Talk:Hasidic Judaism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexis2552.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article has very few references for its length and has been tagged for improvement for a long time. I propose to clean up unreferenced material. Does anyone have any objections? --John (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Looks like a lot of original research and some possible copyvio, so yes, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

For some reason, this article was created as "Hasidic Judaism". But this appellation is very rare in literature etc. Everyone calls it "Hasidism": Encyclopedia Judaica, YIVO Encyclopedia and so forth. I propose a move. AddMore-III (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hasidic Judaism" sounds more English than Hasidism. See WP:ENGLISH. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hasidic Judaism is more in line with the rest of the naming conventions, besides what Debresser said. We have Orthodox Judaism, Modern Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism and Hasidic Judaism. Hasidism is not used in day to day life. I've never really heard that term, other than in a derogatory way, as opposed to Hasidic Judaism. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, Sir Joseph, I don't see the difference. "Hasidic" is just as alien sounding as "Hasidism". Apart from that, "Hasidic Judaism" has just 54,500 unique Google results vs. 290,000 for "Hasidism". In Google Books the ratio is a whooping 3,900 to 103,000. In Google Scholar, 695 to 9,800. Even the PBS 1997 documentary was named "A Life Apart: Hasidism in America", and the New York Times' search index brings up 926 results for H vs. 34 for HJ. AddMore-III (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I get 255,000 for Hasidic alone in GBooks, 21,000 in GScholar, so more than Hasidism. And Google News gives me over 82,000 ("about 82,400) for Hasidic vs about only 1700 for Hasidism. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doug Weller, if "Hasidic" alone rather than "Hasidic Judaism" was an optional title (of course it's not), I'd agree. AddMore-III (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AddMore-III: I'm finding links when I search for hasidim that only mention Hasidic - so far that's just News searches, but this is something Google does. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, Hasidism reads as if it's a separate religion. Hasidic Judaism implies that the Hasidim are still part of Judaism. We don't have Reformism for Reform Judaism or Orthodoxism. As I said before, the only time I've ever heard or seen Hasidism is when people are speaking negatively as if to show that Hasidim don't practice Judaism for whatever reason. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AddMore-III is correct that "Hasidism" gets many more hits (290,000) than "Hasidic Judaism" (54,500) . But "Hasidic Jews" gets 411,000, suggesting that the adjectival form is much more common than the noun form. So I would stick with "Hasidic Judaism". --Ravpapa (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again I don't see how that's relevant. We're not debating using "hasidim" vs. "Hasidic Jews", but "Hasidism" vs. "Hasidic Judaism." All encyclopedias and lexicons I could get my Google on use "Hasidism", and even most other wikis (German, Russian, French). That's also the original phrase in Hebrew. As to the "Reformism" argument, au contraire: specifically because it's a movement rather than a full-fledged denomination it's better to use H rather than HJ. In addition, Encyclopedia Judaica etc. all use the terms Reform/Conservative Judaism fully, but not so for Hasidism. AddMore-III (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of behavior of some Hasidim[edit]

I raised this above at "Brooklyn: "Orthodox Abuse Suspects Get Exemption"". I worry about this article. Anyone who knows about Hasidic Jews knows that there are various social problems (I worked with them for some years as a social worker), and these include criminal activities. Money laundering is one example, see[1] and Spinka financial controversy. Then there's the sad Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community. None of this is mentioned or linked in this article. It would be clearly wrong to make a big deal of any of this, but no mention at all? Doug Weller talk 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being a criminal or sex abuser is part of being Hasidic so I'm not sure why the need to include it. At the Spinka article or the abuse articles, you can of course mention that the person is Hasidic. Priesthood_(Catholic_Church) does not include anything about the Catholic Priests abusing children, that is at Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, it's mentioned in the lead at Catholic Church. Of course there is also Criticism of the Catholic Church. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One difference is that the Catholic Church has an organized hierarchy and membership. If someone is a priest, they are ordained by the church and sanctioned by the church. The same can't be said here. A Hasidic Jew is Hasidic because he says he is, there is no responsible organizational structure. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus here and in the above section (#Name change) is strongly against this move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum ¤ 04:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasidic Judaism → Hasidism – As demonstrated above, all English-language encyclopedias (Britannica, Judaica, YIVO, Jewish Encyclopedia etc.) use the term "Hasidism"; it also outnumbers "Hasidic Judaism" 290,000 to 54,500 on Google, 103,000 to 3,900 on Google Books, 9,800 to 695 on Google Scholar. The only serious counter-argument was that "Hasidic Judaism" sounds more English than "Hasidism"; this is both incorrect (Hasidism, Hasidic, same same) and irrelevant, cf. all encyclopedias and reference works. AddMore-III (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as per my comments above."as demonstrated above" nobody other than the nominator was in favor of the move. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet somehow, any other printed encyclopedia I could get my Google on concurs. Discussions are not for counting fingers, but for comparing the soundness of arguments. AddMore-III (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging, @Debresser, Ravpapa, and Doug Weller:

I disagree, we go by common every day usage and Hasidic Judaism is far more prevalent. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: since it is apparent that "Hasidic Judaism" is the far more common usage. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DaltonCastle, Your claim is patently false. A simple Google search (did one just now) would yield "Hasidism" 278,000 hits against 55,500 for "Hasidic Judaism." 5:1. Do it yourself. In addition, both the Oxford and Merriam Webster dictionaries use the word "Hasidism", NOT "Hasidic Judaism." In addition, I'll bet Wikipedia itself, by adopting the far less common title, skews the results which would have been even more overwhelming otherwise. I provided ample citations. Where are the ones to the contrary? AddMore-III (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shtible Addition[edit]

This page could use some more information on the history of Hassidism how Hassidism spread in Eastern Europe. I would want to include information from "Stampfer Why Hassidism Spread". In this article, he discusses what allowed Hassidism to spread, one of his main points being the use of shtibles. If anyone on this page had any comments or additions to what I want to add I would love to know (Alexis2552 (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Alexis, it would be nice to know the full reference; it isn't clear what "Stampfer Why Hassidism Spread" refers to. Chapmansh (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of Hasidic Judaism[edit]

To be impartial, the article needs to deal with the critics of Hasidic Judaism and the points they raise. Here are some materials that might be helpful:

deisenbe (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These memoirs are all primary sources. To put a section together using references such as these would be original research. Social scientists and anthropologists have done studies in the area of Hasidism, both books and articles. Some of these talk about dissidents within and leaving the communities, without the authors being emotionally involved. That would be a better way to approach the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV[edit]

I put the POV template back in. When the whole topic is never referred to in the article, it does not have a neutral POV.

Here is another piece, from a recent New York Times, to add to those above:

If there were a separate article on opposition/escapees from Hasidic/Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, the matter could be settled by a reference to it. While there is an article on Criticism of Judaism as a whole, I cannot find this material treated anywhere in WP. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken. deisenbe (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about Hasidim. Not Haredim, or UOJ. You are just vandalizing the page. This is not the page to add references to OTD people, same as the Catholic page doesn't have it either. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does OTD mean? deisenbe (talk)

OTD is defined in the second sentence of the reference you just posted. You won't find good secondary sources just by searching online. The article as it stands has no point of view problems. To provide a serious (and neutral) section on dissent within and leaving the communities will require finding sources at a major city or university library. All orthodox communities that put many restrictions on their members, from Amish to Hasidic to Catholic to LDS, deal with these issues. Remember too that the more open groups, such as Lubavitch and Bostoner, attract young Jews who become members. You would need that to balance material on those who leave. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

v's Chassidic?[edit]

There is a redirect to here from Chassidic, which was a link on another page (Kaftan). I followed the link as the term was unfamiliar, Hasidic is something I am aware of. Should Chassidic be mentioned in this article, and/or would it be better to use Hasidic in the other article? ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a religious text[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

But some of you would love it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide for history, AddMore-III, what was and was not a heresy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to engage on this page is a suggestion that you are not interested in discussion, only your own religion. The problem with DECLARING something a heresy, is that that is what rabbis and popes do. Neither has special authority over history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond briefly. Even the reference the IP relied upon used the term "heretic", without any qualification, copiously (while "considered heretical" is used only once, a 4:1 ratio). That's before mentioning most serious history books (Moshe Idel, Old Worlds, New Mirrors: On Jewish Mysticism and Twentieth-Century Thought, p. 300: "in reaction to the heretical Sabbatean messianism"; Amir Engel, Gershom Scholem: An Intellectual Biography, p. 9: "The assumption underlying this paradigm is that the heretical Sabbatean movement"). Ergo his argument is nonsense. I also object to an "in media" section, first because it's redundant trivia which befits entertainment articles but not serious history, but more importantly because he used it to promote a single, recent documentary. AddMore-III (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This whole page reads like some kind of religious boosterism. Very low quality. I don't care what Jewish religious thinkers believe is heretical or not; the purposes of Wikipedia ought to be to record for history what people thought. In that context, "considered heretical" should always be the go-to, rather than "heresy." Since the Catholic Church systemically rapes boys, that is a part of the Wikipedia conversation about Catholicism; so too for Hasidism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sect v Group[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Softball practice is a group. Queen is a rock group. Methodism is a sect. Calvinism is a sect. Hasidism is a sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All terms are judged according to reliable sources, and context. Otherwise nobody cares. Discuss how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where you seek consensus[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not in the edit notes.

I'll say it again: THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. Do not assume other people know what you are talking about. Discuss how to improve the article according to policies and guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic Child Rape[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Will need to be addressed in some form in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are your goals an accurate encyclopedia? Or religious propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:NOTFORUM. This is way, way too vague and inflammatory. Do not assume other people know what you are talking about. Discuss how to improve the article according to policies and guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse[edit]

The recent complaint seems to be that the article doesn't mention any of the sexual abuse scandals which have been documented within Hasidic communities. Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community is one, but it appears this is not isolated, per [2] which is about Jerusalem. There is also the issue that this is not necessarily about Hasidic communities, but all Haredi and Orthodox communities in general, such as discussed by this source from Toronto. This has already been brought up, but I'm bringing it up again, since nothing seemed to have come from it.

If this is to be included, it really needs to be supported by a high-quality reliable source as a defining issue. Listing examples is going to be WP:SYNTH, and picking-and-choosing specific tragedies to imply something nefarious is obviously non-neutral and reprehensible. No article should be a platform for antisemitic propaganda, but this article should cover the full-range of what reliable sources have to say about the topic. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, there's nothing antisemitic in pointing to the prevalence of children's sexual abuse cases within a cloistered, authoritarian community. I suppose I'll add a paragraph to "Rebbe and court" section where violence is already mentioned. AddMore-III (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need RS stating this is a problem. But (a bit ORy) I seem to recall seeing examples of this at another time and place, in discussions about other religious sex abuse scandals. It is odd that Hasidic Judaism gets a pass.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It does not get a pass. Jack the Raubritter (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note: "antisemitism" does not exist, as it is, and always has been, a shibboleth for "Jew hating." (Israeli genocides against other Semites never seem to enter into definitions of this slippery word). In any case, documenting sexual abuse cases within religious communities for the sake of history doesn't have any connection to irrational hatreds of Jews.Jack the Raubritter (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These comments illustrate why I brought up antisemitism, and why we need to guard against it. The lede summarizes the body, but the sexual abuse issues do not have their own paragraph, much less their own section, so adding this to the lede is undue weight. Let's find substantial, reliable sources first. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's stop defending child rapists.Jack the Raubritter (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not in the body it should not be in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chassidic[edit]

Chassidic redirects to Hasidic Judaism, but this article has no mention of the term/spelling. Could it be added in some reasonable manner? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need, just poor spelling. Maybe useful as a redirect.AddMore-III (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

AddMore-III,

the problem is in this form it is misudrerstandable because of contemporary, etc. Ok, Western Ukraine is a relative term, including as well historical regions, but appoints a territory of a present-day country which in the referred timeline did not exist in those territories. After several trials, I'll try once more another easier solution to resolve this. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I really don't see the difference, but since this addition only slightly inflates the wording and is not inaccurate, I don't object. AddMore-III (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hasidic_Judaism&oldid=1207583472"