Talk:Kabbalah Centre

We need to make sure that this is NPOV

This page should be used as an example of what POV writing is, and what encyclopedic writing is not. It is nothing more than a condemnation, citing various sources who dislike the Kabbalah Center. It says very little about the group or its beliefs. It is unacceptable. Danny 16:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danny, instead of whining about how bad you believe this article is, do some reading, of both Berg's own works, and of the many authorities who are critical of him. Are you familiar with any of the specific criticisms made by well-known authorities in Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism about Berg and his group? If not, what is your point? That you object to a critical treatment of a cult? All articles about cults are attacked "a condemnation" and as "unacceptable", but the real question is - are they accurate? I have as yet found no information to contradict anything in this article. RK

Kabbalah Centre is most definitely not a cult. Do you think Chabad a cult? Masterhomer 02:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please take the time to read some of the investigative journalism of this group! Speak to any of the victims of Berg's Kabbalah Centre, many of whom are named in said articles. Instead of casting aspersions, I invite you to do some reading, and help contribute to the article. That is how Wikipedia works. RK 17:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Danny's right; it's a POV condemnation of the Kabbalah Centre. To re-iterate, this article does not say anything at all about its members or the organization's beliefs. And while I do not number among them, the organization obviously has its supporters, and their POV needs to be heard as well. Jayjg 01:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but Danny is acting as if he does not understand that new articles - like this one - are small and do not contain many POVs from many contributors. It takes time for a person to gather citations and information on a topic; I can't do it all by myself. But instead of helping out, he just was sniping at me, as he has done on a dozen other articles. And I offer my standard response to Danny: He's a smart guy who knows a lot, and we would welcome his contributions to this article. In any case, I have now taken it upon myself to create a significant section on many of Berg's own teachings, illustrated with quotes. RK 02:00, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I do understand that new articles should not contain any POVs. They should be neutral. I also understand that it is not my job to clean up after every mess you make. I also understand that whining and sniping are loaded terms. Danny 02:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, again with the whining, yet Danny refuses to actually make any edits... RK 18:07, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Urm, yeah fair point he makes no edits, but the fact remains this page is extremely biased, it offers absolutely no summary of the beliefs & principles of this belief system/religion/whatever. it resembles an anti-kaballah page, quite frankly. just because he does not intend to exact changes does not mean that we should not establish the biased nature of this article as an issue that demands eventual rectification. sorry if i missed a part of this little debate...quite frankly it reads like two little boys who have something to prove to each other (RK - ever hear of "rising above it"? sniping/whining are indeed loaded terms.) and i couldnt be bothered to read it! liamjoneill

The article looks to me to be NPOV. Could someone please explain in more detail what might be a POV issue? JoshuaZ 21:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny is most likely my ex husband who was convinced to donate his WHOLE salary to the Kabbalah Centre cult. Unfortunately I am intimately familiar with this very psychologically sophisticated dangerous cult. Make no mistakes about it their millions are used for powerful legal protection to keep the truth quiet. There are a great number of ways that they are hugely different from all the recognized factions of Judaism and its laws. There are many other places to study legitimate Kabbalah.B'Siyata dShamayah (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Philip Berg's beliefs

Thanks for starting. As always, I recommend summarizing positions rather than including lengthy quotes, and providing links. Also these quotes tend to emphasize his differences with Judaism, rather than his beliefs. Jayjg 02:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those are his beliefs. You note that they are often at odds with Judaism, but nu, that's his perogative. Note that one of these beliefs is quite mainstream within Hasidic Judaism, belief in reincarnation (gilgul, transmission of souls). While Jewish authorities have traditionally viewed this as impossible, that changed with the fusion of Hasidism and Kabbalah. Another one of his beliefs - the idea that God does not literally punish those who sin - actually has a firm basis in Maimonides, and is accepted by many non-Orthodox Jews. I have since revised the article on Maimonides to include a section on this topic. (I have a lot more info available, but I didn't want to overload the Maimonides article on this one point.) RK 12:35, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

He may well believe those things, but focussing on the areas in which he disagrees with traditional Judaism, and highlighting those specific areas as his beliefs, is completely un-balanced. And, as I've pointed out before, gilgul is widely accepted amongst all traditional Jews, not just Hasidim. It is also worthwhile pointing out that in the 19th century Hasidim comprised perhaps 3/4 of all Jews worldwide. Jayjg 16:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The thing is, I am not focusing on the differences. If you see it this way, it only because so many of his teachings really are very different from mainstream Judaism. (Like his idea that a Jew can "convert" from being Ashkenazic to Sephardic!) However, if you think that there are other teachings of his that are the same as in mainstream Judaism, by all means please add them. RK

I don't quite accept the idea that traditional Jews believed in reincarnation. To the best of my knowledge, none ever did until the time of the Karaites, and even then it was a fringe position, rejected by mainstream Judaism until just before the rise of Hasidism. I can provide sources on this point. However, if you have sources that say otherwise, that is fine by me, please bring up any references you like. I just read "Body and Soul: Tehiyyat ha-Metim and Gilgulim and Medieval and Modern Philosophy" by Yitzchak Blau (Yeshivat Hamivtar, Efrat, Israel), in The Torah U-Madda Journal, Volume 10, 2001. He notes rabbis for and against the concept, and their arguments, but does not hold that this ever was a mainstream view. RK 19:52, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sa'adiya Gaon's condemnation of the idea gives an indication that it was indeed held by some Jews. However, it became popular through Kabbalah, which was ascribed to by virtually all Jews in the 15th-18th centuries. The Sepharadim and Mitnagdim were no less Kabbalists than the Hassidim. Jayjg 20:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I have taken your thoughts into consideration and have re-read my sources based on your ideas. I have thus throughly rewritten the section on Jewish views of recincarnation, and it no longer implies that this was a belief held only by a few people. See the article on Reincarnation.

Berg's beliefs that differ from mainstream rabbinic Judaism probably are not the main reasons for the criticism of him. After all, many Jews have beliefs that are at odds with classical Judaism. The reason for the widespread criticism appears to be that he couples his teachings with what is claimed to be peer-pressure and intimidation to coerce his students into giving him large sumns of money, and the way he supposedly estranges his followers from their families, which gives rise to charges of his group being cult-like. RK 02:37, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

JayJG writes in an edit line for this article "The link says the opposite of what you claim, and your sources never actually back up your claims."

Jay, you need to stop POV pushing. What you write is simply incorrect. First off, in regards to the works by Professors Marc Shapiro, Menchem Kellner, Shlomo Pines, Aviezer Ravitzky, and others, I was quoting from books. You didn't even read any of these sources yet. Secondly, the link to the article on Jewish principles of faith is very clear. I cannot fathom how you are reading it so totally backwards. Before you engage in yet another revert, bring your specific disgareement to the Talk page. Please tell me precisely what you disagree you, and what you think that the article on Jewish principles of faith says differently. RK 15:40, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the Jewish principles of faith article says that "The mainstream Jewish view, clearly expressed in the Bible and rabbinic literature, is that God will reward those who observe His commandments and punish those who intentionally transgress them. Examples of rewards and punishments are described throughout the Bible, and throughout classical rabbinic literature." On the other hand, your text says the exact opposite "Berg holds that God does not reward people for good behavior and punish them for bad behavior. This belief is generally considered anathema in much of Orthodox Judaism, but is generally held within much of non-Orthodox Judaism." And, in fact, you have never brought a source that supports your claim that Berg's belief "is generally held within much of non-Orthodox Judaism". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly, every one of the print sources I brought forth backed up my position. In contrast, you hstill have done no reading on this topic, and you admit that you have no sources to back up your own claim. As such, you cannot justify reverting everything I write! You need facts, not just attitude. RK 15:40, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you need facts. Cite your sources, and make sure they actually back up what you claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC

Maimonides

RK, I can sense trouble. What on earth does this article benefit from Marc Shapiro's minority interpretation of Maimonides' 11th principle? Sechar wa-Onesh (reward and punishment) are the fabric of Orthodox thought, and it is actually Albo's third principle of Jewish faith. This is not the place to emphasise Shapiro's view. JFW | T@lk 00:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naming

What is one of these people called?--The_stuart 02:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dunno... Kabbalsians? Kabbalis? Kabbalahuddin? Kabs?

Kabbalists 68.32.229.137 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Followers of the Kabbalah Centre"

People who join and follow the teachings of the Kabbalah Centre are referred to, and known as: Follower/s of the Kabbalah Center or Kabbalah Centre follower/s because one cannot equate amateur dabblers to (the) truly great classical rabbinical scholars of the Kabbalah all of whom were famous and respected Jews -- whereas many followers of the Kabbalah Centre are not Jews and even those Jews who follow the Kabbalah Centre are shunned and ridiculed by all the Jewish denominations. No-one would have the audacity to claim that by listening to a few lectures about "popular science" and by wearing a white coat that a person is "transformed" into a "scientist" ! IZAK 03:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Logo is unnecessary

I totally fail to see any value by the inclusion of the logo on this page. It looks more like a cheap advert rather than a serious article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.188.194 (talk • contribs)

I would agree with the above unsigned comment on that one. The tagline is a little....shall we say POV? I don't see why, if we strive for NPOV in an artical, we should not do so for pictures. I couldn't imagine having a Coke logo that said 'Because Pepsi is just darn awful' as an image here. --Narson 11:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. If the logo is rather ubiquitous, as is the Coke logo with its "swirl" and other design classics, it is worthy of inclusion. I have no idea if the Centre advertise; I'm not sure if there is Wikipedia policy on including logos, but I think it is generally a good idea. The image caption should mention when the Centre started using the logo, and ideally who designed it and whether it contains any (hidden?) symbolism. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see what the logo looks like. If it is POV, that can be pointed out. --Hugh7 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rabbis?

They are _Rabbis_ I am shocked. ems 17:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Audience

It may make sense to verify the target audience list and reduce it to a managable size and/or make a list of targets. JoshuaZ 04:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to wait about a week and if no one has any objections by then, I'm going to leave some of the more promient ones here and split a list off for the others. JoshuaZ 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

New List- Need Help!

Ok, I've branched the list of affiliated celebrities off into a separate list. Three things need to be done: 1) Which celebrities stay on this page needs to be decided. 2) We need sources for all the claimed celebrities (somewhat similar to how List of agnostics is sourced). JoshuaZ 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a religion?

Another example of non-encyclopedic writing:

"Kabbalah is not a religion -- it actually predates the beginning of religion itself. Kabbalah is a 4000 year old living wisdom meant for everyone, regardless of religious background, nationality, or level of study."

Well, obviously that depends on the way one uses the term religion. Many Christians who feel their faith is current and vital prefer not to call their "walk of faith" a religion. But, that doesn't prevent it from being one in the encyclopedic sense.

Kabbalah is a spiritual pursuit, a set of spiritual disciplines and teachings. It's a religion. Maybe it's hip, but it's still a religion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltag (talk • contribs)

That section obvious needs work, but on the face of it, no kabbalah is not a religion, its a series of traditional notions about metaphysics and mysticism. It is not, in of itself, a religion any more than any other form of mysticism is a religion by itself. JoshuaZ 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

POV: The Philosophy of the Kabbalah Centre

This section is blatant pro-Kabbalah Center POV. I think someone can easily re-write it to make it NPOV however. 67.187.189.229 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with above. In particualar, quoting one radical rabbi, especially about Madonna being a slut, does not represent the Jewish POV, as it seems to imply. I'm sure there are other quotes out there that aren't so radical.70.48.102.155 02:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

the Kabballah Center wrote this article, that's why it reads like an advert for the cult.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.55.113 (talk • contribs)

POV: The Criticism Section

I think there should be added the response of the Kabblah Centre to these criticisms. The Kabblah Centre has not been silent to its critics from what I am aware. They claim that the majority of the criticism comes from the Orthodox Community, whom they believe are criticing them for teaching Jewish beliefs to non-Jews. As far is the "charging huge sums of money", they claim otherwise, that their courses actually pretty cheap, and that charging money is a needed evil because spreading the word of Kabblah does in fact cost them money. Masterhomer 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous Followers??

While seeing a play in Los Angeles yesterday, I was given a card, an advertisment for the Kabbalah Centre Open House. The front of the card read: FAMOUS PEOPLE STUDY KABBALAH...SHAKESPEARE, SOCRATES, NEWTON, YOU.

Were these people acually Followers of Kabbalah Centre? If so, it seems like it should be added to this article. 69.233.254.249 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NO THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWERS OF THE KABALLAH CENTRE! THEY MAY, HOWEVER , HAVE READ SOME OF THE ANCIENT (pre New Age Berg versions) KABBALAH TEXTS, LIKE THE ZOHAR. ( Unsigned comment posted 19:52, June 23, 2006 by 74.12.79.132)

Impossible to edit

I am convinced that it is completely impossible to make an unbaised entry about this group. It continually turns into a he-said, she-said downward spiral. People here are only interested in throwing mud and insults at the opposition.Shalom!(Unsigned comment added 08:14, June 21, 2006 by 209.44.15.194)

Slander

This article is a PRIME example of how Wiki can be just awful awful awful. It's the perfect forum for people with hatred and other issues to slam something they either don't understand and don't want to hear. Online discussion forums are better suited for this brand of criticism and opinion. From a writing standpoint, this is the worst piece of crap article I've ever seen. There's no order, and it's all over the place. Random "facts" are slapped in the middle of no where with no regard to chronology. Certainly not something I'd expect to find in a REAL encyclopedia. (Unsigned comment posted 10:34, June 27, 2006 by 209.51.229.82)

Recent disparaging edits

There have been many unsigned disparaging edits recently. I've reverted one or two, but the article is still stuffed full of unsourced edits. If you have a reliable source for your statement, please cite it. Wikipepedia requires properly-sourced statements, not your own personal opinions or beliefs, no matter how strongly held. If this organization is a evil as some editors clearly believe, it ought to be easy to find reliable printed sources to back up your allegations. Let's try to keep Wikipepedia reliable and enyclopedic, and not a vehicle for individual points of view. Please try to keep within the WP:POV guidelines.--MichaelMaggs 14:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a complete re-write. I'm reluctant to attempt that myself, as I have very little knowledge of the subject, but is there a neutral editor out there who would be prepared to try? --MichaelMaggs 14:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I might be willing to give it a shot, if no one else does. What I'd recommend though, is doing an initial pass through the article and marking every POV or unusual claim with the {{fact}} template. Then we'll let those sit for a few days, and if no one offers a citation, we can pull them all out and do a rewrite. --Elonka 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a very good idea. I've added a few {{fact}} tags myself, and am happy to do what I can to help sort out this page.--MichaelMaggs 19:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits rework the language into "international marketing organization" that "sells" etc. It's clear the choice in language is designed to paint the Kabbalah Centre in as negative light as possible. Is this fair and accurate writing for this "Encyclopedia." (Even putting quotes around the word encyclopedia suggests I don't quite believe that. ;-) ) (Anonymous comment added 22:34, July 6, 2006 by User:24.180.255.193)

Please see WP:V and WP:OR as to how the article should be written according to Wikipedia policy. And feel free to "help". --Elonka 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made edits to this article, as I was amazed at the slant it presented. Citing the allegations of others does not make them valid, and they should at least be "alleged" unless there is evidence otherwise. A fair article is what is needed, not a bash piece and not a promo. For example, when I found it, the opening sentence said the KC was a worldwide marketing organization. That is pure bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.167.37 (talk • contribs)

We again have an anomymous editor who is attempting to re-insert the derogatory 'marketing organization' POV. Please discuss proposed contentious edits here before making them. Please, also, use edits summaries and cite your sources --MichaelMaggs 07:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, someone is changing the first paragraph of the article in an offensive manner, using biased words phrases such as "sells" "spiritual products" and "storefronts". Objectivity is the high road!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.240.186 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, it is an objective description of the Toronto Kabbalah Centre location, for example, to call it a storefront. 18 Hazelton Avenue is a store, with products in the window, and posters advertising these products, and there is no evidence on the outside of the building of anything except it being a shop selling stuff. Sorry, it is a storefront operation, in a trendy shopping district of Toronto, right behind the Hazelton Lanes shopping centre. It does SELL spiritual products. The books, candles, videotapes, trinkets, et cetera, are "spiritual products". And it definitely SELLS everything. It gives NOTHING away. Is this a failure to be objective? Or is it factual reporting???

REPLY: It "offers" for sale books, tapes, and courses in it's bookstore, a common feature in many churches and synagogues. It provides Shabbat services for no charge. It offers free introductory seminars. All locations are not storefronts my friend, including the primary location in Los Angeles. You know darned well that you want to use "storefront" to support your bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.240.186 (talk • contribs)

Does the Kabbalah Centre have anything to do with Judaism? Here, directly from www.Kabbalah.com, the official Kabbalah Centre website: "It is quite understandable that Kabbalah could be confused with Judaism. Throughout history, many scholars of Kabbalah have been Jewish. But there have also been many non-Jewish scholars of this wisdom, such as Christian Knorr-von-Rosenroth, Pico Della and Sir Isaac Newton, just to name a few." Therefore, I suggest this article make it clear that despite offering Shabbat services, The Kabbalah Centre is not Jewish. Another bizarre feature of this strange organization which likes to have its cake and eat it too!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.128.113 (talk • contribs)

REPLY: It's not so much a matter of having cake and eating it too. It is a misunderstanding of what Shabbat connection means to the KC, which is not a religious observance, but rather a technology for spiritual connection, available to anyone, regardless of whether they are Jewish. What is not being grasped I think is that Kabbalah is seen by KC as a spiritual technology which preceded the Jewish religion. So, one can in their view practice Kabbalah without practicing Judaism per se. It is a bit blurry in some respects, but upon deeper examination it becomes very clear. It is a bit like how one can choose to write English or Spanish, two related languages that share the same "source code" (in this case letters of the alphabet), yet they are distinct from each other.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.240.186 (talk • contribs)

Related article

Looks like the Philip Berg article is also going to need an overhaul, since it's full of unreferenced information. --Elonka 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

More disparaging POV edits

I have removed the following:

There are documented cases ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  of people on social assistance, disability pensions and welfare who have been allowed to take one course at no cost, and then are pressured to donate 10% of their income to the Kabbalah Centre, despite their poverty. The teaching that the poor are to tithe as well is controversial.

It's not appropriate to keep suck an attack in the article unless the editor who wishes to include it can provide proper, sourced, evidence to back up the allegation. It's not acceptable to leave such material in place and simply tag it as 'citation needed'. A citation should be provided by the editor wishing to add it.--MichaelMaggs 21:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting part of controversory and external link

1)Israeli police decided that kabbalah centres leader Shaul Youdkevich not guilty in Leah Zunis case. 2)Kabbalah Centre says that there are many people which where cured by kabbalah technologies and its not fair look just on one side of the story. 3)External link also include one sided negative information and using some lies—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.221.8 (talk • contribs)

People in the Kabbalah Centre do not call themselves Kabbalists; they by and large only use that word as a title of respect, in particular towards Rav Berg and his wife Karen. Msteven1 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to the Kabbalah Centre and the first thing out of my teachers mouth would be "Did you give your thithings?" This is my personal experience. Even though I do love the essential core of the teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.164.119 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

An important question

I have noticed this sentence in the article that I find intriguing: [Start Quote]

"Jewish organizations distinguish it as non-Jewish and often consider participation by Jews in it a problem since classical Judaism forbids Jews from participating with non-Jews in religious rituals.[5]"

Previously I had never read or heard about such a prohibition. Can anyone cite its source, PLEASE? Regards, --AVM 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh... I think Elie Wiesel mentions it. Rereading Night. --Cheeesemonger 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Celeb list

There is a separate list of associated celebrities. Ideally people on that list should be sourced. Help finding sources would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Massive overhaul

I'm currently composing a massive overhaul for this article, in order to remove the cleanup tag. If there is anything in particular you would like me to address please let me know. Trickrick1985 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so like... I did a lot of work to reorganize the article. Criticisms are in the criticism section, history is in a history section (which badly needs to be expanded), and I made a framework with at least starter paragraphs for the basic teachings. I'd like to note that NOTHING in this article is very well covered. That includes both teachings and criticisms. For example, the centre's use of "chevras" is very controversial, and the subject of notable legal actions. The centre has also had its spokesman release very specific responses to its major controversies, which need to be better covered. I'm pretty disappointed in this article.

At some point, we need a seperate article which lists all locations, and a section which links to this list. Trickrick1985 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the list of locations article, though it is badly lacking. I included it in this main article. I added an info box with logo. Next I'm going to work on expanding the history, and then adding information for the list of locations. Then I would like to reorganize and add to the controversy section. It should be divided into overall criticisms and then specific incidents. I'm just kind of going for it with all of this because no one seems to be paying any attention to the article. Trickrick1985 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is This REALLY a 'Non-Profit Org.'?

If you go by the Kabbalah Centre's flimsy page, the centre claims to be a "bona fide" non-profit organization (tax exempt in the USA, 501 (c) 3 status) -- yet there are only 3 sentences on that particular page, and the page's copyright date is now 3 years old, from 2004 as it is. How can this centre be non-profit when ALL of the centre's classes/books/material cost money; individual classes run hundreds of dollars apiece (or more), while the Kabbalah studies certificates/diplomas/degrees offered by the centre require many classes and thus often run in the tens of thousands thousands of dollars? It is worth noting that, given the Kabbalah Centre's international presence (List of Kabbalah Centre locations) they make a whole lot of money (much like Scientology and the like) internationally as well; indeed Rabbi Berg & Family (Karen Berg, Yehuda Berg, Michael Berg, etc.) are as a consequence very wealthy people. It even says in the article that:

In Israel, authorities have refused to give the organization a certificate of proper management for three years running (as of 2005) because of accounting inadequacies. Ex-accountants for the Tel Aviv location recall double sets of books, and seeing Karen Berg checking into the center with suit cases full of U.S. currency.

It also says in the intro to Philip Berg's article that: "Also, the Centre's financial peculiarities have attracted growing attention, as another motive for suspicion and further controversy." Plus, one wonders when they find 'spiritual organizations' that charge $26 + shipping for a measly metre of red string that supposedly wards off "the evil eye"; it would seem that this 'non-profit org' is actually a very profitable business if they are able to charge $26 for string. --172.128.131.86 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What in the world does charging money for products and classes have to do with whether or not it's REALLY producing a profit? Several notes to cite the non-profit status, officially, this can be achieved:

"Donors may verify an organization's tax-exempt status and eligibility to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions by requesting to see an organization's IRS letter recognizing it as tax-exempt or directly calling the IRS (toll-free) at 1-877-829-5500." or perform an online search http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78 Dhcernese 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And after inserting word Kabbalah in the search at http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78 you can

understand that according to US law Kabbalah Centre is not proffit organization. It is a fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.230.2 (talk • contribs)

The Centre is indeed a registered non-profit organization in the U.S. Many non profit organizations, i.e. musuems, art galleries, etc. sell products to finance their activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.123.24 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The government says it is. Beyond that, I'm not sure this is the place for investigative journalism. See WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Below is a list of the Kabbalah Centre's non profit status lists from the IRS - its got a very charitable status - spreading light in the world despite its detractors. JAy UTC

Kabbalah Centre International Incorporated Los Angeles CA USA -- Kabbalah Centre of New York Incorporated Los Angeles CA USA -- Kabbalah Centres of the United States Inc. Los Angeles CA USA

Cleaning Up "Opinion stated as fact" Parts

I have removed:

Many consider the Centre to be a dangerous cult. What is taught and disseminated at the Centre has little connection with the actual and proud Kabbalistic textual tradition of Judaism. Instead, superstition and celebrity worship are the norm for this questionable operation

"Many consider..." - "Many" is an unwikipedia-like word... is many 100? 1000?

It refers to the place as "superstitious" (this would not fly on any spiritual article).

"Celebrity worship" is not promoted by the Kabbalah Centre. Red-strings, yes. Celebrity worship, no. No matter how many Madonna's and Demi Moore's are affiliated with it, people are not instructed to worship celebrities. The closest thing would be their belief that you can get spiritual inspiration from visiting the grave sites of deceased "great Kabbalists."

KC is not Judaism or any religion. It's clear on that site. Over the years there have been many different interpretations of what Kabbalah is, including in some occult circles which are not Jewish.

This section is not sourced. If the above listed information is to be included in the article, it needs to go in a relevent section on criticisms and needs to be sourced.

Some teaching analogies utilize a folk understanding of science, rather than an academic one.

No source, not explained or supported. "Folk understanding" seems condescending.

Also, I modified the preceding paragraph so that rather than saying KC "often attempts to relate" kabbalah to modern sciences, it often cites kabbalah as the inspiration. These claims are made on their website. Objections to such claims would need alternate sources.

I cleaned these up, and explained a few other facts. There are a few parts of the article that still seem sketchy, such as the claim that Judaism "surpressed" astrology is false. It wouldn't surprise me if it was, but the way it's worded still seems unencyclopediac.

The criticisms section seems well presented and well sourced. --Kilojake (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Madonna entry

The Madonna entry seems to go off on a tangent, with "Jewish authorities have called his teachings and doctrines 'Bergism.'" What exactly does that have to do with Madonna's participation? Msteven1 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

History

I am concerned that this paragraph

Berg left Brandwein's niece, his first wife and their eight children to marry his second and current spouse Karen. They have two sons, Yehudah and Michael--"the heirs." But according to reports "outside of his own Centre and circle of followers, neither the academic nor the Jewish religious worlds know anything about him except for the anomalies of his centers." And "he is universally condemned by both the orthodox rabbinate and contemporary schools of Jewish mysticism in Israel, the USA and elsewhere, as a charlatan." In one interview Berg admitted that "in fact -he has no academic degree at all."

may violate Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living people, WP:BLP. It coincides with what I have heard also, but I am not sure that its being true (if it is) justifies its inclusion in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Teachings section

This section, as it is now written, amounts to nothing but promotion for the Kabbalah Centre. It is not neutral, and does not cite sources for some rather amazing claims. It probably should be deleted in its entirety. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed (ideally), because it's rather important to a reader to know what exactly is being taught there. It is far too promotional, though (as you say), and needs to be neutralized and substantially reduced, to 1-2 paragraphs perhaps.Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources listed, and the material appears like it may have been copied. Much of it was added in a single edit.[1] Unless someone shows up promptly to fix this I'm going to revert it back to the much shorter version that existed before that edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A thorough check shows that the material was not copied and is compatible at a cursory level with the secondary and primary source material available online. Some of the material added in that group of edits, such as the sexuality section, is, in fact, sourced. If you want to edit the content to make it less promotional, as the prior user suggested, or spend time finding more citations for it you are encouraged to do so. I added a few to get the ball rolling, it is clear that this information is out there. FYI it is considered good etiquette to notify an editor that has made significant contributions to an article and bring up the issue of citation when planning to remove large amounts of their content. Trickrick1985 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What was your original source for that material when you added it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Various printed and audio Kabbalah instructional materials from their NYC centre 2007. This is as much an encyclopedic digest without OR as I could make, there are no copied or altered sentences, but my familiarity with the material obviously made it come out sounding supportive. That's why someone should edit it for promotional tone. Trickrick1985 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please add the citations to the materials you used? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the materials in ages, but I'll see if I can dig them up. Google appears to provide duplicate online sources for citation of all of the material as well. [2] for the 99% section for instance. I can try to fit those in too as I have time. If it's an acceptable source, all or most are verifiable by their own online publications [3]. I don't think there's any doubt, as has already been posited, that the beliefs provide important context to the article: they're at the heart of their significance, as a spiritual organization. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that there were limited citations originally, and I have recently added more. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the beliefs are important, but it's also important that we describe them correctly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on that. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy reference

The organization was referenced in a Family Guy episode[4], inferring its participants were "a slave to trends". S06E01 "Blue Harvest" :

• Do you believe in anything?
• Uh, yeah. Didn't you see my Kabbalah bracelet? [shows red Kabbalah Centre bracelet]
• What's Kabbalah?
• About a buck seventy-five.

Honestly, I have no idea. I'm just a slave to trends.

Can someone with more experience figure out if that should be in a cultural references section? There's probably a more official script source than that available if so. Thanks. Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be an overreach to say that the material talks about participants other than the speaker. He doesn't say "we're slave to trends". A good rule of thumb for whether a cultural reference is significant is if it's been mentioned in a secondary source. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. "Family Guy" references seemingly dozens of cultural topics in every episode, most of them in a trivial manner. There's been a backlash and some editors have gone through and removed "Family Guy" references from articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be very clear about the rule: "Individual lines in books and songs, or appearance in film should be included when their significance is demonstrated with secondary sources." Trickrick1985 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

David Berg is just another Shabtai Zvi or Jacob Frank. The story is an old story. I visited the Kabblah center in Miami. All they wanted was money for everything. Even though I knew more Kabbalah than every person there, they wanted to charge me a great deal of money for everything. It seemed to me that only thing they really worshipped was the Almighty Dollar. When the Jews fled Egypt they built a Golden Calf and worshipped it. The Kabbalah teaches the importance of spirituality. The Kabbalah Centre is all about worshiping materialism and the Golden Calf. When I asked them if I could meet their rabbi, that maybe he could introduce me to one of their members who could help me find a job, they booted me out of the place so fast my head swam. They do nothing to help poor members of their congregation. In fact, they are only interested in taking as much money as they can from the poor members of their congregation. Basically, this is a group that preys on people's conscience, takes their money and places in the hands of their leader Berg so Berg can live the life of the rich and famous. They claim if only you think positive, God will smile upon you. And if you are having a hard in life it is only because you haven't thought positive enough and haven't given them enough money. These were people who had no compassion for anyone. They were narcissistic, self-loving, egocentric, materialistic, and self-centered. Each member had zero interest in helping anyone, just getting ahead. If Libertarians had a religion, they might join the Kabbalah center where they believe that selfishness is good. 174.48.137.18 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible BLP violations

Do not the claims of celebrity association in Kabbalah Centre#Others all require source citations under WP:BLP? Only a few have associated sources, and especially given the controversy surrounding this organization, it would seem that allegations of affiliation would need to pass WP:V and WP:RS. I am tempted to delete (or possibly spend a modicum of time researching) the uncited claims, but would rather seek consensus on this before going all WP:BOLD. (E.g., I know Sandra Bernhard mentioned it in one of her broadcast stand-up shows, but I'd have to find out which. While not technically subject to BLP anymore, the late Elizabeth Taylor also should probably be sourced.) --KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration for scientific discoveries???

Under Teachings: Approach, there is the following sentence: "The Kabbalah Centre often cites Kabbalah as the inspiration for recent scientific discoveries, including The Big Bang, String Theory, atomic structure, and Newton's Third Law." This is a very serious (and possibly outrageous) claim, and should be accompanied with what evidence they cite, and whether or not there is any additional reliable sources for such claims to be true. Ouizardus (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ouizardus (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Yworo (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

LGBT issues

Surprising that LGBT issues are not addressed by this article, considering most sources seem to indicate Kabbalah Centre is accepting of homosexuality and bisexuality, though their views on transgender people seems unclear? Any competent reliable sources available for this information? Laval (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What LGBT issues with the Kabbalah center are you referring to? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

After all these years, lead is still a semi-promotional mess that lacks appropriate encyclopedic context. Likewise, rabbinical and scholarly consensus rejecting kabbalah centre as an authentic expression of kabbalic mysticism is barely addressed.Laval (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

breathing is a gift

The phrase "take a deep breath" is misleading because the breath isn't something we can just "take." Breathing is a gift, a miracle, offered to us over and over again, but we often take it for granted. I say we start accepting this gift with gratitude and appreciation the way we accept all presents, by saying "thank you!" Society can seem disgruntled and ungrateful, and yes, this world appears to no longer be appreciative, but some of its people still are! And therein lies the promise. So accept a few deep breaths with a smile on your face and your eyes closed. What a joy it is to be alive...from my book kaballah..get your copy...Remember You Have GREATNESS Within You...Happy Wednesday...Namaste_/\_ Brian cole (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kabbalah Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101031511/http://www.kabbalah.com/03.php to http://www.kabbalah.com/03.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)