Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Comment	IZAK appears to have left Wikipedia. (IZAK responds: Can't resist, nope I have not! Just took a Summer break...)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)]]

A nasty dispute has been ongoing between two users that focuses on Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) and a few others relating to the complex subject of Hasidic Judaism: Klezmer (talk · contribs) is constantly reverting the contributions of ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs) and each seems to feel the other has a POV agenda (and then vice versa, it seems, a good 'ol edit war). This dispute was recently brought to the attention of Judaism editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Boruch of Medzhibozh who have been requested to give their input. But the help of the Mediation Cabal is requested so that User:ChosidFrumBirth should not have to feel that he is being trampled by User:Klezmer's editing style and so that each one's contributions remain important. It is time for some outside help and input. Thank you, IZAK 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ChosidFrumBirth

(From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Boruch of Medzhibozh:)

A resolution is needed on a disagreement over whether Boruch of Medzhibozh should be considered a disciple of his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov, or of Pinchas of Koritz, who was his tutor. Klezmer will not hear of anything but that Boruch should be under Pinchas, and denies that Boruch had any Medzhibozh dynasty or that it existed, and I hold that this makes no sense.

Klezmer says that Boruch was a student of Pinchas of Koritz and followed his spiritual legacy. I can't understand this, since Boruch was clearly a favorite of his own grandfather, the Besht, who he worshipped and studied with and wanted to continue his own grandfather's legacy NOT that of Pinchas of Koritz, which is why he went to Medzhibozh and not Koritz to become Rebbe. According to the article itself on Boruch it says "As recorded in the early Hasidic work Mekor Boruch (first published in 1880 from handwritten manuscripts), at the time of the Baal Shem Tov's death, Rabbi Pinchas of Korets and Rabbi Jacob Joseph of Polonoye, two of the Baal Shem Tov's closest disciples, reported to the Hasidim that the Baal Shem Tov had designated Reb Boruch as his successor, and instructed Reb Pinchos to take responsibility to carry out those wishes." That clearly would say that Boruch belongs under the Besht not under Pinchas who was just following the Besht's wishes. and not that Boruch left his grandfather to become a follower of Pinchas's spiritual legacy. Almost all the Rebbes have teachers and tutors other than their own father or grandfather, it doesn't make them disciples of the teacher or tutor instead of their own ancestors.

Klezmer quotes Wiesel "Souls on Fire", but Wiesel's "Four Hasidic Masters" says that Boruch rejected the approach of Pinchas, "was eager to resemble" the Besht and declared that "he, Reb Boruch, was his (the Besht's)successor", so how would that put him under Pinchas spiritual legacy instead of under his own grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov.

However Klezmer just keeps reverting to his own opinion. This affects mainly two pages: Israel Baal Shem Tov (the "Spiritual Legacy" section at the end), and List of Hasidic dynasties (also the "Spiritual Legacy section at the end) -- you can see what has been going on by looking at the history of the article.

From two other articles it appears that this is part of a larger agenda or opinion to unvalidate Medzhibozh as a dynasty and strengthen Apta and the Bick family as the true continuation of Medzhibozh. This is reflected in the comment inserted in the begining of the article on Medzhibozh dynasty that "Other unrelated rabbinic dynasties that claim Mezhbizh as their geographic root include the Apta (Hasidic dynasty) and Rapoport-Bick (rabbinic dynasty))"

It was already pointed out by others that the Bicks weren't Hasidic and didn't belong in the Medzhibozh hasidic dynasty article, so the long section on the Bicks was removed and a separate article started (but still referenced there anyway), but the other serious error in my opinion is that in the Apta article Klezmer insists on including the Apter as Rebbe, when it is widely known that it was always the Apter Rov, and not Rebbe. (you can also see this dispute in the history of that article).

Finally, in the Mezhbizh hasidic dynasty article, Klezmer tries to eliminate the existence of a continuation of Medzhibozh from the Baal Shem Tov and Baruch by claiming that because Yaakov Yisroel (son of Mordechai of Medzhibozh, son of Yekhiel Mikl of Medzhibozh, etc., etc. back to Baruch) married the daughter of the Zviler Rebbe that makes him no longer Medzhibozh but Zvil, (even though his grandson is the Zvil-Medzhibozh rebbe, descended from Medzhibozh, and continues the line through Medzhibozh -- I didn't see it myself but someone told me the sign on the Bais Midrash actually says only "Medzhibozh" and not Zvil).

Again, this appears to be just a way of unvalidating Baruch and his descendants, and is not accurate or true. You can also see this dispute in the history of the Mezhbizh hasidic dynasty article, and also in the talk page for the Medzhibozh hasidic dynasty article, where Klezmer starts a section on "Messed up the Medzhibozh Rabbinic Lineage bigtime", and continues after that one with "Facts wrong about Rabbi Boruch's descendants in Medzhibozh" but makes several errors like confusing Mordechai of Zvil with Mordechai of Mezbuz, relies on his own research and recent books but gives no credence to Alfasi's master work on hasidic dynasties and so reverts everything to only his own version instead of at least, as Redaktor suggests, putting in both approaches.

Any input from other editors who are knowledgeable and familiar with hasidic dynasties and families would be helpful. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Klezmer

This description of the dispute itself by IZAK is one-sided. ChosidFrumBirth is constantly reverting my additions. I have asked ChosidFrumBirth many times to provide proof of his positions. I have provided numerous references to support the information I added. I have yet to find ChosidFrumBirth providing a single reference. Instead, like a pigeon he flies in, poops on the article, then flies away. He claims he just "knows" because his circles carries the information orally. Unfortunately, I don't buy that claim because plenty of written proof exists - and I provide it when I can. He cannot or will not.

I think the dispute can be broken down into the following three issues: (1) ChosidFrumBirth believes R. Boruch of Medzhibozh was trained / discipled / mentored whatever by his grandfather the Baal Shem Tov. The chart of disciples is something I put together from numerous sources and this claim is simply not true. His grandfather died when Boruch was 7 years old. He was trained by Pinchas of Korets and I have cited numerous sources to prove this.

(2) ChosidFrumBirth believes that R. Boruch's brand of Chasidism exists today in a solid Medzhibozh descendency from R. Boruch's era. I dispute that claim. First of all, I can find no proof (and plenty of documentation exists) to support that anyone from this lineage actually lived in Medzhibozh after R. Boruch died. Second, the Zvhil dynasty picks up (as does the Apta / Heshel dynasty) after R. Boruch left off. ChosidFrumBirth does not appear to want to accept this.

(3) ChosidFrumBirth insists that R. Abraham Joshua Heshel of Apta was only known as the Apter "Rov". But I have provided documented instances where he was known as the Apter Rebbe, as well. I'm willing to concede that both names are applicable as reference. ChosidFrumBirth wants to eliminate all references to "rebbe", and I believe that is unsupported by the facts.

I believe Redaktor and I have done some pretty good work in the past month or so cleaning up this mess. ChosidFrumBirth's recent edits are changing what I thought was acceptable material by numerous individuals.--Klezmer 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Shaul avrom

User:Klezmer, you should know that it is common among smaller kriezen that the rebbe is also called the "Rov" Medzibozh lacks a rebbe, and exists as kriezen from other descendants of the Baal Shem Tov, and also as zhvill, boyan and surprisingly, as a chunk of slonim (Don't ask as I don't know how.) Also, the first seven years of R. Boruch Medzibodzher's life, he was educated by the Baal Shem Tov, and afterwards he was educated by R. Pinchas Koretser. Being Raised in Stam ah litvish environment, I don't have much more info. --Shuli 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:ChosidFrumBirth

I respectfully disagree with Klezmer's characterization. How can he say I never provided references -- look at the discussion page and history page where Klezmer ignored every proof and printed reference or source I did provide, and even the comment by Redaktor that Klezmer shouldn't ignore legitimate respected sources. I wasn't reverting Klezmer's 'additions' -- his additions were changing facts that were already in the article, and I was explaining that he was making a mistake and explained why, but he ignored that and just reverted my contributions.

Answering point by point as Klezmer numbers them:

1) The chart that Klezmer put together was very good, and I appreciate his original research, but he shouldn't take it personally if somone spots an error or two. Being "trained by Pinchos of Koritz", even if it is true, doesn't mean that Boruch was his disciple or followed his spiritual legacy. The fact that Boruch was 7 (although some say a few years older) when the Baal Shem Tov died doesn't change the fact that he was a disciple of his grandfather (and publicly and vocally proud of it), not of Pinchas of Koritz who was just his tutor/teacher, and who according to sources contemporaneous at the time (which are in the article) quote Pinchas of Koritz and Yosef of Polonne as saying that they were instructed by the Besht that Boruch, who was very mature and precocious, was his successor and they were to train him further and pass on his spiritual legacy. There are many stories that Boruch was close to the Besht and his favorite and saw himself as the Besht's successor. The fact is there are numerous stories of how Boruch sat at the Besht's side and was mentored by him. Plenty of rebbes have teachers and tutors other than their fathers or grandfathers, but that doesn't make them disciples of the teacher instead of their own fathers and grandfathers. The title of that section is "spiritual legacy", and Boruch clearly followed the Besht and not Pinchas. Klezmer quotes Wiesel, but Wiesel himself says Boruch rejected Pinchas's approach and saw himself as following and succeeding to the Besht. So you can't make him the spiritual disciple of Pinchas when Boruch himself says he was a disciple of his own grandfather, unless the intent is to downplay Boruch and the line from the Besht and Medzhibozh dynasty which is incorrect.

2) Regarding Boruch's descendants living in Medzhibozh, first, they don't have to actually live there to be descendants of Boruch of Medzhibozh and continue the Medzhibozh dynasty and line (most Rebbes today have never lived in the towns of the dynasties they still head), but besides that the fact is that in this case I provided sources showing that they did live there, up until the last Medzhibozh Rebbe in Medzhibozh, Mordechai, and this according to Alfasi, Toldos Anshei Shem, and other sources that I provided over a month ago but which Klezmer prefers to discount or ignore. Further, the Zvil dynasty does not "Pick up after R. Boruch left off" as Klezmer claims. The Zvil dynasty is totally separate and unrelated and has nothing to do with Medzhibozh -- the only connection is only because in about 1900 (as far as I can calculate out) the Medzhibozh Rebbe's son married the Zviler Rebbe's daughter, but that doesn't eliminate the Medzhibozh dynasty, particularly because according to Alfasi and others his son was known as the son of the Medzhibozh Rebbe, became rebbe in Zvil from his father-in-law but after his own father's death became Medzhibozh Rebbe, though sometimes referred to as Zvil, and sometimes hyphened Zvil-Medzhibozh. There is even a Medzhibzoh Bais Midresh today headed by his grandson and their website traces the line back through to Boruch, so how can Klezmer ignore all that because it doesn't happen to be in the books he quotes, which are all pretty recent anyway and certainly not less authoritative in the field as Professor Alfasi whose life's work was hasidic dynasties. On his last point in #2 about the Heshel/Apt dynasty picking up after Boruch left off, even more than Zvil they are totally separate from the Medzhibozh dynasty and not descendants or successors to Boruch and the Medzhibozh dynasty. The Medzhibozh dynasty began with Boruch, grandson of his "hero"/mentor/spiritual leader/etc. the Baal Shem Tov. The Zvil and Apt dynasties began after Boruch and are unrelated and not part of the Medzhibozh dynasty (and the article).

3) Heshel of Apta was in fact known only as the Apter Rov, and a couple of books 100 or more years later which mistakenly refer to him as Rebbe doesn't make it correct. There were no hasidic Rebbes at all during that time, only the Baal Shem Tov and Magidim (Magid of Chernobyl, Magid of Mezritch, etc.). There were no hasidic Rebbes at all until Boruch, so how could Heshel be Rebbe. That is widely known, long-standing history and tradition, and doesn't have to be documented in some academic work in order for it to be true. Finally, the Apter Rov lived in Medzhiboz but he was never called the Medzhiboz rov/rebbe or dynasty -- in fact, while the Zinkov dynasty can be traced back to the Apter Rov, but it was never even called the Apter dynasty, never mind Medzhiboz, and there was never an Apter Rebbe, so what has that got to do with the totally unrelated Medzhiboz dynasty, unless the point is to discredit Medzhiboz in order to somehow strengthen a different dynasty as being the "true" dynasty from Medhziboz. That's just not factual and proper.

Redaktor has made some very good contributions to this issue, and so has Klezmer. But my edits were not recent or new. It was Klezmer who came in and started revising what was there -- I simply reverted it back because what Klezmer changed wasn't accurate, and then Klezmer simply kept reversing my edits, either without explanation or ignoring my comments. He seems to want to ignore both the sources I provided, and the fact that so much of hasidic dynasty history is in fact oral and passed down.

These aren't things that just I know, they are things that many people form hasidic families have heard over and over from our rebbes and others, things which are widely known in hasidic circles, and are not things that were really ever written down or documented and they can be overlooked or missed by 'researchers' very easily. That is why it is so important for Wikipedia to get this accurately, and not discount accepted knowledge and oral history just because it's not in a book somewhere, and particularly where all of the above is in fact in the sources provided. --ChosidFrumBirth 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Nahum

I don't have much knowledge on this particular issue, and I'd think that most Judaism editors on this site lack such knowledge. IMHO this is clearly a classic POV-related edit war, which should be resolved Neutrally, by having each user state his/her opinion with any supporting evidence they can offer, without reverting or deleting the other user's POV.

I maintain this position because Information on these issues is lacking and scarce, and both claims may be valid. The fact that I or you haven't heard of the other person's claim and even if he fails to produce solid evidence besides claiming an oral tradition, that doesn't make it IMHO reason enough for revertion and/or edit wars. -- Nahum 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Redaktor

This is complicated as it represents a number of issues entangled together. First we need to address what determines membership of a dynasty. Normally one rebbe succeeds his father, and that defines the dynasty, provided the succeeding rebbes are known by the same name, eg Belzer Rebbes. However, on closer inspection the present incumbent (the Belzer Rov R' Yisochor Dov) is neither the son of his predecessor nor his disciple.He was but a child when the previous rebbe, Reb Aharon of Belz, died. Yet the Belzer chasidim see him as the next member of the dynasty. Wikipdia records thta fact without entering into a debate as to its strength.

Indeed there are many rebbes who were/are grandsons of their predecessors and not tutored by them, including the present Kozhnitser and Stoliner rebbes. Thus it is clear from common practice that a dynasty can be continued by a grandson who did not know his predecessor. Indeed Reb Boruch is indisputably known as Reb Boruch of Mezhbizh. Leivi Grossman identifies a Mezhbizh dynasty of descendants of the Baal Shem Tov; as such we have a clear source for this dynasty, starting with Baal Shem Tov. Sefer Hachasiduth (Yitschok Varfel, Tel Aviv 5707) writes that Reb Boruch was closely attached to the approach of the Baal Shem Tov in chasidus and rejected other approaches such as that of Rebbe Shneur Zalman of Lyadi which diverged from teh approach of the Baal Shem Tov. That clearly makes him the successor of the Baal Shem Tov and no-one else. The chart of disciples is a complete red herring in this context. If we start listing every rebbe who taught every other rebbe the result would be a tangled network. It is customary to list as the 'teacher' of a rebbe the one who provided the approach to chasidus, even if the rebbe had many other teachers. For example, the Chidushei Horim was tutored in chasidus by the Kozhnitser Magid and his son, Rebbe Moshe of Kozhnitz. Yet he is not listed as their disciple. Instead he counts as a disciple of Prshischa and Kotsk, which determined the roots of his approach in chasidus

Regarding the question of proof of who is the current successor to the Mezhbizh dynasty, I put it that this is not something for Wikipedia to decide. Our duty is to record the facts. In every case of a Hasidic dynasty, Wikipedia accepts the claim of any rebbe who is descended from a dynasty and uses the title. Wikipedia is not a court of law which verifies such claims. So, if the Mezhbizh-Zvil Rebbe is a descendant of the Mezhbizh dynasty and uses that title, it is the duty of Wikipedia to record that fact. Unless the claim is disputed, that is the end of the story. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to measure the validity or otherwise of such claims if they are accepted in the outside world.

Inspection of a number of Klezmer's reverts suggest that they have deleted text (often supported by sources) based on his own research. My understanding of WP:OR is that such deletions are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I see no reason why the statements which are sourced (such as the ones noted above) should be deleted from these articles.--Redaktor 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Itzse

I was asked to give any input where I have tried not to get involved; so if it can help, here are my two cents.

Redaktor has basically summed up the issue. If time was no issue then I would have gotten involved long ago and researched their arguments independently and reported my findings. But I must admit that I have a limited amount of knowledge of the subject on hand, as almost all Chasidim today consider the Magid of Mezritch as being the successor to the Baal Shem Tov from whence all larger Chasidic courts today connect themselves, and the focus of Chasidus and its history is there. To the best of my knowledge all the other disciples and descendants of the Baal Shem Tov as great as they were, were considered as Chasidic dynasties onto themselves with no relevance to today’s Chasidic courts. It seems to me that ChosidFrumBirth is a descendant of Reb Boruch of Mezhbuz and the Zvihl line and Klezmer is a descendent of the Bick-Rapaport and therefore the Apt line and to them it's a personal issue which makes all the difference in the world, for which they are entitled. Our job isn't to minimize it but to let the article take its course.

I would suggest that the article for now should include both Klezmer and ChosidFrumBirth's edits and where it conflicts, there should be an explanation. Then other editors should slowly but surely add or change it with clear explanations, with anything challenged to be done by consensus. Itzse 01:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Klezmer followup

I have Wiesel's Four Hasidic Masters and for the life of me cannot find the reference to which ChosidFrumBirth is referring. Please provide the page number of this quote. I see just the opposite from Wiesel, and have quoted such in Boruch of Medzhybizh. This goes to the point where I can never seem able to verify ChosidFrumBirth's scant references, though I provide many and the articles reflect my scholarship in this subject. Anyone is welcome to check my references. So far, no one seems to disagree with my references.

Regarding which Chasidic court anyone sides with, this is totally irrelevant to the argument, because Wiki should reflect the truth, whichever that is. But for the record, I am a long time (30+ year) scholar on the subject and have no connection whatsoever with any of the dynasties that people have assumed. I am not related to the Bicks or Rapoports or Heshels. I am simply providing facts where I see they are appropriate. I take the stand of unattached, and therefore neutral position on such matters, as long as they don't conflict with information from published sources. It seems clear that other editors have a clear agenda toward a particular flavor of Chasidus or any other branch of Judaism. I don't (last I heard, that is Wiki policy - neutrality). As Sgt. Friday said, I'm interested in "just the facts". But these facts have to be real, published, accessible and verifiable. Some facts that have been "my rebbe told me" or "just see Alfasi", without any specific reference that anyone can really verify, means to me that it's a bubbameisis and not Wiki fact. BTW, there are plenty of publications on this subject matter, so I don't buy the argument that we should value oral traditions over scholarly published references. "I'm a smart guy who travels in these circles, so I know" just doesn't hack it with me.

Regarding the definition of what constitutes a Chasidic dynasty for the purposes of Wiki, the record will show I have been repeatedly asking this question time and time again but no one seems willing to give a response. Thank you, Redaktor, for finally weighing in an opinion on the subject. It cuts to the heart of the issue. For the record, I proposed that a dynasty should be defined as "(1) a lineage of thought and (2) followers of that brand of chasidism throughout time." (see Talk:List_of_Hasidic_dynasties#Request for Comment: Adding Hasidic dynasties)

Regarding the allegation that I have some type of secret agenda against Rabbi Boruch, this is just plain wrong. He's important to the story of Chasidism. He was a colorful (some say despicable) character. He led strongly with a iron will. I have added a lot of material about him in Wiki. But I believe that if you follow the logic of my proposed definition above, the record shows that (1) the lineage of Rabbi Boruch's brand of Chasidic thinking died out with his death. (2) He left no followers of that brand throughout time. Name me a Chasidic sect that believes in Malkhus today! Name me a Chasidic sect that believes the one true Chasidic path is only through the direct descendents of the Besht! And if you claim that they have descendency through the fact that they lived in Medzhibozh through time (as ChosidFrumBirth originally proposed in the article), that is just plain wrong. The extensive documentation simply show no record of these people living there, as apparently ChosidFrumBirth's oral histories tell him. That's the difference between using real data and bubbameisis as the basis for what is contributed to Wiki. Yes, Rabbi Boruch may have had descendents. But the Zvhillers seem to be claiming this descendency through time.

I think Wiki currently has it right by reporting the two different dynasties (Mezhbizh and Zvhil) as they do right now, with cross references to other claims - claims which ChosidFrumBirth wants to eliminate. For example, ChosidFrumBirth wants to eliminate the phrase "Other unrelated rabbinic dynasties that claim Mezhbizh as their geographic root include the Apta (Hasidic dynasty) and Rapoport-Bick (rabbinic dynasty))" (see above). Why would he want to do this? This is fact. It leads to other articles. There's nothing wrong with cross referencing Wiki articles. It takes nothing away from the Mezhbizh article, it only enhances it. This is an example of ChosidFrumBirth's ruthlessness. Who's trampling on whom here?

Regarding the Apter Rebbe vs Rov debate, I think it is important to Wiki that both versions be there. There are several recent references I provided (including Wiesel) that refer to him as Rebbe not Rov. The way it is now, it has both. If people are searching Wiki for either they will find it. Eliminating "rebbe" means that some people won't find the article. In modern times, he is called either one. This is a fact whether one likes it or not. Whether he was called Rebbe or Rov in his lifetime is immaterial. BTW, he came after Rabbi Boruch, so the term "rebbe" was certainly used in Rabbi Heshel's lifetime. The phrase "popularly known as the Apter Rebbe or Apter Rov" is true today. We have many sources today that refer to him as Apter Rebbe (rightly or wrongly). This is another example of ChosidFrumBirth's ruthlessness. He wants to eliminate this phrase - another fact trampled upon.

I am really sorry I ever contributed the "Spiritual Legacy from Besht" chart in the first place. It was a lot of work - I wasted my time. I thought I was adding something special and valuable to Wiki. Wiesel had something like it in his book Souls on Fire and Finkel had something similar in The Great Chasidic Masters. I thought an updated version with Wiki links would be just the thing in this hyperlinked world. I thought it would help explain to the uninformed how different sects were linked together. Instead, it became a lightning rod of controversy and much grief. What a mistake that was! How naive I was to think that reasonable logic would prevail over raw emotions. It became a war zone amongst different Chasids who apparently hate each other more than they do the idea of just sharing reasonable information with outsiders. I would not object if the chart were deleted in its entirety.

Thanks IZAK for setting this up. I tried to get mediation going a few months back, but no one seemed to help.--Klezmer 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Klezmer, I appreciate the compliments. I hope that this exercise in open discussion can also lead to some acceptance on all sides that both you and ChosidFrumBirth have a lot of important information to contribute that helps create a better integrated perspective. We are only at the "state your case" stage at this time, as the real "mediation" has not kicked in yet, but at least people are talking to each other instead of maddeningly reverting each others (what seems to me) important contributions to articles about this difficult to understand subject. IZAK 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ChosidFrumBirth followup

First, for the record, to correct Itze's assumption like Klezmer who says he's not related, I am not related at all to Boruch of Medzhibozh or Zvil and I'm also not a Hasid of them (Klezmer says only he's not related to Apt/Bick/Rapoport), although I am related to Chernobyl. I am looking at this only because I saw mistakes when Klezmer started making edits, and what really caught my attention was the Apter Rov issue (which I'll answer later).

I'm not a Chasid of them either. I thought I made that clear, not that it should matter.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't clear, and it matters because of Itse's comment that it might mean a bias.--ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I don't think this is an issue of who is the successor to the Baal Shem Tov, but like Redaktor put it, who continues the line from Medzhibozh. It is very clear that that is definitely not Zvil, as Klezmer claims, because as far as I can tell nobody from Zvil says that or claims it, and the fact that a Rebbe from Medzhibozh married a daughter from Zvil doesn't change Medzhbizoh into Zvil or make it continued by Zvil. It is also clear that it is not Apt/Zinkov because none of them, including anyone who lived in Medzhbizoh, ever USED the Medzhibozh. So why attach it now.

Here you're getting yourself all confused with the name of the town versus the lineage. I believe the dynasty really died out with R. Boruch, but no wants to hear that argument, either.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe that it didn't die out because Boruch has descendants, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren and on who both lived in Mezdzhibozh and continued to use the title and claim their lineage to him. I guess that is the key issue here and at the bottom of the dispute. And as long as there are Rebbes around who say that, confirmed by the sources I provided, then Medzhiboz did not just die out. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Klezmer's claim that he can't verify my references. I have a paperback copy of Wiesel's Four Hasidic Masters so I don't know if the page numbers match what he has, but if he reads the chapter on Boruch carefully you see very clearly that he says Boruch did not follow Pinchas's approach, and that Boruch saw himself as the successor to his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov. Even if he didn't see that in Wiesel yet, I don't see how Klezmer can claim that Wiesel says just the opposite.

I've read this section about 6 times now and I can't see what you're seeing in it. In summary, Pinchas raises Boruch, educates him from about age 7 until early adult, they had a falling out. Boruch then claims his marching orders come from the then dead Besht. That doesn't make him a disciple of the Besht. I don't think anyone disputes these facts, they are entirely consistent with other sources.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's progress. So Boruch was 'handed over' to Pinchas's custody by the Baal Shem Tov upon his death, and you agree that Boruch didn't consider himself a follower of Pinchas and disagreed with him, that Boruch claims he is continuing the Besht, his dead grandfather, sounds like exactly what I've been saying, so what if his predecessor was dead. As Redaktor pointed out that the same thing happened in Belz and other dynasties, and there are lots of rebbes skipping generations and in limbo, it doesn't wipe out the dynasty. If Boruch was the Rebbe, and he was the Medzhibozh Rebbe, and he held court in Medzhibozh, and he wished to/claimed to/did or whatever succeed his grandfather the Besht, who is anyone else to say that his spiritual legacy is from Pinchas and not from the Besht? --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also on references, I don't have a copy of Alfasi and Toldos Anshei Shem, but I saw them when I was looking at this years ago and they both say that the Zvil-Medzhibozh Rebbe Yaakov Yisroel was born in 1882 in Medzhibozh to his father Mordechai the Medzhibozher Rebbe and that he married the Zvil Rebbe's daughter, became Rebbe, and then moved to Boston. Those are all valid sources, visible to anyone who can look at them, and proves that there was a Medzhibozh Rebbe in Medzhbizoh who continued the line from Boruch, by any definition.

Ah, the phantom mystery source. A common ChosidFrumBirth theme. Let's assume you're right for the moment. I have provided a bunch of references that cannot be disputed which says this is just plain wrong information. That information comes from tax rolls and other censuses from the town during that era. No record of these people living in Medzhibozh when you claim they did. And they should have shown up in some of the sources, like Russian synagogue lists.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is really unfair -- Alfasi and Toldos aren't mystery sources because I personally don't have a copy. They exist, there are copies in libraries and elsewhere, and I offered to get a copy and fax it to you. To say it's a mystery source is really unfair and not true. The only mystery is why you still don't care to acknowledge it. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how Klezmer can say there was no Medzhibozh line after Boruch, when 1) there were descendants of Boruch who 2) lived in Mezdzhibozh and 3) were called Medzhibozh Rebbe. If a rebbe today is a descendant of those rebbes, whether the title skips a generation, or two, or ten, and is following in the thought of the ancestors and continues the title of a father or a grandfather or a great grandfather or a great great grandfather I don't see how Klezmer can say it's not real when there's a Medzbhizoh Rebbe or a Zvil-Medzhibozh Rebbe today descending from previous ones who continues the title. At least that's what I can see from other Wiki articles and from that website.

(1) I don't dispute, sure he may have had descendants. (2) I strongly dispute because there is no independent evidence that anyone ChosidFrumBirth listed ever lived in Medzhibozh. (3) I don't dispute that they may have been called Medzhibozher, but so were others from unrelated other dynasties, such as the Apter line and the non-Chasidic Bick/Rapoport line.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Belzer Rebbe also never lived in Belz, etc., etc., so that doesn't matter. However, the fact is they did live in Medzhiboz according to two scholarly sources -- you can't just ignore the Toldos Anshei Shem, and Professor Alfasi who devoted his life to this history. According to both those references, as well as oral tradition, Boruch's descendants were called Admor MeMedzhiboz, down to the birth of Yaakov Yisroel, just like the books say (except for the ones you found which are obviously incomplete). --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that oral history should take precedence over scholarly published references (except of course a lot of rebbes, roshei yeshiva, and others who know the limitations of 'scholarship' and recognize that sometimes and very often published references have big time mistakes). But in this case we have not only oral history and tradition that is widely known in Hasidic circles and can be verified by asking any of the Rebbes who are related, as I have, but I also have quoted at least three scholarly published references (Wiesel, Alfasi, Toldos Anshei Shem) which can be verified. Sorry if Klezmer can't find it or prefers his own references to these (maybe another editor has or can find them). That doesn't mean that both the oral history AND these older established references should be disregarded in favor of just a couple of new books that were written in recent years based probably just on 'documents' that they could find. (If Klezmer can provide an email or a fax number [he still hasn't filled anything in on his user page even though he claims he's a history expert with 30 years of experience] then I will try to get copies of Alfasi and Toldos and fax them to him or anyone else if that will settle this dispute).

I hope you find the mystery references. But what you provided is contradicted by other independent evidence. So even if you find it, you might have to accept the fact it is just plain wrong.

Again, they're not mysteries -- they are named and readily available. Go look, or give me a fax number or email to send it to you and I'll get a copy. But your next statement "even if you find it, you might have to accept the fact it is just plain wrong" is the most telling comment -- in other words it's not a question of sources or references at all and unless a source agrees with you or the recently written books you prefer that agree with your view then "it is just plain wrong." Sorry, Klezmer. Alfasi is not a mystery source and is much more authoritative a source than what you've quoted. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad Klezmer contributed "Spiritual Legacy from Besht". But just because he contributed it doesn't mean he controls it and what the facts are. I still don't understand why he can't accept that Boruch's spiritual legacy came from his own grandfather which he worshiped, admired, learned from, lived with, and wanted to follow, and Klezmer claims that we should ignore that and ignore Boruch's own wishes and instead put Boruch down as a follower of Pinchas because the Baal Shem Tov asked Pinchas to continue to tutor him after the Besht died. So out with Boruch's own choices and statements, out with his own family and grandfather and who he considered his spiritual predecesor, and in with his teacher? Boruch would have a fit. I like the Spiritual Legacy edit, but if it can't be accurate on such an important point then I agree with Klezmer it should just be deleted.

Then maybe you should leave it the way I originally presented it. You were the one who added R. Boruch to the list. I omitted him from the original posted version because I believe he didn't leave a dynasty behind. Maybe R. Boruch's entry should simply be deleted from the list? That would solve the dispute from my angle.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that shows Klezmer agenda -- his issue isn't that of trying to get the facts straight -- he'd rather eliminate a major figure like Boruch entirely than accept that Boruch followed the spiritual legacy of his own grandfather because that might undermine his claim that he considers Heshel to be the true heir.--ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Apter Rov vs Rebbe, the fact is that at the time and by his followers and family after him he was referred to as the Ohev Yisroel and the Apter Rov, never as Rebbe. If you want to say he is referred to as some (like Klezmer and a few others) as Rebbe, that's fine, but it is not correct to say that he was "popularly known" as Rebbe because he wasn't. Maybe a better edit is "He was popularly known as the Ohev Yisroel or Apter Rov,though much later some people referred to him as Rebbe." (And by the way, he died after Boruch but didn't come or become known after Boruch.)

He's popularly known that way today. I knew him that way. Chapin and Weinstock label him that way. So does Wiesel. Even Professor Heshel in his own writings labels his g-g-g-grandfather that way. I'd say that's pretty popular.

Debatable, besides the fact that Wiesel isn't using the word that way -- how did you get to know him that way? --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And by the way, he died after Boruch but didn't come or become known after Boruch." Not true. You're shooting from the hip again, ChosidFrumBirth. Boruch was practicing in Medzhibozh from 1788-1811. Heshel was practicing in Medzhibozh from 1813-1825. This is documented fact. Everything I've seen about this indicates that Heshel pretty much picked up after Boruch died. That's why I consider his dynasty the true heirs to the town's Chasidim, though their brands of Chasidism were radically different.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly -- You're missing the point of how hasidic dynasties were built and lived -- usually the name of the place where the rebbe became known attaches and then stays with him wherever he goes. Boruch started in toltchin but became the Medzhibozh Rebbe and that would have stuck even if he moved to Queens. The Apter was called the Apter even after he moved to Medzhibozh because he made his name and reputation in Apt. I thought we were just trying to keep the proper dynasty lines separate, correct and acurate - Apt, Medzhibozh, etc., but now it appears your real agenda and issue is over who are "the true heirs" --but then THAT's why Boruch's descendants are the "true heirs" as you put it -- Heshel may have become the "big shot" in town and overshadowed Boruch's descendants, but as you say his brand of hasidism was radically different from Boruch -- it's not a question what you consider, as you say, to be the true heirs. Boruch's line didn't become rebbe in Apt and move to Medzhibozh, they were born and lived in Medzhizbozh and continued it in Medzhibzoh, big small or unknown, generation after generation, and sorry your 'references' don't have that, but the references I've provided do and it's not for you to say they are wrong and yours are right. Besides, logically, if your references don't include something it just means it is incomplete not that it didn't exist. I provided references that say it is true and it's not my fault that you don't have copies and won't go find one. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Rapoport-Bick rabbinic dynasty, as Klezmer says the phrase "Other unrelated rabbinic dynasties that claim Mezhbizh as their geographic root include the Apta (Hasidic dynasty) and Rapoport-Bick (rabbinic dynasty))" I wanted to eliminate NOT on the Medzhibozh place article but ONLY on the Medzhbizoh hasidic dynasty page because they are completely unrelated, because Rapoport Bick is not a hasidic dynasty wherever they come from, and Apta because it's not the Medzbhizbozh hasidic dynasty and doesn't belong on the Medzhibozh hasidic dynasty page but on the Medzhibozh city page. You wouldn't (and you didn't) put a reference to the Medzhibozh hasidic dynasty on the Apta hasidic dynasty page just because the city of Medzhibzoh is mentioned there, would you? They are two different hasidic dynasties.

I don't believe they are entirely unrelated by circumstance. Thus, the cross reference shouldn't be eliminated. It may help people find the information. See the bullet immediately above.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross referencing very circumstantial connection is confusing and misleading. The information can easily be found, there are lists of Hasidic dynasties, a spiritual legacy section under the Besht, etc., etc. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "raw emotions" and everything to do with "reasonable logic" that Klezmer wants. I respect his hard work and research, but he can't just keep reverting anything he doesn't agree with, and I would ask that he not rely just on his own research and accept other things and put what he has found into context. Thanks also to IZAK for trying to get this settled. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but it is ChosidFrumBirth that is doing the reverting here. He can't keep reverting anything he doesn't agree with from me, especially if he can't produce any sources to back him up. He shouldn't be allowed to revert referenced facts, just because he doesn't accept them and is unwilling to do the research.--Klezmer 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep denying sources weren't produced just because you don't like what they say. First you say they are mystery sources, then you claim they weren't produced, then you say you can't find it, then you say even so I have to accept "they are just plain wrong." --ChosidFrumBirth 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCES: WIESEL & ANSHEI SHEM:

Ok, Klezmer, to try to satisfy you I left work early, went to get my copy of Wiesel and then shlepped over to Skver.

Good work ChosidFrumBirth on checking the real references, rather than shootin' from the hip!--Klezmer 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't shooting from the hip -- these were the references I've given you several times already, I just didn't have the publication dates or page numbers. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesel, Four Hasidic Masters, paperback, 1978, page 32 "Like his grandfather the Besht, whom he was eager to resemble, Rebbe Barukh . . . "; page 33 "He considered himself the only ruler -- the keeper of the Hasidic flame. . . Thanks to him, Medzebozh became a capital for the second time, attracting Hasidim . . . a center for pilgrimage, a glorious symbol of a glorious kindom" [dynasty?]; page 33-34 "The Besht had two children: Reb Tzvi-Hersh and his sister Oudil. They were totally different . . . Reb Tzvi-Hersh was shy, forlorn, unassuming . . . unable and unwilling to assure his father's succession . . . his sister on the other hand was an extrovert . . . honored by Hasidim as though she were a Rebbe herself. And in a way she was. At her father's side--always;" page 35-36: "Oudil got her second son, Barukh. Tradition has it that she wanted him--and only him. She had given birth to one son already, Rebbe Ephraim, the future author and scholar--but Oudil wanted a Rebbe . . . and so she had Reb Barukh" page 36 "He grew up in the house of the Maggid of Mezeritch, and studied with Rebbe Pinhas of Koretz . . . He must have been a precocious child and the Besht loved him" page 37 "Reb Barukh . . . spoke his smind, treated an anonymous disciple as though he were his own pupil, and, who, in the presence of the Besht, dared speak of the Zohar at the age of three. . . . He studied with Rebbe Pinhas but failed to learn his concept of wealth . . . Unlike Rebbe Pinhas . . ." Page 38 "With the Maggid [of Mezritch] as protector and the Besht as grandfather, Reb Barukh could not fail." Page 41 "He alone could dispose of the Besht's heritage, he maintained; he alone could spread it . . ." and finally a sidenote on page 52 "Rebbe Barukh's grandson, Yehiel, came running into his study" (so there was a grandson, and in Mezbuz . . .); That certainly indicates that Barukh followed the spiritual legacy of the Besht not of Pinchas.

I don't read it that way at all. To me Wiesel doesn't say this. Wiesel is entirely consistent in what he says about Barukh. Wiesel speaks to Barukh's state of mind. He was a legend in his own mind, so to speak. Barukh believed himself to be the only true Chasid because of his lineage. You quoted it yourself: "He considered himself..." That doesn't make him the disciple of the Besht, though he might have believed it himself. He was spiritually trained by others, as you so quote. That is simple fact that can't be denied. Because he had a public falling out with them later, doesn't make it not so.--Klezmer 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no other way to read them. Baruch declared he followed the spiritual legacy of the Besht, was successor to the Besht, etc., etc. very clear -- so how could he ever have been considered under Pinchos just because Pinchos tutored him. I don't know about any falling out, but just because he was studying with Pinchos, what he was studying was his own grandfather's teachings. I think you're confusing tutoring/teaching/learning from somebody with following that person's spiritual legacy. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mekor Boruch, published in Zmashtosh & Koritz 1880, section 3 page 5a and section 4 5b: states that at the time of the Baal Shem Tov's death, Rabbi Pinchas of Korets and Rabbi Jacob Joseph of Polonoye, two of the Baal Shem Tov's closest disciples, reported to the Hasidim that the Baal Shem Tov had designated Reb Boruch as his successor, and instructed Reb Pinchos to take responsibility to carry out those wishes.

OK, and your point? Reb Pinchos took responsibility for his education, so? The Spiritual Legacy chart is about mentorship -- Who mentored whom. You, yourself are providing completely consistent evidence that Boruch's mentor was Reb Pinchos, not the Besht.--Klezmer 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's not spiritual legacy, it's teaching. Besides mentoring is two-sided, and Baruckh never considered Pinchos his mentor. If you're going to have a chart about teachers and students then don't call it spiritual legacy because it's not, and the rest of your chart is then wrong because most of those rebbes if not all of them had teachers other than their own fathers or grandfathers. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toldos Anshei Shem, Rand and Greenblat, New York, 1950, page 114 says that "Rebbe Yaakov Yisroel was born 1882 in Medzhiboz to his father the Rav, the tzadik, the Admor of Mezbuz."

That's more information than I had before. Let me check the name lists and get back to you on this one. Thanks for the added detail.--Klezmer 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefer Meshivas -- I also found a sefer published by the Zvil-Mezdzhibozh Bais Midrash about the current Zvhil-Medzhibozh rebbe tracing the lineage back directly down from Boruch to Yehiel Michael (the grandson mentioned by Wiesel) to Yehiel's son Mordechai to Mordechai's son Yaakov Yisroel, page 6, Sefer Mishivas Nefesh Yitzhak, 2000, 2001, second Revised Edition ISBN 0-9645367-1-4, and there is also their website at www.rebbe.org which has the same information. Even if you take into account that it would be their own point of view, you still have a present rebbe today directly descended from Boruch using the title Medzhibozh and continuing the line with ancestry back through Yaakov Yisroel, Mordechai, Yehiel, to Boruch. Big or little, important or insignificant or overshadowed by the Apter Rov (who was never the Medzhibuzer Rebbe) for a while you still can't say it died with Boruch and the "true heirs" are Zinkov.

Interesting stuff, pretty convincing. Let me get back to you on this.--Klezmer 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't "mystery sources", and they also coroborate the oral tradition that I know of. Now I only got into this in the first place just to share what I knew and help get the facts straight, but I don't have any agenda and I really don't care about this, and I've wasted a lot a lot of time, so at this point I leave it to others to whatever. --ChosidFrumBirth 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even looking and I just came across another two references in another library: --ChosidFrumBirth 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otzar Harabonim -- Encyclopedia of Rabbis, Admorim, Roshei Yeshiva, etc., Rabbi Noson Zvi Friedman, Bnai Brak, 1975; Page 297, Entry Number 14214 Harav Rebbe Mordechai Korf, Rav Zadik Mefursom, Admor MiMedzhboz. His son Harav Rebbe Yaakov Yisroel Korf (10194).

Sefer Zichron Mair -- Rav Yehuda Mair Schapira, Av Beis Din and Ram M'Lublin zt"l and Harav Avrohom Schapira, New York, 1953: "Moreinu Harav Yaakov Yisroel was born in 1882 to his father Harav Hatzadik Rebbe Motele, the Admor of Medzhiboz"

Different names than you posted before, let me check the name lists and get back to you.--Klezmer 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not different names at all -- we've been talking about the same Mordechai of Mezbuz and his son Yaakov Yisroel (who married the Zviler Rebbe's daughter) all along, the Otzar Harabonim is only the first source that added a last name Korf. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChosidFrumBirth: I am only trying to move things along... You and Klezmer both have vast knowledge that needs to be acknowledged. At this point we are still gathering information and the real "mediation" has not yet begun, so let's see where this leads us. But certainly, no-one should be wiping out the other person's valuable perspectives on such a tough subject for outsiders. IZAK 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kotzker

I've been following this debate with interest, but, like others, have been hesitant to get involved. However, I do have one question for Klezmer, which I don't think has been sufficiently addressed (and which might be helpful to mediators): Why are you so dismissive of Alfasi as a reputable source? While his works may not have ISBN numbers, they are indispensable to any student of the Hasidic movement. He was a professor at Bar Ilan University, wrote a number of important works about Hasidim, and is frequently cited in other scholarly works.

I have no objection to Alfasi as source. It simply has to be verifiable. I've seen nothing so far from ChosidFrumBirth that shows that this reference is valid or that Alfasi actually said it. Moreover, just because there was once a good scholar out there doesn't necessarily mean that new information can't supercede his work. I point this out because since the opening of the archives in the former Soviet Union, we have been able to see real name lists of people who lived in the towns. Things like census, tax rolls, synagogue lists, Duma lists, business directories, pinkas books by crown rabbis, cemetery burial lists, etc. This is independent evidence that should carry a tremendous amount of weight and might just happen to contradict some scholar no matter how important his contributions were at the time.--Klezmer 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the matter at hand, while I have great respect for Klezmer's scholarship on these matters, I think -- as a neutral observer to the debates, having no particular knowledge to support one side over the other -- that ChosidFrumBirth makes some points that need to be acknowledged.

1. the concept of dynasty is, and always has been, a bit fluid. Redaktor has made that point quite well. As to Klezmer's proposal for a definition, I think his is a bit oversimplified, especially the "over time" part. Who's to say that a descendant of a particular Rebbe can't reclaim a forgotten tradition and carry on a dynasty's name? I think what really matters is that adherents or heirs of a certain dynastic tradition claim to be carrying it on. Whether they truly are faithful to that tradition, or whether their claims to that title are legitimate is not for Wikipedia to judge.

Thanks for weighing in. I never meant "over time" to indicate continuity to the present day, just that it had some longevity to it. In other words, it doesn't die out in one generation. But you cover that by the term "carry on".--Klezmer 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. While the claims of "oral history" generally seem wildly out of place in Wikipedia, I think in some cases they shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Imagine if I, as a chasid of a particular sect, find some claim with a referenced source about my sect that I know to be patently false. The source might have made an honest mistake (scholarship, after all, doesn't just deal with facts, it also deals with analysis and speculative conclusions, which by definition can be erroneous). I might have no published source to back up my factual knowledge, but I have lived it and breathed it all my life. (Something akin to the sex through the sheet myth would be a good example.) I think it's fair -- to a degree -- to accept that scholarship, while serving as the basis for all knowledge, can also be erroneous, and a competing oral tradition might be acknowledged.

--Kotzker 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points: Klezmer's argument about missing data in the census records is interesting but ultimately not a decisive factor. First of all, place of residence shouldn't have an effect on one's claim to a dynasty. But even if it would, who's to say that missing census records show proof of non-existence?

The so-called "negative proof" concept. Hard to prove a negative. But the preponderance of evidence principle is what is key. OK, maybe one or two censuses have missing data. But you can't dismiss the fact that on dozens of lists the names never show up. And some they should have, for instance the synagogue records should show them; the Jewish cemetery has none of these people buried there. You can go there today and check it out. It's like they never existed in Medzhibozh.--Klezmer 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the matter of Apt, I've always known it as Apter Rov, not Rebbe. But if Klezmer provides references for the Rebbe titulary, what is the objection? To say that only Reb Boruch was known as Rebbe would seem counter to well-known traditions that refer to the Mezritcher Magid as the "Rebbe Reb Ber," as well as traditions referencing the "Rebbe Reb Zisha," "Rebbe Reb Meilech," and others. It is obvious that the term Rebbe evolved toward wider usage over time. It is therefore highly plausible that it was used by some, even if not by all.

--Kotzker 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with that. The unilateral reverts on the Apter Rov was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The main issue is on the Baal Shem Tov, List of Hasidic dynasties, and Medzbhibozh Hasidic dynasty pages that there is a Medzbhiboz dynasty tracing directly from Boruch that did not end or merge into Zvil or anyone else, and Boruch followed the "Spiritual Legacy" of his grandfather not Pinchos. Those are things which Klezmer just refused to accept and continued to revert and chip away at by inserting other edits to discredit those facts. Those are the edits which should be corrected from what they are now, but which every time I do so Klezmer reverts them --ChosidFrumBirth 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Yodamace1

I don't know much about the issue involved and simply don't have time to read through this whole mess plus the article, but here's my input on the point-by-point by Klezmer and the response by Chosid which I quickly scanned over:

(1)The Vilna Gaon was taught by one R' Moshe Margalit when the former was only 7, and the Wiki regards this "disciplish" relationship to grace the Gaon's page. Note that "disciple" and "successor" are two REALLY different terms. If the sources (not stories) do indeed note note that the Baal Shem Tov at any time taught R. Boruch, that makes the latter a disciple. It sounds to me like Chosid has for sure provided the sources that say R. Boruch was a successor. If there are any contradicting reliable sources (doesn't Lubavitch hold that the Besht passed on his reigns to the Alter Rebbe?), then we can make it that "Rabbis so-and-so claimed that the Baal Shem Tov had passed his dynasty on to R. Boruch, while prominent authorities from alternative dynasty so-and-so claimed that the dynasty had been passed to Rabbi so-and-so.

(2)Don't know a thing about this.

(3)R' Schneur Zalman of Lyady is today known as "The Alter REBBE" and the Chiddushei haRim as "The 1st Gerrer REBBE." Today, these titles are applicable as dynasties would later stem from these figures. So too with the Apter Rav. Much as Reb Yoel was both the Rav and Rebbe of Satmar, my guess is that R. Avraham Yehoshua filled both roles for Apt and, with numerous sources backing him, Chosid may utilize the term "Rebbe." --Yodamace1 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator Response

Will the parties accept me as mediator for this case? Jac_roe 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make trouble here, but I do have some questions about your qualifications. I'm hoping for a mature mediator who has been on Wiki for a while and who has maybe a history / humanities / religion background. It's not that I believe that a perfect type of special expertise is needed in this dispute, but I'm hoping for someone who understands academic / scholarly arguments such as these and has the maturity, experience, and the "Wiki-sense" to help us resolve these difficult POV issues. So my question to Jacroe - do you have these or similar qualifications?--Klezmer 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Klezmer's concerns, could Jac please kindly explain why he feels qualified handling this complex case? IZAK 06:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why my qualifications would be questioned. Especially since this is an informal group of mediators, but I'll play along for now. Yes, I have all qualifications that Klezmer has stated above. I am mature, but I will be informal. I am not a Wikilawyer so I will not be using formal, legal terms. If that's fine than we'll continue. However if not, say so, and I'll change this case from "open" back to "new". Jac_roe 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications are necessary because I believe they mean something in these arguments where we are debating scholarly points. Looking at your history of contributions, looks like you haven't been on Wiki very long because your name seems only active for about 4 months or so. Much of this debate happened before this period. You also seem to be focused on math and physics questions, which I believe are different from this type of debate. Further, you stated you are a freshman at some institution. I'm guessing that would put you in your late teens or perhaps early 20s. Perhaps not the mature individual that I was hoping could help us here. Can you explain?--Klezmer 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. Maturity has nothing to do with age. It helps, but has nothing to do with it. Maturity is wisdom, which I possess. I've been on here for years, I just had to take a lengthy wikibreak. This case is not for discussing whether or not something happened, but to come to an agreement on how to restore order to the article. -- Jac_roe 03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacroe, perhaps Klezmer has a point if on your user page you say that you are a high school freshman which makes you 13 or 14. IZAK 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or 15 or 16. Do we need a mediator to determine whether or not you need a mediator? Have you not heard of the 12 year old that made it through college? Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, I could have a fraction of that intelligence to help mediate on a case that just seems to be (and I qoute) "a good ole edit war" (end quote). You could be 9 for all we know. IQ has nothing to do with age. I can understand and help with arquements. I need not to know anything about the subject of this article.

A resolution is needed on a disagreement over whether Boruch of Medzhibozh should be considered a disciple of his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov, or of Pinchas of Koritz, who was his tutor. Klezmer will not hear of anything but that Boruch should be under Pinchas, and denies that Boruch had any Medzhibozh dynasty or that it existed, and I hold that this makes no sense.
Mediator bold

It really doesn't matter what he "should be" but what he was. And it doesn't matter what you think makes sense. May I remind of WP:NOR? Y'all about pissed me off. This article is WP:NOTYOURS. I understand that you would want to make it the best it can be, and hopefully get to featured status, but you're aren't accomplishing anything by arguing. Jac_roe 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with this. With all due respect to Jacroe, I'm sure he's a good mediator in other areas, but I don't believe he is the right person for the job here. Since Jacroe gave us a choice in accepting him as mediator, I respectfully vote no. Hopefully we will be hooked up with someone who can better understand that this is a scholarly / academic dispute amongst mature, experienced individuals. It is not a Wiki structure dispute. It is about content, not format.--Klezmer 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not like it because I'm right, or is it because you don't like to have a 15 year old giving advice to someone of your "high status"? Case changed to new. If you're so picky, you might be here a while. Anybody else think that I'm mentally inferior to them? Jac_roe 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gave us a choice. You asked "Will the parties accept me as mediator for this case?" That means that you have to accept the outcome of either a Yes or a No answer. I respectfully wish for someone different. I explained why above. I don't think it's an unreasonable response. I'm one of many, so others have to make up their own minds about this issue as well. But you have one No vote from me. That means you lack credibility in this discussion from my perspective. Your ranting just above this comment further justifies how I feel about this. A mediator needs some credibility in order to effectively do his/her job. To me the best course of action is to find another mediator. Someone with maturity and wisdom would surely understand this.--Klezmer 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jac: Calm down. No-one here is claiming to "own" anything, and we all know that Wikipedia abhors original research. Those are not issues here at all! You should know that there is indeed a huge difference between being 14 or 15 and being older, as it has many implications. See for example Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-30/News and notes:

"Board passes three resolutions: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees passed three resolutions in April which were made public this week. One resolution requires all stewards, OTRS volunteers, developers with access to nonpublic information, and users with "checkuser" or "oversight" access to provide identification and confirmation that they are 18 years of age, and of age in their jurisdiction. The identification would not be publicly provided except when required under the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. Deleted revisions are not considered nonpublic information for the purposes of this resolution, meaning that administrators who do not serve in any of the capacities listed above would be exempt from the policy." [1]

Now this would not be an issue if you had not yourself stated on your own User page that you are a high school freshman, which makes you about 13 or 14 (ok, maybe it's old info and you are now 15 or 16) but if the Wikimedia Foundation thinks its important for them to have people to be OFFICIALLY 18, as an age of majority for important functions and that would not require parental consent for actions you commit, we too here are fairly and squarely entitled to expect that a mediator be at least officially old enough to be deemed a legal major and not a minor in any sense of the word, especially since we are looking for wisdom and maturity for a subject that is based on Jewish wisdom. See Age of majority article for more about this subject. Based on this I join with User:Klezmer and say that no you are not the right person for this job at this time. Thank you, 06:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)IZAK

OK, so how about this? Would the parties involved be cool with me being mediator? I put my comments on my initial view above, but I'll read through the rest to make sure I get it right (I also have 2 extensive Jewish libraries at my immediate disposal). This coming Tuesday, I would be sure to read through all of the information and then mediate. That would give everybody enough time to make sure their views are completely clarified. I actually won't be coming on the Wiki anymore until said date, so if you have any questions, please email me at [email protected] --Yodamace1 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a better choice. Thanks for volunteering. Yodamace1 fits most of my criteria - he has been on Wiki at least for 2 years now. He has a long record of scholarship and has a demonstrated record of contributions in the subject matter we are discussing. While I have no idea (nor do I care) how old he is, he has demonstrated maturity of thought and clearly understands the academic / scholarly arguments presented. My only reservations about him are that (1) he may have an agenda, (2) it doesn't appear that he has a record of mediation experience, and (3) he appears to have a long-standing connection with IZAK, who himself is a party to this dispute. I'm willing to give it a go as long as these 3 reservations don't get in the way of the discussion.--Klezmer 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klezmer: I tend to agree with your reservations (1) and (2), but I totally disagree with you on (3) because you can rest assured that there is NO official or unofficial connection between myself and User:Yodamace1 beyond that we are vaguely aware that we both exist as editors on Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is a huge place and while editors may notice each other over the years, they usually have little connection with each other. I challenge you to look at our respective editorial contributions (Yodamace1 (talk · contribs) and IZAK (talk · contribs)) and point to where there is any significant indication that Yodamace1 and myself have had any meaningful contact or have worked together on anything. I honestly doubt that Yodamace1 has an "agenda" (he seems to be more of a "Misnagid" though -- in fact he even starts off here by talking about the Vilna Gaon, so I hope that is not a strike against him!) and if he does we will spot it very quickly and reject him since that would betray a lack of WP:NPOV and it would be very dumb for anyone to take on mediating a project with parties who are so knowledgeable that would harm his reputaion. So I think he would have a lot to lose by coming here with an "agenda." That having been said, I will support your willingness to give it a go. (Again, may I repeat, I have no agenda beyond seeing to it that both you and User:ChosidFrumBirth can find a way to have your POV's reconciled so that the articles in question can benefit from the input coming from both of you.) IZAK 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do very much like Yodamace1's "credo" as he explicates it on his user page in one of his first sentences: "I have a dream. A dream that one day, teenagers, college kids, and yeshiva bochurim will find a healthy way to vent so that they may remain psychologically stable." (See User:Yodamace1#About Me) Not bad, not bad at all. So true, and very mature and profound indeed! Oh, and what is there not to like about someone who identifies their user name with "Yoda" mamash a real chochem. IZAK 23:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my confusion, but I didn't realize IZAK was a party to the dispute, I thought he was mediating. Second, I thought we were already headed for a resolution -- I'm fine with including the Apter Rov as a rebbe also (even though I don't think the term rebbe was being used the way we use it today), and I thought Klezmer felt better about the sources and for the sake of completeness was ok with Baruch as a disciple of the Besht and head of a continuing Medzhibozh (even though he preferred to keep Baruch with his tutor Pinchas and felt Medzhibozh was weak). --ChosidFrumBirth 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChosidFrumBirth: Let me be very clear, I am neither "mediating" this case nor am I a party to the dispute between you and User:Klezmer. What I did do in this case here was to bring it to the Mediation Cabal in the hope that you and Klezmer could arrive at a workable relationship and that your contributions to this subject should be respected. I did however back User:Klezmer in his concerns about User:Jac as a mediator, and I back him in accepting User:Yodamace1 as a mediator, and I reassured him that I have no connection with Yodamace1 in any way. So at this point it is only User:Yodamace1 who is the only mediator and we are all free to chime in and present our views. Basically we are waiting for Yodamace1 to read everything here and get back to us, as he has requested above. Then we will take it from there. IZAK 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clearafication. I still thought that Klezmer and I were already pretty much in agreement now and can make the changes in the articles. --ChosidFrumBirth 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, don't put words into my mouth. The way the articles are right now are satisfactory to me. Which means changes aren't proven to me to be necessary at this point. (1) There's this issue as to what the definition of a "dynasty" is. (2) There's the issue of whether Rabbi Boruch's descendants can claim to be a "dynasty" in and of themselves. Or are they really something else. (3) Then there's the issue of whether Boruch was the Besht's disciple. I haven't seen anything yet to say these issues are fully resolved. Seems like you've come a long way in convincing me on (2) with references. But the Medzhibozh Dynasty has a presence in Wiki anyway - that wasn't really that much of an issue. I have yet to find these people in other independent lists, though, which is very troubling. I'm still checking, hoping to find something of a match. The Boruch disciple thing is still a bugger, but it depends on how you define the list I originally put together. Seems like we've resolved the Apter Rov vs. Rebbe issue in favor of having both.--Klezmer 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that goes both ways then. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just trying to be more open-minded and liberal thinking you were doing the same, but if not, then nothing is resolved yet, including the Apter issue. On 1) and 2) the way dynasty is used in Wiki and elsewhere and in English there certainly is a continuation, maybe weak in some generations and stronger in others, but if they say its so, then it is and not for us to judge especially when they are descendants, were called by that name, and exist -- you can't call them Zvil or something else when they trace back to Baruch just because they married daughters from Zvil or Chernobyl or elsewhere they didn't just merge or disappear if they use the name like they did and are today. As for the disciple issue, it is a person's own choice not somebody else's as to who he is a disciple of, and its very clear Boruch rejected everyone else and chose to be a disciple (and according to him successor also) of his grandfather the Besht, and we can't make him a disciple of someone else. So that's where it stands at the moment. --ChosidFrumBirth 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that my entire life situation switched this week and from now on, my once a week Wikipedia venture will be on Sundays and perhaps other days too. I'm gonna do this thing today. My connection to IZAK is very slight; he has emailed me when there are issues on the Wiki that he felt I might be interested in, never telling me which way to vote/edit (i.e. the Talk:allegations of Israeli apartheid quick straw poll where I disagreed with him on the issue at hand) and usually I am unable to respond to the issues anyways. I also have no agenda and am completely impartial to the issue at hand. --Yodamace1 08:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so this is my first time mediating, this I admit. I might be doing the format wrong. If so, somebody please edit this accordingly. For many of the issues involved, it seems that WP:VER is involved (we don't care about truth but verifiability) and I have indicated that where necessary. Here are my two cents:

User:ChosidFrumBirth is correct on the Baal Shem Tov issue. According to "TheFreeDictionary.com", "legacy" means "something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past." According to Mekor Boruch, the Besht handed down his dynasty to his grandson/successor. Reb Pinchas was instructed to prepare him for this succession. Therefore, Reb Boruch is the heir of said "Spiritual Legacy." Was Reb Boruch indeed trained by the Besht? If it indeed says so in Mekor Boruch or some other source (I don't care about "stories", see WP:VER), then it is fine. However, I am not as sure as User:Redaktor that combining this with the fact that others diverged from the Baal Shem Tov's approach "clearly makes him [Reb Boruch] the successor of the Baal Shem Tov and no-one else." If others claim in reliable sources that others were actually successors, then the article should read something like the following: "As recorded in the early Hasidic work Mekor Boruch (first published in 1880 from handwritten manuscripts), at the time of the Baal Shem Tov's death, Reb Pinchos of Korets and Reb Yosef of Polonoe, two of the Baal Shem Tov's closest followers, reported to the Hasidim that the Baal Shem Tov had designated Reb Boruch as his successor, and instructed Reb Pinchos to take responsibility for carrying out those wishes. However, Rabbi Ploni disputes this in his Sefer haJohn Doe, however, and claims that he heard directly from the Baal Shem Tov that John Doe, later to become the John Doer Rebbe, was to be the former's successor" or something like that. User:Itzse claims that the Maggid of Mezeritch was the successor and this was my impression as well. However, we'd need a reliable source for that.
User:Klezmer's proposed that a Hasidic dynasty be defined as "(1) a lineage of thought and (2) followers of that brand of chasidism throughout time." This nullifies Klezmer's own earlier disputed argument that no later Mendzibozhers would live there can be utilized as a proof that Mendzibozh is dead. Klezmer "believe[s] the dynasty really died out with R. Boruch, but no wants to hear that argument..." Does Klezmer have sources? Unless he does, Chosidfrumbirth's argument that "...it didn't die out because Boruch has descendants, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren and on who both lived in Mezdzhibozh and continued to use the title and claim their lineage to him. I guess that is the key issue here and at the bottom of the dispute. And as long as there are Rebbes around who say that, confirmed by the sources I provided, then Medzhiboz did not just die out" is more convincing.
The phrase "Other unrelated rabbinic dynasties that claim Mezhbizh as their geographic root include the Apta (Hasidic dynasty) and Rapoport-Bick (rabbinic dynasty))" seems to be a tiny issue and I can see both sides, but I'm inclined to agree with Chosidfrumbirth and allow it to stay only in the Mendzibozh city article. Klezmer may get through this through a technical loophole, however, if he can provide interaction between Apta/Rapoport-Bick and the Mendzibozhers.
Klezmer seems to be correct that Four Hasidic Masters does not back Chosidfrumbirth's assertion that the Baal Shem Tov handed his reigns to Reb Boruch and it should be removed as a source. However, as I noted above, Mekor Boruch is enough to allow said assertion to stay in the article.
Chosidfrumbirth claims that Klezmer is "missing the point of how hasidic dynasties were built and lived -- usually the name of the place where the rebbe became known attaches and then stays with him wherever he goes. Boruch started in toltchin but became the Medzhibozh Rebbe and that would have stuck even if he moved to Queens. The Apter was called the Apter even after he moved to Medzhibozh because he made his name and reputation in Apt." Chosidfrumbirth is completely 100% correct here.
User:Kotzker is right: Klezmer is correct that the Apter Rov is both Rov and Rebbe. See WP:VER. We don't care about truth on the Wiki, but verifiability. If he provides sources for "Rebbe," then it's fine. Also, as I noted in my above statement, many figures from the 18th century were not known as "rebbes" and today are.
Until Klezmer sourcechecks the Toldos, the Meshivas, the Otzar, and the Zichron, they are reliable enough sources for documented successors living in Mendzibozh (not that it really matters, as I outlined above in relation to how the "lived-in-the-city" argument is nullified) and a claimed succession to Mendzibozh which is still around today. I would think that they certainly outweigh old city lists, but if Klezmer finds a source that definitively attack Chosidfrumbirth's assertion that these successors lived in Mendzibozh (it sure is odd that the big rebbes wouldn't be on census lists...), then the issue should be rehashed. I agree with User:Kotzker that censuses and lists are often missing names and the books get weight here.
I think that Kotzker is correct in all of his assertions save one: oral history is dismissed as a Wikirule. see WP:VER.

--Yodamace1 10:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the mediator

I think that Yodamace1 (talk · contribs) has done a swell job. What does everyone else think? Can Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs) agree to agree or agree to disagree, as the case may be? IZAK 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Conclusions / Understanding

So if I understand correctly, Yodamace1 has concluded:

1. Baruch should go under the Spiritual Legacy of the Besht on the Hasidic dynasty and Baal Shem Tov articles.

2. Baruch's claim that he was successor to Besht can be mentioned but is not exclusive or the only successor (such as Magid of Mezritch).

3. The Medzhibozh Hasidic dynasty page should have the continuation of the dynasty and not say it ended or was merged into some other dynasty.

4. The Bick/Rapaport/Apt references belong only on the Medzhibozh city article and not in the Medzhibozh Hasidic dynasty article.

5. The Apt article should use both rav and rebbe terms.

This seems factual and reasonable to me. --ChosidFrumBirth 12:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to mediator: from Klezmer

Sorry for not responding sooner, I was away from computer last week...

Unlike ChosidFrumBirth, I'm not so fast to jump to conclusions, especially on difficult academic issues.

Thank you Yodamace1 for digging into the issues. However, I thought you were to serve as a mediator, not an arbitrator. Now there are irons in the fire from your perspective, as well. I do respect that you have interesting opinions about these issues. But I didn't think it was your job to act as judge and jury alone; I thought your job was only to serve as a mediator.

- Arbitrator, mediator, what's the difference -- I thought his job was to take a look at everything and say what he thinks. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mediator's job is to help others come to an amicable agreement. If he becomes another party to the argument, then he's not doing his job.--Klezmer 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tough to have an amicable agreement when you just refuse to be reasonable and accept any facts or published works that don't agree with your view. At worst there is another viewpoint that you can't just ignore and eliminate. At some point someone has to decide. --ChosidFrumBirth 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so silly. Of course I accept facts from published works. I already said that I accept the contention that these people claim to be descendants of Boruch and that they claim to use the name of the town. My only problem is that it can't be proven that they really lived in Medzhibozh, like one of the sources claimed. Moreover, the source claimed that one of the people lived specifically in the Baal Shem Tov's house, and that is simply not true based on numerous public government records. You can call them a dynasty for all I care, as long as someone agrees to the definition of what a dynasty is so we are not mixing terms.--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can take the points on the table one at a time:

Legacy/Succession of Boruch: I wrote the chart in the first place, maybe I worded the title wrong and got everyone confused? Right now, I'm not sure whether this chart has any meaning whatsoever, so I'm in favor of deleting it in its entirety, unless everyone can decide its purpose/usefulness. In my twisted mind, I thought I was doing everyone a favor by showing the disciple-student relationships and how they spawned different branches. That's what the original meaning of the chart was in my mind. I believe everyone is in agreement that Boruch was NOT in a disciple-student relationship with the Besht. He was too young. He had that relationship with R. Pinchas. How one leader "handed down" their dynasty as their inheritance - I never intended that chart to deal with that issue at all. Seems like everyone is all wrapped up in that issue.

- I actually like the chart and found it interesting, I just think that to try to stick with a frozen unflexible definition of what a disciple-student relationship gets it wrong when we're talking about a grandson who lived with his grandfather, studied his words, was admired by his grandfather, and viewed himself as his grandfather's disciple (and even successor) even though his grandfather died when he was only 7 or so. He did not have that relationship with Pinchas, who was only a teacher, and who didn't consider himself to be a disciple of. That's a voluntary, choice thing by the person who chooses to be a disciple of someone and accepts him -- Boruch clearly saw himself as a disciple of his grandfather and never accepted anyone else as his real teacher or predecessor. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a Chasidic Dynasty?: I'm willing to go with whatever y'all decide. But whatever is decided should be a clear-cut definition that can avoid such disputes in the future. I posted a straw-man definition. If someone has something better, I'm all ears. I'm not sure where Yodamace1 is heading with this one.

- Again, I don't think we can stick with a frozen unflexible definition that applies to all situations. I don't see why you can't accept that a person who leaves descendents and heirs who continue that person's traditions and carry that name means there is a dynasty. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you like it or not, we have to come up with a definition that everyone can live with. Otherwise, if the definition is fluid every time we talk about another dynasty, the same arguments will persist. Having a fluid definition is like having no definition at all. Then we can't all speak the same language when we discuss this matter. And you can make up anything you want to. (I think I should claim that I'm a dynasty. I passed through Medzhibozh too, so call me Mezhbozh II dynasty... see how it could go?)--Klezmer 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Klezmer: It is beyond the scope of this mediation and any one mediator to take it upon themselves to decide in absolute definitive terms what a Hasidic dynasty is or is not. There are dynasties that have essentially ceased to exist, like for example, Husiatyn (Hasidic dynasty) and Aleksander (Hasidic dynasty) and even if there may or may not be a some obscure successors or claimants holding on to those names they can logically still be called "dynasties" even though they have ceased to exist historically. Conversely, there are indeed others who created modern-day "dynasties" for themselves out of literal thin air, such as Pittsburg (Hasidic dynasty), Sasregen (Hasidic dynasty) and Boston (Hasidic dynasty) yet they are no less a "dynasty" than any other, after all how did the Baal Shem Tov start himself off? He had no "dynasty" of his own!!! Like these relatively recent one man shows. Thus, whether we like it or not, by virtue of the very nature of the subject we are talking about here it means that it's TRUE to say, as you do, that "the definition is fluid every time we talk about another dynasty" -- not as the question you frame it as, but as an accurate description of how Hasidic Rebbes come upon the scene, build up a following, and set themsleves up as a "dynasty" -- sometimes it's tiny and sometimes it's huge, at times it dies out and at others it flourishes beyond belief, but nevertheless, once a Hasidic Rebbe has appeared and is essentially accepted BY HIS PEERS as one of them, he is "on the map" so to speak, and that is essentially what a Hasidic "dynasty" is all about. We need to remember that this phrase "Hasidic dynasty" is only English and has no usage among Hasidim, let alone Rebbes, whereas on the other hand, in the Rebbishe kreisen ("Rebbes' circles") they have their own system of acknowledging each other. Finally, indeed, there are about a half a dozen major Hasidic dynasties in the world today, three giants in the USA: Satmar, Bobov, and Lubavitch and three giants in Israel: Ger, Vizhnitz and Belz, and all the rest are middling or pygmy Rebistavis so what is there to argue about? It is not for Wikipedia, and certainly beyond the scope of this mediation attempt, to get into the nitty gritty of deciding which Hasidic groups are in any way shape size or form like "the big six" and which are just local shtieblach with a local Rebbe and his sons or sons-in-law associated with it. Let's leave that for another time and rather focus on clarifying the issues at hand here. Thanks, IZAK 10:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which definition's best; I was just pointing out that with your definition, one of your arguments should be considered null and void. --Yodamace1 13:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK's point is a very good one that solves this whole issue -- if a rebbe goes by his family and ancestors line, goes by the title of rebbe of that dynasty, and is recognized and accepted by the other rebbes then who are any of us to say it's not a dynasty. --ChosidFrumBirth 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for someone to come up with a reasonable definition that we can all live with. I can't tell you how many times I've asked for it. You all decide and I'm sure it'll be fine. But just come to some type of conclusion on a definition of "dynasty" and we can move on.--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klezmer: The small gathering of editors here cannot take it upon themselves to decide what does or does not constitute a "Hasidic dynasty" in absolute terms. Usually, secular sources, when referring to this subject talk of "Hasidic sects" headed by "Grand Rabbis" and as far as I know, noone runs around asking and saying "exactly what defines a 'Hasidic sect'" and "who and what qualifies anyone to be a 'Grand Rabbi'"? Also note that Wikipedia is not in the business of setting up the "gold standard" for any subject, see Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought which in our case means that if some Hasidic Rebbes are regarded as known, noted, valid and respected leaders and scholars of and by other Hasidim, and if on top of that they succceed in creating a dynastic lineage, as indicated by many lineage lines in many articles, (i.e. in effect creating what we call a "Hasidic dynasty"), then no matter how small or insignificant their following or influence may be to an outside academic observer, they nevertheless are a Hasidic dynasty for all intents and purpose as far as Hasidism is concerned. To push for an "exact" definition is overkill and in large measure not to the point when dealing with a subject like this. This is not mathematics nor is it molecular science! By asking for impossible specifics you are in effect unfairly broadening the parameters of this discussion (which would not cause it to focus as you would wish) and instead causing it to spill over into other areas of what is Hasidism and who and what are the criteria for leadership in the movement that underlies your question of what constitues a Hasidic dynasty when you know full well that such a definition can never be arrived at in absloute terms. To do so would mean that we open a totally new discusion and actively seek the input of any editor who has ever said a word about Hasidism. Which brings us full circle, and therefore this discussion, of what constitutes a Hasidic dynsty could then be discussed at Talk:List of Hasidic dynasties, where you already started such a debate. IZAK 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, by this logic, none of us "small group of editors" have any business creating Hasidic dynasty pages in the first place, or placing so-called dynasties within existing charts. That goes for the "Mezhbizh Dynasty" page or any other. On this issue, you would rather argue in circular directions, leading no where.--Klezmer 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klezmer: On the contrary, thus far Wikipedia editors have not sat in judgment on any movement because all Hasidic dynasties (or "sects" or "groups" usually lead by Rebbes or "Grand Rabbis") have received EQUAL editorial treatment, be they large or small, no-one has judged them. It is only you that now wishes to challenge the standing of a group and by association imply that the entire system that has worked well thus far, namely giving any KNOWN (usually through WP:V and WP:CITE) Hasidic group unprejudiced equality. The "creation" of "Hasidic dynasty pages in the first place" should not be denigrated as you do now, it should be praised, because there is no other source on the web where this kind of information and Hasidism and its leading personalities, both from the past and the present, has been gathered together in such a manner and exposed to editorial improvement of content which is still ongoing. To rip the whole edifice down in the name of creating an elusive improved "heirarchical system" in this subject would maybe of any possible meaning for talking-head academics and have absolutely no meaning to or connection with its primary subject matter: Hasidic Rebbes, Hasidim and Hasidic Judaism, and therefore the public at large would never learn a thing about this important movement in Judaism as it truly exists. So kindly take a few steps back, and try not to turn over the entire apple cart, and stick to your discussion here relating to Apta and Mezhiboz. IZAK 11:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other rabbinic dynasties from Mezhbozh: I don't believe adding this information in any way takes away from the article. It merely leads Wiki searchers in other directions if that is not what they really meant when they came across the article. That being said, I think there is a clear connection between the Apter line and Boruch. Why did the Apter Rebbe come to Medzhibozh and set down roots there just 2 years after Boruch's death? Boruch was a staunch defender of his brand of chasidus as the only true chasidus to the exclusion of others and chased other rebbes away. Everyone knows about his legendary battles with R. Shneur Zalman of Liady. The only conclusion one could make is that the Apter Rebbe took advantage of the power vacuum left behind in Medzhibozh after Boruch's death. This was apparently a peaceful transition as I can find no documentation otherwise. Anyway, there is a connection and a meaning here that future researchers might want to explore. But to be completely silent about it in the Mezhbizh article is a disservice to Wiki readers.

- And that's the point -- nobody went there while Boruch was alive, and maybe his immediate descendants were more open or welcoming or even related to the Apter, but Apt was Apt and Medzhibozh was Medzhibozh, and they are not the same dynasties. Wiki readers interested will see the Medzibozh city article which references all these people, and will be referred to the Medzhibozh city article by this dynasty article anyway. I think including other dynasties is just confusing this dynasty. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not confusing anything, just putting it in it's proper historical context. It happened that way and it's part of it's history, why ignore the facts?--Klezmer 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The only conclusion" is against Wiki policy. You are not allowed to draw your own conclusions from these things. Get a source for that connection and then you can put stuff about the Apter. --Yodamace1 13:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about the fact that the Apter Rebbe is buried right smack dab next to Boruch and directly across from the Besht (Cemetery inventories as source) and that he took up residence in Medzhibozh 2 years after Boruch's death (biographical source)?--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean a thing -- the Lubavitcher Rebbe isn't buried in Lubavitch but it doesn't mean he wasn't the Lubavitcher Rebbe and that someone else who is buried in Lubavtich should be included in the Lubavitch dynasty. You don't even know who it was in power at the time of the Apter's death who made the decision as to who would be buried near the Baal Shem Tov and why that decision was made. It doesn't make them part of the Medzibozh dynasty. --ChosidFrumBirth 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point. The town's leadership in 1825, whoever they happened to be, thought the Apter Rebbe was of equal stature to Boruch and worthy of a gravesite adjacent to the Besht. Therefore, this brand of Chasidus had apparently become the dominant sect in Medzhibozh at the time. This is born out in the numerous documents from this time and later (I provided an illuminated copy of one of them in the Apter article). And like I said previously, you'd be hard-pressed to find any documents about Boruch's supposed legacy sect from this time period.--Klezmer 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing -- first, just because the Apter is buried there doesn't mean they saw him as equal stature -- maybe it wasn't the town leadership at all, but Boruch's heirs who had a relationship with the Apter or respected him -- doesn't make him equal of heir to the Medzhibozh dynasty or successor to Boruch. There are others buried right there too -- doesn't make Wolf Kitzes a Medzibozh rebbes who succeeded the Apter because he's buried right after him, just hasidim who wished to be buried near the holy Besht. Maybe that's the closest spot that was available at the time, or the one he bought from the local funeral director -- you don't know anything for sure --ChosidFrumBirth 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from Medzhibozh: I'm completely baffled by the complete lack of evidence that should be in independent sources about the descendants of R. Boruch in Medzhibozh. I would love to find such evidence, but I spend a considerable amount of time researching this and can't find any. I've rechecked every list I've got hoping to find something different but I've come up dry. If this information is missing, it calls into question the voracity of the chasidic sources. In other words, just because it is published in a chasidic history doesn't make it correct. It makes me wonder whether this is a fraudulent claim. I'm particularly concerned that (1) house censuses don't list these people living where they claim they lived (in the Besht's house). All the censuses claim it is owned by the kahal. That fits 20th century eyewitness accounts that claim the house was a kind of shrine that was off limits to most people. (2) Russian synagogue lists from the early-mid 1800s don't list these people, their kloiz or synagogue. This is important, because it was unlikely Russian authorities would miss these people when tax revenues were involved. The Apter line and the Rapaport line are listed, but no one else. (3) New evidence - I spent some time at the New York Public Library researching Hamelitz articles. These were Hebrew and Yiddish language newspapers written by reporters in Russia. Medzhibozh is featured at least two dozen times in articles from the 1840s through the 1890s. Several articles talk about the rabbis in charity and kashrut issues. Never once does it mention one of these rabbis from the Mezhbizh line, though Apter and Rapaport rabbis are mentioned quite often (not always in a positive light, I might add!). (4) Most telling - why aren't these people buried in the Jewish Cemetery? There are two concise inventories of graves, one by Chapin and Weinstock and another by Dvorkin. I'm been to the cemetery myself and never observed these graves. I've studied all my notes and photos from this cemetery and came up dry. If they lived there, had followers, etc. why aren't they buried there? Even prominent women can be found in this incredibly well-preserved cemetery. For instance, Udl, the Besht's daughter, is there, as well as the Besht's wife. Hershel Ostropoler is there, too. Where are the descendants of Boruch? Where are their wives? It is also interesting to note the layout of the graves because it gives some indication of the pecking order. It indicates status at the time of their death. You see the Besht and his followers, Boruch, then the most prominent "Zion" is that of Apter Rebbe. Even the mitnagdim Rapoport/Bick rabbis are right there in a prominent location. If these Boruch descendants were so important, why aren't they buried near their famous ancestors? In Chapin and Weinstock's cemetery map B, p. 165. The Besht's grave is surrounded by #81 Zev Wolf Kitses, #83 Moshe Chaim Sudulkov, #83' Boruch (in a rather unremarkable grave), #82 Apter Rebbe (in an incredibly fancy grave right next to Boruch across from the Besht), #71-75 Rapaport-Bicks (next to Zev Wolf Kitses).--Klezmer 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Research has its limits. I wish I had the answers. Can't the census lists be wrong or incomplete or not accurate? Does every descendant or heir get buried in the family plot? Maybe they wanted some space from their father or grandfather or great grandfather Boruch and the Baal Shem Tov who were such big figures. Maybe they took a break somewhere else and then went back when they matured more, or a generation later. Who knows. There could be a million reasons why. But you don't have all the answers either and everything you said and all the questions you raise, which are interesting, still don't change the fact that there were people who knew about them, and published books written by credible Hassidic experts and rabbis who mention them time after time. So just because you can't find them on some list (and who knows why), and just because some more modern research doesn't have them (and that's easy to happen), doesn't mean it's not true, and doesn't mean that all the published books, and even verifiable oral history (ask the rebbes today who know) can be ignored or isn't true. It can't be false or made up because there are just too many books by different people and too many rebbes who know it. You can't just dismiss Hassidic sources because they don't agree with 'modern research' -- it's just too widely known, and published, to be wrong.

You're relying mostly on secondary sources, and these Hasidic sources are primary sources by the people who lived there and kept up the traditions and by people who knew that and wrote about them. Even if it was never published anywhere, something that is so widely known by people experts in the field and the rebbes and hasidim today can't just be called not true just because some modern academic secondary source missed it, probably because they were new to the field and just studying it or writing a paper without knowing who to interview or speak to and just relying on limited written sources like census records. You're just wrong on this. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I can't believe you're saying this! This whole argument here shows incredible ignorance on your part, ChosidFrumBirth. A primary source is one that could stand up to a court of law. A secondary source is one that is based on hearsay. It doesn't matter how old the source. The Chasidic sources are clearly hearsay and not necessarily based on first-hand accounts. Government sources such as tax records, censuses, cemetery records, etc. are always considered PRIMARY sources. They are based on facts obtained without prejudice. They can't be ignored in this argument. In fact, if I were a judge and jury based on what I know now about this evidence, I would suspect the Chasidic sources as being fraudulent (or at the very least untruthful about certain facts). That's the problem here. If these people were so important to your argument about a dynasty, why are they totally invisible in the public record except in secondary sources that have something to gain?--Klezmer 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klezmer: Nobody is on trial here, and your "law" analogy is very narrow, this discussion is closer to Jewish history, see the definition of Primary source: "In historical scholarship, a primary source is a document, or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. In this sense primary does not mean superior. It refers to creation by the primary players, and is distinguished from a secondary source, which in historical scholarship is a work, such as a scholarly book or article, built up from primary sources." And secondary source: "In historical scholarship, a secondary source is a work of history written as a synthetic account, usually based on primary sources and other secondary sources. Most scholarly historical monographs published today are secondary sources. Ideal secondary sources are usually characterized as both reporting events in the past as well as performing the function of generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or evaluation of the events." Are you awre of this? By the way, your "LOL" comment/s may border on violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. IZAK 11:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at this, so I appreciate the feedback. I didn't make myself clear. The things I said were my impressions. Can you contradict any of them, Klezmer? WP:VER seems to be a rule which very few of your edits can get through (although I appreciate the lack of invective that usually comes with these sorts of disputes), but I'd like to hear your input. Your sources may be "without prejudice," but they are often known to be incomplete and the "biased" sources are considered acceptable by Wikistandards. You may have better arguments than our Chosid friend here in my opinion, but the latter's arguments fit within the Wiki's rules better than yours. All you have to do is show how your arguments can be considered within Wikistandards, again especially per the Verification rule. --Yodamace1 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one. There are 16 different Medzhibozh censuses and tax records that are documented over the period from the mid 1700's through the very early 1900's. I won't repeat my analysis here, but you can read about it and see examples at Talk:List of Hasidic dynasties. Okay, I'm willing to accept that maybe a few were biased, but unlikely that 16 are all biased the same way. They were under different administrations (Polish and Russian) and the documents served different purposes. I'm sorry, but this incredible volume of information cannot be ignored so easily. We have a body of 16 different types of government records that are all in agreement on two facts - these people of the Boruch's lineage were invisible in the town of Medzhibozh (they don't show up in any of the records) and they didn't live in the Besht's house. Moreover, it's hard to account for the cemetery records that don't show them buried in the town's Jewish cemetery. Furthermore, when I said "without prejudice" I meant that none of these records were designed specifically to censor any individuals. They weren't written, for instance, by people out to purposely expunge Boruch's lineage from the public record. They were written for official documentation purposes and I'm sure that the government officials collecting the information had no idea it would be used in a scholarly debate in Wiki!--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and once an error or omission is made it is easy to repeat the next 16 times -- I don't know of anyone breaking down the doors to be included on the tax rolls. Besides, they could have come and gone, or there could be some other reason that none of us know about or could imagine. Doesn't mean they weren't there, particularly when there are published sources that say they were. --ChosidFrumBirth 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely. These are different lists collected for different purposes by different administrators at different times. These were recorded at the time the information existed by authoritative figures there at the time such as the town administrators, Crown Rabbis, or the Magnates who owned the town. It is extremely unlikely, for instance that a list of synagogues has the same purpose than a draft list. A Duma registration list has nothing to do with taxes. A map of the town for planning purposes (which lists houses and inhabitants) would not likely have omissions on it. Etc, etc. It is more likely that an untruth meant to embellish or advance a particular Chasidic line is repeated over and over in a Chasidic oral story that then gets written down with the falsehood intact.--Klezmer 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely -- there was nothing to gain, who would publish an untruth that was known at the time, and the authors were independent. Much more likely is not that it's untrue but some other reason, as extremely unlikely as you say it is it is still possible, no? --ChosidFrumBirth 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Klezmer's accusation is disgusting that Hasidic sources must be "fraudulent or untruthful" simply because they include facts that Chapin doesn't. These Hasidic sources are independent comprehensive encylopedia like, not connected with Medzhibozh, and so could not have any bias or any reason to be fraudulent or untruthful. Also, one of the published works, Toldos Anshei Shem, isn't even a Hasidic source and lists not just rebbes but all prominent rabbonim, rosh yeshivahs, etc., etc. The bottom line is that there is more than enough verified facts to show the existence and continuation of the Medzhibozh dynasty, and Klezmer has not proved otherwise. If anything it just proves that Chapin, who Klezmer seems to be married to, was incomplete or just plain wrong. And therefore also Apt/Bick or anyone else has no place being included confusing the Medzbhizoh dynasty and belongs only on the city page. On the other issue of Baruch being a follower of the spiritual legacy of Pinchas, that just makes no logical sense at all in the face of Baruch's own view of himself and who he succeeded -- Baruch didn't become Baruch of Koretz or the Koretzer but returned to Medzhibozh to claim successor as grandson and disciple of his grandfather the Baal Shem Tov, and Klezmer hasn't provided anything that says otherwise except that Pinchas was one of Baruch's teachers. All this just seems so straightforward and simple, and I don't know why Klezmer just refuses to accept any of it and insists just on his own/Chapin's research and opinions. --ChosidFrumBirth 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. It's not just Chapin and Weinstock that I'm quoting from. The Censuses are part of the public record. The Family History Center of the LDS has complete Russian records on microfilm that you can check out. The Hebrew University in Jerusalem has the Czartoryskiy archives which contains the Polish records. The Verdnasky Library in Kiev has the town's Pinkas books. You can also look up Hamelitz articles, if you want. They're in the NY Public Library. An English-language version of the cemetery inventory is in Chapin and Weinstock, but you are welcome to look at the Russian-language version in Lukin, 1997, 100 еврейских местечек Украины Vol. 1, St. Petersburg, ISBN 5-89007-008-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. No, it's not just one source but a plethora of them. If you only rely on one source you can get yourself into trouble. Also see the various Eli Weisel sources (a noted Chasidic scholarly expert long before his Nobel prize), which you misinterpreted earlier.--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Klezmer, it is rather odd that you can accept the veracity of what is held in dormant "LDS" (Latter Day Saints of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) archives, but find it hard to swallow that perhaps the Jewish Hasidim themselves have a better record than the ones you cite. IZAK 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a nasty, spiteful comment, IZAK! This entire comment borders on violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF that you scolded me on previously. Unlike you apparently, I'll take the sources from where ever I can find them. It just so happens that the LDS has central archival microfilms, copies of the original records, that one can easily search online [2]. Don't be so close-minded about resources, IZAK. If you wish, you can go to the original unindexed paper records in Kamanets-Podolsky or in Krakow and find them by hand, but the LDS already did that for us. Why not take advantage? They are not being biased, they are simply collectors extraordinaire. And this whole insinuation that I am dismissing Chasidic documentation is utter nonsense. If you look above, I acknowledged ChosidFrumBirth's work on sources. Just prior to that, he couldn't produce verifiable sources, now he can, I can live with that. Whether they are contradicted by other sources is what we are arguing about now.--Klezmer 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klezmer: You fail to see the holes in your approach. You are talking about the heilige Chasidus but you quote Mormons. Do Hasidic Rebbes do this themselves? No Hasid would dare mention or touch anything to do with Christian sources, viewing it as coming from the Satan itself. That is not my view, it the way our "subjects" here, the Hasidim and Hasidism views such things. Get over it, and try to understand that while your somewhat more academic approach is valid, yet simultaneously you need to also see and RESPECT that views that are expressed from a more traditionally oriented Hasidic way of looking at these subjects is equally as valid, and that Wikipedia can only gain by having this information included. To disregard and detach Hasidic teachings and traditions from their sources would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or worse, perhaps also like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. IZAK 11:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you are saying this! IZAK, you are digging yourself into a deeper hole with your narrowmindedness. The Mormons didn't write these sources, they simply microfilmed them from their original archives and provide them free to anyone - Jew or "Satanic Christian" to review. It is very generous of the Mormons to do so, and being openminded about this subject, I'll take the records anywhere I can find them. These aren't "Mormon" sources anymore than the NY Public library is "Jewish" source, because they just happen to have these records in their respective collections.--Klezmer 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the Mormons gather this information since they are busy "converting" the dead (especially long deceased Jewish Hasidic Rebbes!) into Mormons, because they believe that Baptism works even after death see Baptism for the dead#Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that is why they love and keep track of these records in their archives because they convinced themselves that they somehow are holding the world's "retroactive Baptismal certificates" -- any rational Jew, not me personally, would be ashmed to use them to butress arguments about Haredi Hasidic Judaism. I am not digging "holes" -- I am shedding light upon the darkness. IZAK 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's get down to brass tacks. I'm not asking to change any of the articles at this point. To my way of thinking, they are fine as-is, they way they are right now. Here are the issues still on the table:--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you think it's fine as is -- it reflects YOUR opinion and reverts and everyone time I tried to correct it and change it back you just reverted it again, which is why we are where we are now, so of course you're fine, but the article isn't. --ChosidFrumBirth 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chosid has a good point. This arbitration came about because of Klezmer's stubborness, see my above opening comments at the very top. IZAK 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, IZAK, your true colors shine here. You were never interested in a fair hearing. You were only interested in being a proponent for ChosidFrumBirth's opinions. Your opening comments imply that I was the only one doing the editing, which I totally disagree with. It shows your complete bias in this discussion.--Klezmer 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, Klezmer -- accuse someone of bias because they don't agree with you, just because we they look at all the facts and discussion they feel you are wrong. As a matter of fact, if you look at the history of these pages you see that you stubbornly changed what was there to your own view, without discussion, and when I reverted them to the way they were you just arbitrarily, again without any discussion, just kept reverting them back over and over and over again, as if you were the only one who owned the truth and no other views could appear. Even in the discussion here, you just continue to ignore every single logic and argument, any time someone comes up with evidence or a publication you just say it's a fake, and only your sources or Chapin knows anything -- are you Chapin? Not only do you want your view represented in Wiki, sometimes completely against both facts and logic, but you don't even want any other view represented at all, to the extent you'd rather have the chart completely deleted than have anything in it that you personally don't agree with. Wow, if that's not blind stubborness, then what is. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a dynasty? Understanding this and coming up with some type of definition will go a long way in preventing this whole discussion from reoccurring in the future.--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if you can answer what a "Sect" or a "Grand Rabbi" is satisfactorily. IZAK 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made an attempt to come up with a strawman definition of a dynasty, but no one seems to like it. I'll repeat it again: (1) Having followers; and (2) Continuity of thought through time beyond a single person. So by my strawman definition, a "Sect" are the followers and the "Grand Rabbi" is the originator or go-to man for the thought leadership. Pretty simple and straightforward, really. But everyone would rather argue and not have a definition. And I'll be happy with whatever real definition you all come up with, as long as we can speak the same language when we banter around the term.--Klezmer 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So even by your description there is a dynasty from Boruch that is not Apt and was not merged into Zvil or anything else -- so what's your problem now. --ChosidFrumBirth 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Klezmer: In response: (1) How would you define "having followers"? How many followers? Ten? A hundred? Ten thousand? Millions? It's ridiculous to even start thinking this way. Followers when? In the past or at the present time? What to make of Pittsburg (Hasidic dynasty) or Cleveland (Hasidic dynasty) for example? They would seem to be "fabrications" because they have no real connection with either "Pittsburg" or "Cleveland" (they chose these names themselves) and their following is probably limited to members of the household and those who attend the minyanim of these Rebbes. Yet, lo and behold, to those who know the present-day Hasidic world, these are to all intents and purposes respectable and functional "dynasties" by dint of their supposed connection to older dynasties and to having active Rebbes. (2) The problem with "continuity of thought" is that sometimes there is none as such! By this I mean that sometimes all that a particular family or dynasty may be preserving and foisting is it's "yichus" ("dynastic" lineage) and that no real unique thought is either being "continued" or created. They are simply going through the motions of being who they are, existing if you will, sending their kids to the same local Satmar or Bobov yeshivas and simply functioning as glorified congregational rabbis with a synagogue or two or three that is a gathering place for like-minded Hasidic and even non-Hasidic Jews. Yeah, perhaps the leader may be a decent Talmid chochem but what he is continuing is essentially generic Hasidic Judaism. It's not as if, if one went to old Hungary you would get a truly Hungarian Hasidic Rebbe, and if one went to the Ukraine one got an entirely different one, because today many of these differences have been obliterated and even replaced. Finally, as one looks at the over-all picture, there are distinct schools of thought that may at times even go beyond human involvement. If one looks at Chabad and Breslov one sees movements without Rebbes yet having strong unique Hasidic ideologies. IZAK 11:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Define it any way you want. I don't care. I just posted a strawman. As long as there's a definition everyone can live with, I'll be happy with whatever you come up with.--Klezmer 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That would need to become a globalized debate, and it would mean that you are stalling, because as I said above, every legitimate Chaim Yankel Rebbe is assumed to be heading a dynasty as far as Wikipedia has been concerned thus far. Who and how will any other criteria will be set up on Wikipedia to judge and decide who and what qulifies to be called a "Hasidic dynasty" ? Shall we "vote"? Hahaha that would be fun! IZAK 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disciple chart: More specifically, adding Boruch under either Pinchas or Besht, or leaving Boruch off the chart, or deleting the entire chart, or coming up with a better definition of what the chart is all about. I'm in favor of deleting the whole darn chart, ending the debate once and for all.--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again -- of course you'd rather delete it than have it disagree with your opinion, but that's not fact or right. Why not leave the chart and simply put Boruch where he belongs under his grandfather, the Besht. --ChosidFrumBirth 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, I don't care. Whatever you all come up with. I posted the alternatives and my preference. Take it from there...--Klezmer 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mezhbizh dynasty: ChosidFrumBirth seems to think I'm out to remove this page from Wiki. Never been true. I'm willing to accept it (as long as someone tells me what a "dynasty" is). Okay, so Boruch had children. Or Boruch had people who claim they are from his lineage. Or Boruch had followers who claimed to be from Medzhibozh. None of this negates the page. It seems fine the way it is. It does call into question what was written on the page ("so-and-so lived in the Besht's house" -> which wasn't true by gov't records) which was fixed a long time ago. But, I do believe that the page should cross reference other "dynasties" that claim Medzhibozh as home, just for completeness sake. I don't believe it takes away from the page, only adds to it. Come to think of it, we may be in a unique situation here. I don't believe there was any other old world town that could claim to be home to more than one distinct rabbinic dynasty. So it's an interesting, one-of-a-kind situation. Therefore, we need to recognize this. P.S. I just found another source: Pinkas Zinkov, Tel Aviv, 1966 (a copy is in the NY Public Library), describes two distinct branches of Apter Chasidim: Apter-Mezhbizher and Apter-Zinkover. They then proceed to call them Zinkover Chasidim and Mezhbizher Chasidim. This book was written from either eyewitness accounts or newspaper reports from the period. So the point is, I found a source that calls Chasidim from the Apter line "Mezhbizhers" and they weren't talking about Boruch's line (c.f. pp. 139-144). So the Medzhibozh dynastic town name was apparently used by more than one Chasidic sect! All the more reason to keep the Apter cross-reference in the Mezhbizh dynasty article.--Klezmer 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Again you say the Medzhibozh dynasty page is fine the way it is -- because it's the way you want it. Originally way back you actually did suggest there was no such dynasty and the page should go. Then to confuse the page you added in Apt, Bick, and anyone else related to Medzhibozh you could think of to water down the dynasty and you changed it to say there are a lot of Medzhibzoh connected dynasties implying that it doesn't continue and at the end you put in that it merged into Zvil. It didn't merge at all, even by your definition that you gave above, and it is wrong and confusing to include on the Medzhibozh dynasty page (rather than just on the city page) other dynastys such as Apt just because they lived there for a while or passed through and which do not claim that they are Medzhbizh and were referred to with Medzhibozh as part of it only for convenience to not be confused with other Apt like Zinkov or whatever and not because they claimed to be Medzhibzoh dynasty and from Boruch. So it seems to me that at this point the summary I gave above of Yodomace1's conclusions is accurate and should be put into effect and the pages changed to that. I think this has come to an end and we should make the appropriate changes according to Yodomace1 and not lose any more sleep over this. Goodnight. --ChosidFrumBirth 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be patient. We have come this far, the matter will take time to be resolved. IZAK 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move to Wikipedia:Mediation

If this discussion is going nowhere, with all possibilities of amicable resolution not on the horizon due to stalling, then we must move on to more formal Wikipedia:Mediation (see also: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation; Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation) with an eye to taking this matter to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee; Wikipedia:Arbitration policy; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.) Thank you, IZAK 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because the discussion is not going your way?--Klezmer 13:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you won't compromise or accept anyone else's view unless it goes your way. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! IZAK has asked me to help out here. I'd be happy to if it would do any good and there's anything I can do, but maybe there's already enough cooks to spoil the broth as things stand. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shira: More input is indeed needed. I think your input would be of help, but User:Yodamace1 needs to continue in his role here as well. IZAK 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Klezmer: There is no "my" way in this discussion. All I can tell is that you have been bullying ChosidFrumBirth around for a long time and no matter how much work he does, no matter how many sources, well-reasoned detailed arguments and presentations he brings to the discussion table that are most often in keeping with Hasidic Judaism, you keep spinning your wheels in place and muddying the waters with all sorts of arguments that are designed to obfuscate and avoid a settlement. I just don't want him to feel like there is no hope simply because you are stonewalling and then to lose him as a valuable editor as so often happens when people lose patience with those who would rather run around in circles (albeit in a verbosely grandiose and "academic" way) than make some headway by reaching some workable solution/s. IZAK 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see (after reading a LITTLE BIT about the dispute), the dispute is whether to rely on scientific sources only or on 'original research', the personal knowledge of the authors.

My preference is very strongly the latter. Us frumme yidden (Orthodox Jews) know a *huge* amount of information about our own and other groups, which is not written anywhere in any type of scientific literature. Insisting on WP:RS would result in the deletion of a huge amount of information regarding Orthodox Judaism (particularly Hasidic Judaism) from Wikipedia, and the addition of a lot of complete nonsense. For example (though this particular page was now updated), check http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/hasid_arch.html which tells us the following:

- Lubavitch counts 250,000 to 300,000 people.
- Sanz-Klausenberg counts 200 to 300 families.
- Vizhnitz counts 200 families.
- Satmar counts 1200 families.

Now *this* is information from a "scientific" website which would qualify as a Reliable Source. As any of us can see, the information it contains falls in the category of nonsense and is completely worthless. If we would act as Klezmer wants us to, then this type of information would be included in the articles, turning Wikipedia into Chabadopedia as far as Judaism is concerned (since they are the most active online).

We simply have to rely on our own knowledge and peer review. Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism could help in that. All of us should monitor each other. We know enough about each other's movements, yeshivos, rebbes and minhogim that we can detect it when others write nonsense anywhere.

Should I insert my view (perhaps with some more elaborations) higher on this page, or is that a bit useless this late? --Rabbeinu 00:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbeinu: The "source" and "facts" you cite are indeed total rubbish. Lubavitch is notorious for giving out grossly exagerated figures. Count all the shluchim and their families, all the real Chabad families in Crown Heights and in Kfar Chabad and in a few other corners, and at most you come up with not more than about 25,000 real Lubavitchers. No-one on this planet who knows something about Haredi Judaism says that "Lubavitch counts 250,000 to 300,000 people" -- only Lubavitch propaganda says so. Vizhnitz in Israel alone probably has more than 25,000 people, and definitely if you include American Vizhnitz. Satmar is huge. There are far, far more Satmar Hasidim than anyone other group. In the USA there are probabaly at least about 75,000 Satmars, men women and children. You are also correct when you state: "Us frumme yidden (Orthodox Jews) know a *huge* amount of information about our own and other groups, which is not written anywhere in any type of scientific literature." The challenge is how to reconcile and incorporate the different world views so that Wikipedia can transmit a NPOV and remain true to the facts. IZAK 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, such links are totally worthless. So, how do we maintain NPOV? As I wrote: by verifying each other's edits. Whenever one of us finds something he doesn't trust, he reports it on the talk page of WikiProject:Orthodox Judaism and all of us (me, you, Y, Redaktor, ChosidFrumBirth, and several others) will act as the "NPOV judges" for the case involved, relying on our own knowledge. I am quite sure that all of us together, relying on consensus between us, can maintain NPOV articles without having to rely on external sources (which are highly unreliable, as I have just shown you). --Rabbeinu 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you mean to say that your going to decide who is frum and who should be the judges? please explain. Shlomke 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay WP:COOL, guys! IZAK, I doubt it's necessary to take this to the authorities, so let's not escalate tension here. Klezmer, Chosid has books which say these people were in these cities. Whatever we may think of those books, they are considered acceptable fare by WP:VER. What you have done is synthesised different materials (censuses, records, etc.) to advance your own position. Unfortunately for you, that position is considered unacceptable by WP:OR (see "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" section of the OR article). Unless your position is specifically stated in a source, then I think you can see how your position violates OR and Chosid's does not violate either OR or VER. Therefore, I am asking you to either a)concede your point or b)show me how your point does not violate the section of OR I just pointed out. --Yodamace1 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Yodamace1, I have three sources that specifically say the Baal Shem Tov's house in Medzhibozh was unoccupied since the time of his death and that no one lived there. These references were [1] Testimony of Dora Zichroni, who lived in Medzhibozh 1910-21 (reproduced in English in the book by Chapin and Weinstock), [2] Memoirs of Abraham Rechtman, an ethnographer who studied Medzhibozh in 1914 (Rechtman, 1958, Yidishe etnografye un folklor, YIVO, Buenos Aries), and [3] Yad Vashem Holocaust testimony by Holocaust-survivor Moishe Einhorn, found in the Yad Vashem archives. I'm not synthesizing combinations of different materials to conclude anything, these sources specifically say this. Regarding whether the Baal Shem Tov's lineage lived in Medzhibozh, this is specifically refuted within the Bick family memoirs, published in Bnei Brak, 1994, by Batya Furst (R. Chaim Bick's daughter). She says, p. 1, "Rabbi Khaim Yekhiel Mikhel Bick emigrated from Medzhibozh to New York in 1925. He was the last rabbi to serve in any official religious role in Medzhibozh. Everyone in the town of Medzhibozh accompanied the rabbi to the edge of town when he left for America." Further, on p. 5 it says "Rabbi Khaim Bick was the only Jewish religious leader of any type left in Medzhibozh after the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent Civil War". This source directly contradicts ChosidFrumBirth's source that says "Reb Mordechai, was the last Mezibuz Rebbe to inherit and hold court in the Baal Shem Tov's home" and that his son R. Yakov Yisrael Korf was born in the Baal Shem Tov's home. I went further and provided census evidence from gov't sources to back up these sources. But apparently, according to Wiki policy, I didn't need to, they should be good enough and acceptable to stand on their own. In conclusion, there are real sources that specifically say what many apparently don't want to hear. I didn't write them, I didn't synthesize different documents to come up with these sources, they say this on their own, and these sources are verifiable.--Klezmer 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that; you're making sense. Now, remind me (I don't wanna rescan everything) why it matters if R' Mordechai lived in the city. And if you're gonna tell me it's because if he didn't, there's no Mendzibizh dynasty (could someone do a redirect from "Mendzibozh" btw?), I'll tell you that really, rebbes staying in the city or leaving the city doesn't matter. We don't have to establish a definition of a dynasty to establish that much...just look at other dynasties like Lubavitch (which they claim started in Lyady anyways...) --Yodamace1 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just that these two statements "Reb Mordechai, was the last..." and another statement about his son being born in the house, I deleted from the article. ChosidFrumBirth kept reverting it back, claiming that his Chasidic oral histories were more definitive sources. This led in part to the reversion war. This also led me to a line of document research that seemed to question all the claims about this dynasty, especially when ChosidFrumBirth couldn't produce real sources (just a "trust me, I know Chasidic sources are the best", position). This led me to discover that these people are absent from all 16 census, public lists, etc. They weren't even buried in the town's cemetery. Finally, after tremendous prodding, ChosidFrumBirth produced real, verifiable wiki sources (posted above for the very first time). So at this point in time we basically have a documentation conflict between sources. I don't have a problem keeping the article or having a "Mezhbizh dynasty", except it shouldn't be amplified by unsupported statements in light of what we know now. We have to keep to the wiki facts. On a separate note: Regarding the definition of a dynasty which is key to this dispute, I was tired of all the circular arguments here in this discussion and posted one right at the top of List of Hasidic dynasties. People have been picking at the words, but for the most part it seems acceptable to most people (unlike here, where the very concept of having a definition seemed controversial).--Klezmer 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not at all what I did, Klezmer. The parts you kept changing, and I reverted, had to do with Baruch and the spiritual legacy issue, and with the existence and continuation of the Medzhibozh dynasty, which you keep trying to say died, was replaced by Apt, and whatever might have been left was taken over by the non-hasidic Bicks. On this issue of Reb Mordechai and his son, your published sources, and the "testimony" of the person who supposedly lived there (and how old was she when she lived there, and was she really part of and knowledgable of the Jewish community in general or the hasidic part of it, lots of questions there), is irrelevant anyway because all of that was after Reb Mordechai died and his son went to Zvil and then Boston, and Bick, who was supposedly last one out to shut off the lights, wasn't hasidic or a rebbe. And relying for your version on Bick on the personal memoirs of Bick's granddaughter who wasn't there and is based just upon what she may or may not have heard or remembered from her own family, and of course since it promotes your view that source is not biased or self-interested or tainted by "my rav or rebbe was the best and only and the whole town turned out . . ." or subject to any error, and you present it as absolute truth, while the independent unrelated sources I gave you have to be "fraudulent" or "falsified"? Come on, Klezmer. The bottom line is that when it comes to these issues the sources and books I gave are better and more authoritative and reliable than yours and back up the version that was there before you started destroying it, and even if they weren't better than Chapin or whoever, they still exist and can't just be ignored so that nothing else can be on the article except your opinion and version of what you consider to be the truth. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time, ChosidFrumBirth. I'm sure Yodamace1 will get to it. But he specifically asked about the Mezhbizh Dynasty page and I responded in kind. Regarding the "disciple" issue and how it all relates to the Apters, those are other issues and mostly on other pages. I'm sure we'll get our say when Yodamace1 asks for it. And, ChosidFrumBirth, you should quit while you are ahead. I've accepted your position on a number of issues. You need to acknowledge that and move on.--Klezmer 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Klezmer, but I unless I missed it it didn't look like you've accepted any of the points I listed above in the summary/conclusion, and just continue to argue away on all them. Can you say exactly what you now accept so that we can change the particular article back according to that, and then deal with whatever is left. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do need some clarification as to which of my conclusions you disagree with, Klezmer. Note that this original mediation page never listed "that these two statements 'Reb Mordechai, was the last...' and another statement about his son being born in the house..." were issues, so I didn't know about that. Klezmer, would you please simply list out all of your current concerns with my conclusions that you do not feel you should concede on and any concerns which you don't feel I dealt with? --Yodamace1 14:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these two statements originally on the Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) page were wrong and that there was no independent evidence that these people ever lived in Mezhbizh, and that there was no consistent definition of what a "dynasty" was, and that ChosidFrumBirth was never able to produce verifiable sources that this dynasty ever existed --> I concluded that this "dynasty" didn't exist. I was wrong. ChosidFrumBirth finally produced verifiable sources (see above) and we now have a definition of a dynasty that fits this group. I'm still bothered that independent sources can't verify the information ChosidFrumBirth provided, but I'm willing to accept that this is a valid dynasty and deserves to be mentioned in equal standing with others on Wiki. It wasn't the only dynasty that laid claim to the name "Mezhbizh" "Medzhibozh" or whatever, but that's another argument for another day. I have some serious questions as to the voracity of ChosidFrumBirth's sources, since there are a boatload of independent primary sources I've already provided that clearly dispute the claims of his sources. But as you pointed out, it is not Wiki's policy to evaluate sources or provide original synthesis of facts. As long as ChosidFrumBirth keeps the Mezhbizh page pretty much the way it is today, I'm good with that.--Klezmer 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same old thing -- there you go again. Klezmer do you really think everyone is stupid? Of course you're good with keeping the Medzhibozh page the way it is today -- it's YOUR version. What nonsense. Finally, you reluctantly accept at least that a Medzhibozh dynasty exists because you just can't deny that anymore, even though for some reason you still say they are not "independent sources" -- independent of what? However the page as it is today still says the Medzhibozh dynasty ended and merged or whatever, and that's just plain wrong. The page has Apt and Bick and Rapaport who weren't part of the Medzhibozh dynasty which is the subject of this page. But of course you want to keep it the way it is. Sorry, that's just wrong. --ChosidFrumBirth 19:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now moving on to other points: [1] Definition of Dynasty - resolved (I think. These guys like to argue a lot, but so far it doesn't seem controversial on the List of Hasidic Dynasties page) [2] Other rabbinic dynasties from Medzhibozh - we can't be close minded about this. They existed. I provided sources to prove this. I believe they need to be mentioned and cross-referenced on the Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) page. Otherwise, some Wiki users looking up these other dynasties might be confused. I don't believe adding this information in any way takes away from the article - in only enhances it. It needs to remain the way it is today with these cross-references within the article. ChosidFrumBirth tried numerous times to remove these references. [3] Discipleship of R. Boruch - this appears in the charts in List of Hasidic Dynasties page and on the Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov) page. I compiled those charts originally and I wrote the definition of what they mean at the top of them. Originally, I excluded R. Boruch from the chart because I believe that essentially he didn't produce an important legacy, like the others on the chart who produced large dynastic groups. ChosidFrumBirth added R. Boruch under the Baal Shem Tov. I dispute this. If he needs to be added, it should be under R. Pinchas, who served as his mentor. ChosidFrumBirth disagrees. I have produced sources that say R. Boruch was mentored by R. Pinchas, particularly the Eli Weisel sources. ChosidFrumBirth quotes from one Weisel source above and interprets it to say something different. You (Yodamace1) chimed in and apparently sided with my position that R. Pinchas was indeed the mentor and therefore R. Boruch should be listed under R. Pinchas (like the charts show him today). I'm in favor of either (a) deleting the charts completely if they are too controversial, (b) deleting R. Boruch completely from the charts, or (c) leaving it the way it is today. If the description of what these charts represent (which I wrote) does not adequately describe them, then it needs to change. [4] Apter "Rebbe" - resolved. The Apta (Hasidic dynasty) page and the Avraham Yehoshua Heshel listed the founder as both the Apter "Rov" and Apter "Rebbe". ChosidFrumBirth wanted to delete the "Rebbe" title and only wanted him mentioned as "Rov". This also resulted in a reversion war. I produced a number of sources that showed him mentioned as "Rebbe", including an Eli Weisel source. It needed to have both titles and I believe ChosidFrumBirth relented on this issue. The two pages currently has both listed, which is what I believe the way it should remain. Those are the outstanding issues as I see them...--Klezmer 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again - same old nonsense. Unless the spiritual legacy chart is left exactly the way you want it, you'd rather either delete the chart completely or delete an important figure like Baruch completely, than have Baruch under his grandfather. What kind of intellectual honesty is that? And as for other rabbinic dynasties from Medzbhizbozh -- first there is a very big difference between "other (NON-HASIDIC)rabbinic dynasties FROM Medzbhizbozh and the "MEDZIBOZH hasidic dynasty", which is the title of the article. The Medzbhizbozh CITY article should include other rabbinic dynasties from Medzbhizbozh, the Medzbhibozh hasidic dynasty article should include only those from the Medzbhibozh hasidic dynasty itself, and that's not Apt or Bick or anything else. Period. --ChosidFrumBirth 19:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yodamace1: Seems to me that these discussions are going nowhere. While Klezmer continues to say the same thing in different ways, and ChusidFrumBirth is trying to get a word in edgewise even though he has provided good sources and argued well. Klezmer seems to think that if he can just come up with statements from unknown individuals who are not even acknowledged scholars or authorities quoted in books or archives that this is "enough" to steamroller ChusidFrumBirth. Klezmer's taunt to ChusidFrumBirth that he should "quit while he is ahead" is plain disgusting and it's baiting ChusidFrumBirth and testing everyone's patience. I have never quite seen such obstinacy and stonewalling. One would think that this was a discussion to bring down one of the 613 Mitzvot chas veshalom with the amount of energy Klezmer applies to find more trivial resources to back up his argument as ChusidFrumBirth holds his ground and stresses his own sources and reasoning. Personally, I have NOTHING to gain from this discussion. I personally do not care about the subject matter of Mezibozh one way or the other. But I am concerned when I see that two editors with so much good to contribute on a subject and each having crucial opinions to add are at total loggerheads. How much longer can this situation be tolerated until more serious mediation is require to settle the dispute once and for all? Whenever you are all ready, anyone here can go ahead and take the next step with Wikipedia:Mediation (see also: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation; Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation) with an eye to taking this matter to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee; Wikipedia:Arbitration policy; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.) IZAK 06:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both make some powerful arguments and it would be a shame to lose any of them to Wikipedia. Can't we find a way to satisfy both? Incuding what both want, to list Reb Boruch both under the Baal Shem Tov and under Reb Pinchos and put in parenthesis an explanation. Why must the article state one to the exclusion of the other? I also have no ax to grind, but am in general an inclusionist. I believe that all valid or honest POV's need to be included. Itzse 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itzse: I agree with you fully. But what we have here is a classic case of a POV dispute between to very knowledgeable editors who are obviously very learned about this subject, so I am not getting into the whole Mezibuzh thing, it's just a shame to see how Klezmer continues to crush Chusid's views, and does twists and turns to deflect the mediator's (Yodamace1) attempts to impose some sense of harmony via backtracking and sliding down tangents. This can't go on forever, and the need for more powerful arbitration will probably be the only way to have all the opinions respected, unless Yodamace1 can move things forward either alone or with the help of others who are willing to help him. IZAK 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, unless you think Klezmer is using this mediation to procrastinate and keep his version of the article up, I don't think it's necessary to take this whole issue to Arbitration just yet. If you do think as such, feel free; I don't oppose such a motion. But I think we're pretty close to a resolution.

Klezmer, you know (or should know) full well that I disagreed with you about the spiritual legacy issue. Reread the first point in my summary of my analysis above (in the "Response from the Mediator" section) -- Chosid's brought solid sources that R' Boruch was the heir of the legacy as defined above on FreeDictionary.com . Unless you bring contradicting sources (which, you have failed to produce on this issue thus far), Chosid's indisputably correct, no?
- No. The chart I put together is about disciples not about heirs or successors. You yourself acknowledge that they are two entirely different principles. Boruch may have been the appointed heir (and I don't deny ChosidFrumBirth's claim in this regard), but he was NOT a disciple -> this was NOT a teacher-student relationship. Here's what it says above the chart "The following chart shows the teacher-student relationships that helped spread Hasidic thought throughout the Jewish world". Teacher-student - not heir. The Baal Shem Tov did NOT teach Boruch (see the Weisel source quoted above). In fact, I don't think Boruch was even in Medzhibozh with his grandfather when he was young, the Weisel source says he resided in Mezrich and other places. Remember, he was only 7 years old when his grandfather died. He may have never met him, or he may have only as a baby. --Klezmer 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is outrageous. You're just plain wrong. He may never have met him? Are you serious? Or can't you find that in the census records. Guess Chapin missed that one too. Look at what Wiesel says about the Baal Shem Tov's daughter, Baruch's mother, always being with the Baal Shem Tov. Everybody knows that Baruch lived with the Baal Shem Tov or was with him almost constantly from the time he was born. There are famous stories about the interaction between the two and how Baruch was such an ilui and was always by the Baal Shem Tov's side, learning with him, discussing, even interfering, etc., etc. Baruch was his student and disciple. Period. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation conflict's too complex for me and should be taken to Arbitration. I simply don't have the time right now. Someone else can do that.
Klezmer, I understand what you think about how different hasidic dynasties should be in the article, but the fact is that it's not relevant to the Mendzibozh dynasty unless you can get a loophole by providing sourced information about interaction between Mendzibozh and the other dynasties. Otherwise, it's irrelevant to anything but the city of Mendzibozh. Your argument is something like the following: "The Bostoner Rebbe lives in Boston. Rabbi Soloveitchik also lived in Boston." The two don't coincide unless one brings something like, "The Bostoner Rebbe once told a story about fellow Bostoner Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik...[1]" This point is too complex for me to argue further and if you still think it's relevant, than it certainly should be taken to the Arbitration Committee. --Yodamace1 11:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it depends upon what you call a "dynasty" doesn't it? The Apters (who no one disputes is a legitimate dynasty) thought of themselves as THE Medzhbizh Dynasty, too. I provided documentation to prove that. So they need to be mentioned in the same article to clarify the confusion. If Rabbi Soloveitchik also called himself the Bostoner Rebbe too, it would be analogous.--Klezmer 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Again just plain wrong. You're just looking to use any excuse to get your way, and it's not right. They are APTERs not MEDZHIBOZHERS -- if they were the Medzibozh dynasty they would have used that name. They didn't. They used Apt, not Medzbhibozh. A dynasty name sticks with the dynasty wherever they go. Apt didn't become Medzbhizbozh and Medzhibozh didn't become Zvil, and on and on. Apt is Apt and doesn't belong on the Medzbhizbozh DYNASTY page just because an Apter or two happened to live in Medzhibozh for a time. The Apters did NOT consider themselves to be THE or any Medzbhibozh dynasty, or they would have dropped the name Apt. They didn't. Period. Enough already. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh-huh. The first issue I still don't think you have a good argument for (as pointed out earlier, Chosid had a source for his claim, and it's well-known that in Eastern Europe, rabbis were teaching young kids. It doesn't matter what you think, just what's verifiable), you seem to have a shot with your second, and third...well, IZAK's wrong; you're not repeating the same argument over and over again, you're shifting fighting grounds. Before, it was because they lived in the same city...now you want to claim that the reason it's put in the article is because Apta and R-B claim to be the TRUE Mendzibozhers. I think IZAK's right now, it's up to one of you -- I recommend Chosid because he has a user name -- to take this to Arbitration. My work here is done; I apologize I could not have been of more help. --Yodamace1 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is all obviously a waste of everyone's time because Klezmer, the self-proclaimed scholar and researcher, isn't interested in being reasonable or fair or listening to logic. He just wants what he wants, his own view and nothing else, and that should be clear to everyone by now. I really can't waste any more time on this. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation/Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)

Klezmer has said "disagree" -- and he claims "most of the issues have been resolved" but he won't say which issues he's changed his position on so I sure don't see how, unless he means they're resolved just in his mind because on every single one of the four principle issues he wants to keep the articles his way. So now what? This is just ridiculous. --ChosidFrumBirth 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Klezmer and Chosid: Could each of you briefly summarize the "issues that have been resolved" and those which have not been resolved, so that the rest of us here can know where things stand. Thank you. IZAK 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the Apter Rov/Rebbe issue, the Bick/Apt issue on Medzhibozh Hasidic dynasty, or the Medzhibozh Hasidic dynasty article are the way they should be, but Klezmer has "allowed" some minor changes on the Medzhibozh continuity issue, and I'm tired of all this so I just give up. BUT the issue of Baruch being a disciple of the Besht and not Pinchas is such a biggie that it can't just get dropped and still remains. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi! Suggest simply listing the issues, and indicating which ones you believe you have agreement on and which ones you still don't. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defining a dynasty

Since some of the conflict in this mediation effort has raised the question of what constitues a Hasidic dynasty, a number of editors have indeed gone ahead and list a basic definition at the top of the List of Hasidic dynasties and at Category:Hasidic dynasties , as follows:

Note: A Hasidic dynasty usually has some or all of the following characteristics:

It was originally founded by an outstanding spiritual leader, often known as an ADMOR (abbreviation for ADoneinu MOreinu veRabeinu ("our master, our teacher and our rabbi") or simply as Rebbe (or "the Rebbe") and at times called "The Ruv" ("the rabbi") and sometimes referred to in English as a "Grand Rabbi";
It usually continues beyond the initial leader's lifetime by succession (usually by a selected member or family descendant);
It is often named after a key town in Eastern Europe where the founder may have been born or lived, or where the group began to grow and flourish;
It has had (or once had) followers who, through time, continue following successive leaders (rebbes) or may even continue as a group without one leader by following the precepts of a deceased leader.

Hopefully all editors with knowldge about Hasidism or aspects thereof will give their learned input. I have created an abbreviated {{HasidicDynasties}} template that can be placed in key sections of articles about Hasidic dynasties to help the uninitiated. Positive input is welcomed at Template talk:HasidicDynasties. Thank you, IZAK 04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]