 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Hatnote
editUser:Debresser, I don't understand what you want. I didn't revert to my former edit, I just changed the hatnote to something more accurate. Hasidic philosophy is not independent, it's a subset of Hasidism. AddMore-III (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just think the previous hatnote was better in that it linked to more probable redirects. I think that the fact that such was the content of the hatnote for some time supports my position. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Until a week or two ago, the content of Hasidism reflected "Neo-Hasidic" claptrap, reading as if it was composed by Zalman Schachter-Shalomi himself. Precedent is of little consequence in a platform like wikipedia, accuracy and reliability are better. My argument is that in this article, we discuss the term חסיד. Hasidut, in the modern sense, is but one of the meanings it acquired. Hasidic philosophy is definitely a subset of it. I see no reason to grant the same subject two mentions in the hatnote. AddMore-III (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. One is about the religion, the second about its philosophy. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Until a week or two ago, the content of Hasidism reflected "Neo-Hasidic" claptrap, reading as if it was composed by Zalman Schachter-Shalomi himself. Precedent is of little consequence in a platform like wikipedia, accuracy and reliability are better. My argument is that in this article, we discuss the term חסיד. Hasidut, in the modern sense, is but one of the meanings it acquired. Hasidic philosophy is definitely a subset of it. I see no reason to grant the same subject two mentions in the hatnote. AddMore-III (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)