Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
It would seem more appropriate for the name of this article to be [[Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)]], Rather then the current "Chabad-Strashelye". this is because: |
It would seem more appropriate for the name of this article to be [[Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)]], Rather then the current "Chabad-Strashelye". this is because: |
||
*There were many other split off / Break away Chasidic dynasty's which came from [[Chabad]] but did not Carry the Chabad name together with the new name, and |
*There were many other split off / Break away Chasidic dynasty's which came from [[Chabad]] but did not Carry the Chabad name together with the new name, and |
||
*Does it actualy say somewere that the name of R. Aarons movement was in fact called "Chabad-Strashelye". I have not seen this anywere. In the Beis Rebbe book It is not called by this name. |
*Does it actualy say somewere that the name of R. Aarons movement was in fact called "Chabad-Strashelye". I have not seen this anywere. In the Beis Rebbe book It is not called by this name. [[User:Shlomke|Shlomke]] 22:53, March 26, 2006 (UTC) |
||
In response to the above: |
In response to the above: |
||
I chose the name to indicate the group's origins. You have to remember that Chassidism today is more established. At the time, I doubt the group even had a name. The Shar Blat on R' Aharon's seforim don't indicate any name. It doesn't say, for example, AdMo"R M'Strashelye, or any such thing. When is the first reference to the name ChaBaD? If R' Aharon's group was called anything, it was probably just stam "Chabad." As in, "I am a Chossid of Chabad. My Rebbe is R' Aharon." If anything, perhaps the article could have been called "R' Aharon HaLevi Horowitz." --[[User:Meshulam|Meshulam]] 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
I chose the name to indicate the group's origins. You have to remember that Chassidism today is more established. At the time, I doubt the group even had a name. The Shar Blat on R' Aharon's seforim don't indicate any name. It doesn't say, for example, AdMo"R M'Strashelye, or any such thing. When is the first reference to the name ChaBaD? If R' Aharon's group was called anything, it was probably just stam "Chabad." As in, "I am a Chossid of Chabad. My Rebbe is R' Aharon." If anything, perhaps the article could have been called "R' Aharon HaLevi Horowitz." --[[User:Meshulam|Meshulam]] 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
:I see what your saying. What I ment is that just like we wouldent call [[Boyan (Hasidic dynasty)]] |
|||
By the name Boyan-Sadigura Boyan-Ruzshin, we should not call the group that split off of chabad by the name CHabad-... Of course we should make note of the origins of the group and how or why it split of ''in'' the article, and identify it with the previos group, but as far as the ''name of the article, it should have it's own name of either the name of the group or anything else that people identify it most as (if it did not have an official name), or the name of there Rebbe. |
|||
In this case it seem's from [http://www.belzerseforim.com/ ''Beis Rebbe''] that it did not even have a second generation, so I dont know if it's even correct to call it "dynasty" (my mistake). perhaps it should be called on R. Aharons name, or just plane Strashelye? what do you think |
Revision as of 13:23, 4 April 2006
I don't know that there's enough information in the article to have a complete template. But I will do what I can. Of course, it may take time.
As for the verifiability of the informtion: Which information in particular needs verification? I referred to Hillman at the bottom of the page. That's where most of the info comes from. The information about the TAY Rebbe I read in a book somewhere. I forget where. But its something that is known in the Chassidic world. Most "information" about Chassidism is spread that way, rather than being written in a history book somewhere. Most of the Satmar stuff about the Z-A conflict is not "verified," but is nonetheless true. Ask anyone in Boro Park :-). If you're more specific, I'll be better able to comply with your requests.
Thanks,
--Meshulam 15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
question
does this group exist today? Jon513 14:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
No. Its members assimilated into different groups after the second generation. The books still remain, however, and are popular in some Chassidic circles.--Meshulam 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Name of article
It would seem more appropriate for the name of this article to be Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty), Rather then the current "Chabad-Strashelye". this is because:
- There were many other split off / Break away Chasidic dynasty's which came from Chabad but did not Carry the Chabad name together with the new name, and
- Does it actualy say somewere that the name of R. Aarons movement was in fact called "Chabad-Strashelye". I have not seen this anywere. In the Beis Rebbe book It is not called by this name. Shlomke 22:53, March 26, 2006 (UTC)
In response to the above:
I chose the name to indicate the group's origins. You have to remember that Chassidism today is more established. At the time, I doubt the group even had a name. The Shar Blat on R' Aharon's seforim don't indicate any name. It doesn't say, for example, AdMo"R M'Strashelye, or any such thing. When is the first reference to the name ChaBaD? If R' Aharon's group was called anything, it was probably just stam "Chabad." As in, "I am a Chossid of Chabad. My Rebbe is R' Aharon." If anything, perhaps the article could have been called "R' Aharon HaLevi Horowitz." --Meshulam 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see what your saying. What I ment is that just like we wouldent call Boyan (Hasidic dynasty)
By the name Boyan-Sadigura Boyan-Ruzshin, we should not call the group that split off of chabad by the name CHabad-... Of course we should make note of the origins of the group and how or why it split of in the article, and identify it with the previos group, but as far as the name of the article, it should have it's own name of either the name of the group or anything else that people identify it most as (if it did not have an official name), or the name of there Rebbe.
In this case it seem's from Beis Rebbe that it did not even have a second generation, so I dont know if it's even correct to call it "dynasty" (my mistake). perhaps it should be called on R. Aharons name, or just plane Strashelye? what do you think