any unilateral diversion from the naming conventions. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting. I firmly disagree that rabbis who expound a Rebbe's teaching can be in any way considered successors. WADR, I think such a suggestion demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of the Rebbe-chossid relationship in general. A Chassidic Rebbe is totally different from a rabbi. Moreover, considering that the Breslov movement always davka objected to considering their teachers, even the ones they regarded as holy, as successors, I believe that it would be unfair for Wikipedia to come along and contradict that caveat on the Breslov page itself. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Yohoishophot, the word dynasty is not just a word that means something in the narrow sense of one person handing over rulership to another. It also has a broader meanings in the English language as here where it denotes the establishment of a form of rulership and authority as embodied in a great ruler that can even continue after his death, something you should be acutely aware of as a member of Chabad that worships a dead rabbi and sees nothing wrong with that as continuing the dynasty of a deceased ruler, regardless of who his predecessors were. IZAK (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"worships a dead rabbi"?! I find your language highly offensive. You take every chance to use talk pages to throw in your anti-Chabad POV, even on pages like this where it is totally irrelevant, in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. As to the content of what you're saying, please cite proof that the English word dynasty means such a thing. E.g., the definition given here bears out my assessment. It is not technically correct to say that a dynasty continues after its last Rebbe has passed away; the movement may or may not continue, but the dynasty does not. You might want to consult with the dictionary before expressing opinions on word meanings. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Yehoishophot, stop the "innocent act" routine, it's fully verified even on WP, see Chabad messianism (minus the apologetics that Chabad editors have put in over the years); the book that is on record The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference; and noted in many parts of other articles. So this is not "my" invention, it is something that is out there and taken very seriously by a huge part of the Chabad movement. I have no axe to grind, I am in fact an admirer, but that does not mean that when pro-Chabad POV editors start getting involved in articles outside of purely Chabad topics, such as you have done by downgrading and in a great sense also demeaning historical rivals to the Chabad movement, such as you did with with Breslov, Strashelye, Malachim, calling them "groups" instead of the usual nomenclature by not relying on serious discussions and WP:CONSENSUS, and which I have now reverted, then you have started on a slippery slope by now doing the same thing three times. IZAK (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly offensive, to use such terminology as "worship". We are talking of a small group, that is pushed aside by normal meshichi'im. It would be like saying all Haredim are Nerurei Karta. (I get enough of THAT.) (BTW, Dr. Berger is a family friend; I could ask him if he would agree with such a prejorative statement.)05:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs) [2]

It is not "offensive" to accurately describe what it is that the meshichistim do. Please refrain from WP:OR or POV apologetics by calling them "normal meshichi'im" (sic) because the meshichistim represent a huge following among a huge part of Lubavitchers including many of their rabbis. They aren't afraid of it and do not hide it, they even have a yellow flag they fly high for it too, so why make up excuses for them. This not like the Neturei Karta who are indeed a tiny part of all Charedim, unlike the Chabad meshichistim who command the respect and allegiance and following within Chabad large enough to split the movement, and even dominate it in many areas, and there is a huge ongoing struggle between the aggressive meshichistim and the more quiet ones. But none of this is "offensive" because it is common knowledge not just in Chabad but in the entire Orthodox and certainly the Haredi world. Ask Dr. Berger as you said you would, and it's not just his POV. The central idea of the meshichistim is that the last Lubavitcher Rebbe is "alive" and is not just the Moshiach but that he is the personification of God himself and that through him as the ultimate tzadik it is the main and only avenue to truly reach God and Godliness. If one does not grasp this one is lacking the entire rationale of what Chabad is all about nowadays, or ever. See a record (until January 2010) of Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-meshichist editing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs see point 7 where he's "Defending to the hilt Chabad messianism [3], [4], [5]; diplomatically promoting the Rebbe as the Jewish messiah ("Moshiach") and removing or neutralizing as much criticism of it as possible [6], [7]." At any rate, my only concern here is that editors who openly display an affinity for such a movement should not be editing articles about rival movements and personalities without first obtaining very extensive input and consensus to ensure WP:NPOV, which is the only point I am trying to drive home here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misconstruing me. I am only differentiating between the mainstream Mishichists and the so-called avoda-zarah-niks. It is one thing to say he believes the late Rebbe is the mashiach and another to say he worships him, which is the greatest insult one could give to a Jew. RS, OR, whatever are irrelevant here - we are talking about insulting people. I have, right in the room with me, an article from the English Ha'aretz, which many people mistakenly consider an RS. It states, in a sympathetic article, that Chareidim in Israel don't work. I suppose I now need to take either the Chareidi, location, or programming userboxes off of my user page?
Look, I am not (believe it or not) a partisan of either you or deBresser, and I have no desire to state an opinion on this issue, per se. I would not say anything, except for the insult. But I did see you questioning (even as a theoretical exercise) the notability of a major Halachic authority (Rav Chaim Naeh) because he was, unknown to myself and most people, of Lubavich. (I suppose we can question Zalman Shazar also?)Mzk1 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mzk1: Thank you for your feedback which I greatly appreciate. It is not an "insult" to state that any meshichist fervently believes in the divinity of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, as a matter fact they are proud of it, and they think it is a key that the rest of the world is "missing", while you seem to think it is some sort of "insult" which it is not to them. They take it as a compliment! They can and are to be respected for that belief too, like all faiths are respected on WP, which is not even the question, but when editors who have a proven track record of editing in a pro-meshichist POV line over a long time then it is they who need to be more cautious about how they go about editing material not directly related to Chabad or their beliefs that somehow downgrades and even attacks, openly or implicitly, other movements and personalities that the official Chabad party line deems to be out of favor, like Barry Gurary, Rabbi Elazar Shach, Dr, David Berger (professor), and other movements that Chabad officially sees as its "rivals". This reality cannot be ignored when it happens over and over again on WP, and especially if it exists in the real world, it cannot be brushed aside on WP especially if such views interfere with WP:NPOV. This is nothing "personal" against anyone here. We are just here to write an encyclopedia in as neutral and factual a manner as possible. Nothing more and nothing less. Feel free to let me know more as I do greatly appreciate your feedback. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Berger never proved anything of the sort. How telling that even on a page about Breslov, in your obsessive POV agenda in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, you never miss the opportunity to promote anti-Chabad canards. I suggest you leave the POV attacks to the blogs, and please stick to the relevant issues here. This is an encylopedia, not a blog. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Berger was speaking about Breslov. What I said was that pro-Chabad POV editors have taken it on themselves to attack articles about targets they hate, and that includes the article about Berger. Please do not twist my words, and enough of going around in circles. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for being polite. Secondly, I have never met a Lubavicher whom would agree to such a thing, and I am referring to Meshichistim. But all of this is irrelevant. You can't tell an editor that HE believes X based on RS or whatever. Otherwise we will be all living in some alternate Wikipedia reality where I can prove that, say, some editor was born in Brooklyn even though he says he was born in Queens. I don't care how many RS's you've got - if he says he was born in Queens, you take his word for it. (It's getting so that I may really have to call Dr. Berger; he and Dr. Shneyer Zalman (Sid) Leiman (used to?) sit behind my uncle in what used to be called Margolises' shtiebel in Kew Garden Hills. Both of them are really normal, down-to-earth people.) Also, please remember what the Roshei Yeshiva said about Chassidus in general (widely reported) when Dr. Berger asked them; I don't think they were being entirely disingenuous.Mzk1 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mzk: This is a serious subject and it's not about some romantic notions we may all have about nice people in the world we may like for our own good reasons. I did not tell any editor what he believes, how silly and absurd to even allege that, the pro-Chabad POV editors have themselves through their long-time edits and edit warring made very clear what they think, believe and act upon, as was thoroughly documented at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence page that only focuses on 4 such editors, Yehoishophot included, there are other editors like that too and only until January of 2010. But enough of this, as I do not wish to jump into all sorts of tangents you mention. My one and only concern is that this Breslov article not become a victim of tampering and changes by pro-Chabad POV editors, and that serious edits be recorded the same respect and depth that the pro-Chabad POV editors would expect and impose were any other editors outside their group to try influence or tamper with Chabad-related articles that they deem important to themselves and protect to the point that few can get a word in edge-wise in the face of their stonewalling and WP:OWNERSHIP of tactics. No point in repeating the same points to each other and please do not twist my words and no need for the deprecating pats on the back either. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to let this alone if everyone will stick to the subject. Regarding both parts of the last sentence, I have no idea what the heck you are talking about, but that is a matter for user pages.Mzk1 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although technically this is not a dynasty, since there was no continuation of this group within the descendants of Rabbi Nachman, I agree that on Wikipedia we call all these groups dynasties.
Not connected to this I would like to express my utter contempt to IZAK (talk · contribs) who again tries to attribute a valid opinion to Chabad POV. I reitterate my request that IZAK be banned from all Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Debresser, what you say is not connected to this but shows that it is you running around and instead of debating the issues and coming up with workable resolutions, you freely indulge in WP:NPA. Now back to the discussion here, as you admit all over your own pages that you are a Chabad rabbi yourself, as is Yehoishophot Oliver, you are proud of it, so tell us in your own POV official words, what is your stance on Breslov Hasidism. And you know full-well that Breslov is in direct competition with Chabad. Therefore you need to be more careful with how you especially deprecate and downgrade rival movements. You need to be more cautious of not being seen to violate WP:NPOV. I hope I am making myself clear, and please quit your hysteria and hiding pro-Chabad POV titles behind policies that do not apply. IZAK (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one here deprecated any movements but you, so who is the one with the POV problem? I second Debresser's petition. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look here Yehoishophot: You made a pretty big change here without seeking up-to-date discussion and consensus' as you should have. Your move is further complicated by the fact that you are known for your pro-Chabad POV editing, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs and you have done this type of thing before when it comes to rivals of Chabad, (see point 3 "Devaluing the place and importance of historical rivals [8] and offshoots, such as the Malachim (Hasidic group) [9] renamed to "group" [10]0 and you have also done this with Strashelye (Hasidic group) -- both Malachim and Strashlye should also be reverted -- , and in that light it is common knowledge that there is a huge rift and rivalry between Chabad and Breslov, so that any move by you to change the title of this article in a way that clearly "lessens" it in stature by calling it a mere amorphous "group" was reverted to a title that had remained untouched, in spite of discussions over the years, but no one saw fit to do what you did, and it just so happens to be, you should not have been the one to do it. If Debresser wishes to add to the discussion that's fine, but red-herring attacks to distract from what going on here in order to give you a free license is not acceptable. IZAK (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody is know for tendentious editing and wild accusations that have no connection with reality, it is you, IZAK. See that same ArbCom case. But please continue, I am gathering material against you. You make it an easy job. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, your open threats violate WP:CIVIL (viz WP:THREATEN) and undermine WP:AGF as you now openly violate WP:NPA and WP:EQ rather than engage in constructive discussions that while they may be WP:BEBOLD are very necessary and legitimate. In all my years at WP I have always adhered to WP:NPOV in the creation and editing of articles and categories, I would have heard from others by now if this was an issue. On the other hand on talk pages I like to frankly discuss more issues. You have constantly refused to show any basic decency as you keep up your crass and vulgar insults, as you do here by insulting me yet again with allegations about "tendentious editing and wild accusations that have no connection with reality" as you have in the past, see (until January 2010) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs, especially point 9 where you resort to: "violations of WP:NPA by repeatedly calling into question the "sanity" of the nominator: "mentally ill", [11], [12], inserts "FBI", [13], "Food for psychiatrists", [14], "insane ranting", [15], [16]." So what are you going to say, that you are "innocent" and anyone who disagrees with you is "guilty"? Your time would be better spent by involving yourself in the content of this discussion than by indulging your tendencies to do the wrong things. IZAK (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, I have NEVER devalued any other group on this site other than in your own wild conspiracy-theory, NPA- and AGF-violating imagination. You, OTOH, have regularly made derogatory anti-Chabad POV remarks of completely no relevance to the issues. As for your reference to the arbcom case you stirred up, I responded to all your accusations there, and you never wrote a counter-response. I see you subscribe to the "Big lie" MO. I do not apologise for my changes to the Malachim and Strahelye pages, calling them groups instead of dynasties, because of the simple reason that they are not dynasties, but they are groups. And as I said above (but you choose to ignore), I am completely open to another nomenclature that is more elegant than "group". I personally see nothing derogatory about that word at all, but I'm fully open to other suggestions that are both accurate and elegant. In any case, your constant attribution of others' edits to POV instead of sticking to the issues raised indicates your unsuitability to be an editor here. On a side note, please cite RS proof for this alleged "rift and rivalry" between Chabad and Breslov; I know of no such thing. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoishophot: Openly accusing an editor in the middle of a discussion a "liar" who subscribes to "big lies" is a serious violation of WP:NPA; WP:CIVIL; WP:EQ; and WP:AGF. It is from the way you have edited that your pro-Chabad POV becomes very clear. You need to seek more input from current users before implementing your arbitrary changes to groups that are or were historical rivals to Chabad in the real world, such as Breslov, Strashelye and the Malachim and not act as the chief judge, jury and executioner and do as you please when there are serious rival views to yours, perhaps not every Judaic editor in WP can focus on it as quickly as you do, but you know full well that that is the state of affairs in the real world of those who know Chasidus and not just the Chabad brand. All I am trying to do is keep a fair balance in a few small areas, I can't do it all over you roam, to retain as much WP:NPOV as possible. The Chabad case at the ArbCom was very serious, they have been put on notice about what the potential harm Chabad editors could do were they to act as if WP is Chabad.org which it is not. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one disagreed with my "view" that these are not dynasties; it is a matter of simple fact, and my edits on this matter (on the Starashelye and Malochim pages) were explained at the time, and those edits went unchallenged for years, until you decided to turn this into another part of your anti-Chabad AGF-violating POV agenda. I have no problem discussing the issue of nomenclature, if someone has a legitimate reason to disagree, as I have above. And your repeated accusations of POV instead of discussing the issue are proof of your POV agenda and unsuitability to edit here. As for my edits in the past in general, which you persist on digging up, it is you who has acted as the "chief judge, jury and executioner" in your efforts to discredit others. I repeat; I justified the litany of distorted diffs that you compiled, and you did not respond; instead, you repeated those diffs over and over on successive pages; that makes your persistence in discrediting my edits a kind of "big lie". This kind of POV agenda is very serious. Again, stop with the personal attacks, and stick to the issues. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far User Yoninah (talk · contribs), a proven knowledgeable editor about all things Breslov agrees with me, see below. What's your beef with Breslov in any case? Let's have the main discussion below at #Seeking a resolution. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a resolution

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(1) Looking at the concise Oxford Dictionary: Dynast: "Ruler, member of dynasty"; Dynasty: from the Greek word dunesteia for "lordship". Of course you can lawyer this to death but Breslov has retained a top hierarchy and leadership, as now Chabad does, even after the demise of either a founding or key last leader. (2) The point about starting to use "group" is that it will easily lead on a slippery slope to the pejorative term "sect". (3) My main objection to changing everything from "Dynasty" to "Hasidism" is that while the "Dynasty" articles focus primarily on the Rebbes as leaders of each Chasidus, the categories named "Hasidism" include all sorts of articles about all sorts of topics not necessarily related to the leadership of each Chasidus at all. But it does not rub me wrong the way "group" does, just that it is not accurate for a lead article about Hasidic leaders not just the abstract ideas of each Chasidus. Also, most of the "Dynasty" articles are biography laden and there is thus far not enough content to elaborate what the actual ideas and ideologies of each type of Hasidism were. Unlike Chabad, other groups are not on WP, they are actually banned by their Rebbes from the Internet as you well know, and what little information WP has obtained has been about the leadership rather than about their actual ideas and contents of their Hasidic works/books. IZAK (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Having read the preceding debates, (sadly predictable) conspiracy theories and all, I think a simple fact has been lost in the discussion. 'Dynasty' (in the common vernacular) is generally used to refer to a successive group of leaders from a particular family. By way of example, in American political history there is or has been; A Kennedy dynasty, a Rockefeller dynasty, and perhaps a Bush dynasty. There is no Reagan dynasty, Nixon dynasty, or Carter dynasty. Similarly when one speaks of Chasidic dynasties, Ger, Belz, Chabad, and Viznitz (among others)have clear dynastic charts. Breslov, Lizhensk, Kapust, Strashelye etc. do not. This in no way demeans or detracts from the significant history of those groups, they simply did not (for whatever reasons) spawn a chain of hasidic leaders or rebbes. A great leader does not a dynasty make. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Winchester: What you say has been said before. No one should be comparing Hasidic Rebbes, supreme spiritual rulers claiming near divine and royal status in Judaism whose rule and mandate last a lifetime and beyond, to Nixon or Kennedy who are just tough lawyers and cynical politicians since US presidents are elected for a term of 4 years, Kennedy was a lecherous leader and Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace yet, and that's it, while a Hasidic Rebbe's status and influence is much larger than that in his realm and to his disciples (as you well know) who view him as the literal "King" in the spirit of divine right of kings and that is why the word "Dynasty" best DESCRIBES the essence and leadership of a Rebbe, regardless if he rules for one lifetime or was succeeded by his sons nephews or even by no one. There are so many various splits in the Hasidic world, just see the dozens in template {{Hasidic dynasties}} that it would be impossible, absurd and reckless for one or two basically pro-Chabad POV editors to decide who and what is or is not a Hasidic dynasty in the world and history of Chasidus at large. Some words have to be used and it is desirable to have uniformity, and "dynasty" is just the most grand (and not grandiose" simply because "dynasty" describes and explains them so well) and it's the most suitable word. So please let's get away from games of semantics. Give all the Rebbes some respect, and let's get on with more productive editing. IZAK (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

What User:IZAK seems determined to ignore is that the word 'dynasty' has no connection to hasidic (or any other) groups per se, nor does it connote any judgment or valuation. There are hasidic, political, and corporate dynasties, and they all need share one thing in common for the term to be relevant - a succession or group of related leaders. Your comments about Nixon and Kennedy belie a lack of knowledge about when the term is relevant and when not. Nixon was one politician, while the Kennedys are a political dynasty. The Gerer Rebbe is part of a hasidic dynasty, while Breslov hasidut does not have one. Please refrain from your continuous accusations of Chabad-POV conspiracies etc. against anybody you suspect of a Chabad connection. There has never been any connection or strife between Breslov & Chabad, and this demeaning lack of WP:CIVIL behavior is unnecessary. Surely a point can be made on the merits without the reckless accusations. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you Yoninah, your superb knowledge and mastery of Breslov is greatly appreciated! IZAK (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I agree with what you've written here, save for the application of the term 'dynasty', which is usually used in reference to the chain of rebbes in a hasidic group, rather than the group itself. For whatever reasons, there never were more rebbes of Breslov to create a dynasty, despite the fact that Breslov as a hasidus survived and thrived. If it was up to me, all hasidic groups would be called just that, and the word 'dynasty' would only be used when describing a particular rebbe in relation to his dynastic chain. There is nothing demeaning about the word 'group'. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush. The only problem with what you say is that a dynasty is also a "group" and for that matter so is any minyan or ladies tehillim gathering a "group" and it sounds meaningless for the purposes of being specifically encyclopedic about the grandeur of what a Rebbe means. For that matter, according to you, the Baal Shem Tov himself barely founded a "group" and no one who knows Chasidus would say that all those Rebbes who follow/ed in his ways are not part of his ongoing DYNASTY (a veritable "malchus/kingdom".) IZAK (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly right. It would not be correct usage of the word to say that the Baal Shem Tov founded a dynasty - he did not. The BST founded the Chasidic movement, which then gave birth to several dynasties of various chasidic groups. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which brings us full circle in this circular argument that there is no point in taking on ourselves who and what is a "dynasty" since a "dynasty" is also a "group" while the word "group" is a totally blah amorphous word and has no real meaning, just that it denotes a gathering of more than two people/animals/vegetables/inanimate objects/what have you, while a "dynasty" automatically denotes only something belonging to humanity, royalty, nobility, rulership, leadership, aristocracy and a number of other unique features that the Baal Shem Tov and all his heirs had, either inherently or expressly that is well captured in the word "dynasty", while a "group" could be sheep, oxen and lunatics etc etc etc as much as anything else. I know you know what I mean. IZAK (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that 'dynasty' refers to a chain (or succession) of leaders, whereas any chasidic (or other type of) group that had only one rebbe/leader cannot correctly be referred to as a 'dynasty' - at least not in the English language. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strashelye and Malachim Dynasty vs "group"

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)[reply]

Those discussions link here. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)

The talk page still says Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)

אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה[reply]

 Done by User:Anthony Appleyard. Thanks. -- -- -- 03:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit - CC-BY-NC English Text

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)[reply]

Reply 25-JUN-2019

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, (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)  Spintendo  18:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) ........................................................... 1. The article asserts that "The movement weathered strong opposition from virtually all other Hasidic movements in Ukraine throughout the 19th century." I can't find any explanation for the opposition in the article, and I think the author should add at least 6 or 7 sentences about this. 2. Gematria is completely ridiculous and, notwithstanding Rabbi Shmuel Moshe Kramer's discussion of it (and the article's discussion of this discussion), is hardly worth mentioning. It's really just an embarrassment to the movement that it ever had a prominent role in Breslov. I've never heard prominent contemporary Breslov rabbis such as Rabbi Nasan Maimon of the Breslov World Center or Ozer Bergman use gematria (although I haven't read EVERYTHING they wrote or said on youtube). You can use it to support any statement whatever, as well as its opposite, and it ought to be laughed out of all forms of contemporary Judaism. 3. In the section of the article on "Today," the author really should try to estimate about how many Breslovers there are today in Israel, and in the US.184.180.87.188 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Retraction of part of what I just wrote about Rabbi Nasan Maimon. After listening to a few more of his lectures, I realize that he does indeed frequently use gematria. But I continue to maintain, for the reasons given above, that gematria is completely ridiculous.184.180.87.188 (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breslov&oldid=1218645681"