Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Lubavitcher Rebbe On The Balcony.jpg
• Menachem Mendel Schneersohn.jpg
• Menachem Mendel Schneerson.jpg
• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn Officiates at Wedding.jpg
• Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson on Chanukah.jpg
• Rebbe Schneersohn With Messianic Crown.jpg
• Rebbe with Chief Rabbi.jpg
• The Rebbe Accepts Messianic Tambourine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The messianics generally don't claim he is alive. Fact.

Anyone who knows anything about even the most insular community of messianics knows that they in general do not say this. There is a small ring of crazies who do, but they aren't paid any attention in 770. The messianics, on the other hand, have written several books and articles about how it is possible for the messiah to be a deceased person, citing Talmudic sources. While most scholars find these arguments logically strained, the fact remains that they don't believe he is alive. The messianics also frequently visit his grave and commemorate his passing on the third of Tammuz. Perhaps, if that tiny fraction of dissidents deserves mention, we should add them as a separate group? 172.221.129.101 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Well thousands of them wear yarmulkas which state he is alive. גוי אחד בארץ (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

not thousands. a small group led by confused people NossonG (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How many volumes were actually published? Two different numbers are in the article.

The introduction reads: "Schneerson's published teachings fill more than 400 volumes..."

Section "Scholarship and works" reads" "Schneerson's teachings have been published in more than two hundred volumes."

Maybe someone could have a look at the original sources? Or, at least, put both numbers in one place and admit that different sources report different numbers. 144.206.226.161 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The common used number is 200 and I believe that would work if we are only counting his original works about 20 years ago.

Today the number of books of his teachings and on his teachings is easily over the 500 mark.

The problem is it's not really clear to me yet what should be considered as his books and what not. Technically Sichot Kodesh can be considered the same thing as Torat Menachem, now obviously they are very different. One's Hebrew, one's English. One's more of a word to word whilst the other uses the liberty to write in a written fashion. So do we could the 71 (so far) of Torat Menachem or not? Now is this is from the more simple examples and I'd say we should count both. But what about the maamorim? Should we count both sets which have different writing styles? Or not?

I think we have to change the way this is formatted so we can also include books written on the rebbe.

I'm not exactly sure what I'm thinking yet.

I'll to start adding volumes and sets that are missing so that we can make a more complete number and figure out how to make it more understandable.

In short the 200 volumes is an old number as 10's of volumes are still being published every year Blowner (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Anno Mundi in dates of birth/death?

Is this standard practice? People from all over the world and all through time with different / older dating systems are on Wikipedia, but we don't give an alternate date of birth/death with whatever particular dating system they may have subscribed to. Just curious... Mercster (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BCE on other era systems, I think the dates here are appropriate. 216.197.64.142 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Rebbe Said He Is Moshiach

The Rebbe said he is moshiach many times over, starting from the most famous quote that "the leader of the generation is the moshiach of the generation" and saying the he is "the seventh generation" which is the "last generation of exile and the first generation of redemption" etc.. We must fix up Wikipedia when it makes false claims that the rebbe never claimed to be moshiach (and it quotes stiensaltz's book as reference, what sort of authority is he?) and makes claims like that most of chabad dosn't belive in the rebbe being moshiach (heaven forbid!). everyone use Wikipedia for fact and truthful information and they will rely what it says here even more than there close friend who is a Rabbi. anyone willing to step on to the challenge of truth? MendelDeren (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

He never said that he is moshiach.

Do not misuse sources. NossonG (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

He said the "leader of the generation is the moshiach of the generation". He also said that this generation is "the last generation of exile and the first generation of redemption" and that the leader of this generation will redeem us. He also says that the name of Moshaich is "Menachem" the same name he bears. He also said that "Moshaich is physically present at this table" during a Shabbat Fabrengun. He also said that Yud Alef Nissan is the birthday of Moshaich. There are countless of other quotes that I can give you.

mainly, during the year of 1993 he vigorously encouraged the chant of "Yechi" that attributes him to being the Moshiach.

I request of you "NossonG" to please avoid false statements and deny facts that have been verified and are recorded with audio, text, video and personal eye witness. MendelDeren (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources currently cited very well could be contradicted by others, but any changes would require you to share the sources you're using so they can be judged as reliable or not. XeCyranium (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

At most, the Rebbe implied it. All of the above statements could plausibly be referring to someone else. The article summarizes what his followers and others had to say about the subject, and should be left at that. StonyBrook _babble 11:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

I would like to request an edit to clarify and improve the comprehensiveness of the content in the Education section of this article. The specific changes I would like to suggest are:

Clarify the phrase "a moral educational system for all people" by rewording as "a system of education that promotes moral values for all people" (see [source 1]). Add two additional sentences on the importance of education in Schneerson's teachings, with sources: Additional sentence 1: "Schneerson believed that education is essential for building character and promoting moral values." ([Source 2])

Additional sentence 2: "He urged Congress to proclaim 1977 as the 'Year of Education' in order to raise awareness of the importance of education for all people." ([Source 3])

These changes aim to improve clarity and align the content more closely with the purpose and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any further information from me regarding this edit request.

Thank you, MendelDeren (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It's not clear what you mean by [Source 1], [Source 2], or [Source 3]. Please specify. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)