Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

More hard info, less sugar-coating

I just spent more than an hour copyediting this article, and along the way found a few inconsistences and a lot left out. I prepared a subheading for the whole "Moshiach fervor" that broke out during his lifetime, and opened the floor to a full discussion of how Chabad has split into three camps since his petirah. I agree with what was written above (in 2007) that this article lacks teeth. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. It's crazy that the controversies are not referenced in this article. It would seem that this is a clear POV fork. MikeR613 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A statement like "His focus on messianism was controversial and his legacy is deeply polarising within Orthodox Judaism. " is blatant POV, and unsubstantiated. Failing somebody adding a verifiable source, I intend to delete it as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement is both obviously true, and amply supported in this article or its sub-article. Please don't remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg . At the same time, it should preferably be sourced. Perhaps you could find a source yourself? Debresser (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's so "obviously true" and as "amply supported" as Jayig claims, then providing references 'directly supporting the statement' shouldn't be too hard. Failing such, it remains blatant POV, simply untrue, and a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V which I intend to remove. I have searched but could not find any remotely reliable source for a statement like that - but I'm not the one who stuck it here.Winchester2313 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Liz Leyden

I again removed the following paragraph.

Liz Leyden of the The Washington Post wrote that belief in Schneerson as the Messiah "gained speed — and voice" after a stroke rendered the Lubavitcher Rebbe unable to speak.

First of all, let me reply to two of the editors who restored this paragraph.

1. The problem is not the reliabilty of the source. All agree, that the Washington Post is a fine source.
2. Especially rude was the accusation of "whitewashing" this article. What is black and what is white in this anonymous editor's opinion, I don't know.

The point remains, that (at least) three editors have removed this paragraph again and again, and all for the very same reason: it doesn't fit in this article, in its present form and at the places it was added.

In my opinion, if it were to be rewritten "The belief in Schneerson as the Messiah "gained speed — and voice" after the stroke that rendered the Lubavitcher Rebbe unable to speak." (and the reference, of course), it just might be kept at its first location. At the second location it was even more out of place. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have placed it in the original location. I don't really care where in the article it goes, but it needs to be in there somewhere — the Messianic fervor surrounding Schneerson is a major part of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's notability. If others on this page insist on removing this quote, I think the next step would be to open a request for comment to bring more uninvolved editors to this page. *** Crotalus *** 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You were summarily reverted. Let's await the outcome of this discussion. The questions are if this is needed, and how to formulate it.

Please note that nobody is removing the subject of messianism altogether. The subject is just this specific paragraph. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This sentence has no connection to the section it is in. And even within that section this sentence is out of chronological order. It would be more fitting in Menachem Mendel Schneerson#Last illness, chronologically, although it does not fit there so well either. Basically, this sentence is more about messianism than about Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and as such should perhaps be in Menachem Mendel Schneerson#The Meshichist movement, but it seems extensive for that section. Perhaps putting it in Chabad messianism is best. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incumbent

In the infobox it says "Successor: Incumbent". What does that mean? Debresser (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it. And yes, I did check in the mean time what it means. 1. There is no successor 2. A person can't be his own successor, so whatever the editor who added this intended, it can't be correct. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How many meshichistim are there

Two weeks ago I changed "some of his followers consider him to be the Jewish Messiah" to "a substantial part of his followers have considered him to be the Jewish Messiah". Portia327 has reverted me three times already, asking for a source of this what he calles "qualifier".

I'd like to argue first of all, that "some" is also a qualifier. But foremost I think the word "significant" is a qualifier not of the relative number of meshichistim, for which I indeed have not found any source, but of their importance. It comes to stress that they are not a fringe group, but a considerable, and very influential part of the Chabad movement.

I'd like to ask for your commentaries. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, I have not violated the 3R rule, I have in fact reverted your unsourced information twice and it was within the last few days. Exaggeration doesn't help any argument when facts are at stake. You can't put up a word like significant or substantial w/o a verifiable source attached to it. 'Some' means neither a minority nor a majority of his followers share the belief and is all I think should be committed to until someone who's more interested in accuracy of numbers goes and finds a source that shows a figure. Otherwise, pulling a possible number out of the air would tend to show a POV which we want to avoid. No one's said anything about fringe groups, but if you have a cite to show something more concrete than vagaries like 'considerable' and 'influential', bring it. Portia327 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not refering to the 3RR rule. I have no problem with your removal of any qualifier, both "some" and "substantial". "Part" is completely correct and avoids all indication of size and/or importance. I considered doing the same myself, actually. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

'Part' is grammatically incorrect when referring to a group of people. It should be 'some'. Also, without hard data, guesstimating the size or significance of the messianist within Chabad is sheer speculation, and does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.58.107 (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation of "Yechi" slogan

I've changed the translation of the "Yechi" slogan again, to match the translation used in the article about Chabad messianism. The Hebrew word moshiach means Messiah and the translation of moshiach as "the Anointed One" lacks the same implications in the English language. Besides, the slogan is in the section of the article called "Schneerson as the Jewish Messiah" and in the context of a description of how some of his followers believed he was the Messiah. Comments? --AFriedman (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The main point is that it should be "Long live..." as in an exclamation, and not "He shall live" as in a statement. Because that is how people intend it, and how I have seen it translated often. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi

A few editors have removed the title "Rabbi" from in front of the name "Menachem Mendel Schneerson". In my opinion this is in disagreement with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles, and the established on that basis practise on Wikipedia to mention all honorifics at the first mention of a person (but not to repeat them), including articles on other rabbis and chassidic rebbes.

The additional argument of Jayjg, that the sentence already mentions that he was a rabbi later on, has in my opinion no bearing on said guideline and practise, because it is not close to the name, as honorifics should be.

Note that Template:Infobox Jewish leader likewise places the honorific "Rabbi" in the its banner. Debresser (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CREDENTIAL#Academic titles is the more appropriate guideline here. Compare with Yitzchok Hutner, Norman Lamm. And it makes no sense to say "Rabbi X is a rabbi". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Argument accepted. But please refrain from your usual personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Failing scholarship"

User:Zsero has deleted the following paragraph from the article:

According to Erlich, towards the end of his life, particularly after his heart attack in 1977 his scholarship began to fade - one of Schneerson's editors, David Olidort, "told how most of Schneerson’s aides and editors adored him and saw him as virtually infallible, despite their numerous corrections of his failing scholarship."<ref>''The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present'', M. Avrum Ehrlich, Chapter 8, p. 80, note 35. KTAV Publishing, ISBN 0881258369</ref>

His rationale for removing it was untrue. olidort never told ehrlich any such thing. When I objected to this removal, on the grounds that the material was reliably sourced, he restored it again, with the rationale lies do not belong on wp, no matter who wrote them. a source that tells lies is by definition not reliable. The author, Ehrlich, was actually ordained as a rabbi by Chabad, the movement which Schneerson headed. In addition:

He read Jewish Philosophy and Political Science at Bar Ilan University, completed his doctorate on leadership strategies of Hasidic masters at the University of Sydney. He was awarded a Krytman scholarship to research at the Cambridge based Centre of Jewish – Christian Relations, and was awarded a Chevening and British Commonwealth Scholarships to undertake research on religion, law and government at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Social and Political Sciences and later at the Centre for Advanced Religious and Theological Studies.

In addition to his other books on Judaism, Ehrlich has written Leadership in the Habad Movement: A Critical Study of Habad Leadership, History and Succession, (Jason Aronson, New Jersey, 2000) and The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidism Past and Present (KTAV, New Jersey, 2004). He was also the Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, (ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, 2008). He is currently a full professor of Judaic studies at the Centre of Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies at Shandong University. Now, keeping in mind that Zsero's statement is likely already likely a violation of WP:BLP, could Zsero please explain which reliable sources contradict Ehrlich's statments? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually took the time earlier today to call Olidort himself, and ask him about this. He assured me, in no uncertain terms, that he never made the statement that Ehrlich quoted, that he had confronted Ehrlich following publication whereupon Ehrlich confessed to fabricating the 'quote' based solely on his own, subjective, retro-analysis and imagination. Ehrlich further assured Olidort that this paragraph would be removed from future editions (an unlikely event, as there will probably never be another edition). Apparently, Ehrlich didn't even conduct a proper interview with Olidort, and sufficed by constructing 'quotes' based on his recollections of conversation at a holiday meal he had gotten himself invited to, at Olidorts home in Crown Heights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDFLAG is obviously the relevant guideline here, as calling this an 'exceptional claim' would be something of an understatement. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, personal phone calls are not considered reliable or verifiable. Sadly, the rebuttal must be made in a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, book, etc.). Perhaps, if Olidort has his own blog that is reliably his, that may be enough for statements about himself, and (after asking on WT:RS) we could write that "Olidort himself refutes the claim". Curious, wouldn't Olidort sue Ehrlich for libel/defamation in this case? -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• In this case I agree with Winchester2313. It is a bad idea to have something that is dubious to begin with, if we have good reason to doubt its accuracy. Especially since in any case it borders on problematic by virtue of its non-complementary content. Remember, there is no guideline or policy that says we must have any given piece of information, and there are several issues here that argue against inclusion. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why would it be "dubious to begin with"? What "good reason to doubt its accuracy" do we have? It seems a perfectly ordinary, commonplace, entirely plausible kind of statement. Unless, that is, one believes that the normal effects of aging would not affect Schneerson. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The best reason to highly doubt the accuracy of Ehrlichs claim is that there is apparently no, nor does he present any, evidence to support it. Schneerson meeting thousands of people every week, while displaying incredible memory of both identities and events, not to mention thousands of scholarly verbal exchanges, and still lecturing weekly for hours on end from memory, means Ehrlich needs to substantiate his claim with real evidence, not the reverse. Csteffen13 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this paragraph should be removed until or if somenoe supplies a more solid reason why it should be believable. The rule clearly say that 'Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.61.162 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That the "relevant community" (I assume you mean Chabad followers) considers Schneerson to be the greatest human being who ever lived, perfect in every way, is not particularly relevant. It is in no way a "red flag" to think that a person's intellectual abilities might become less acute as he ages. In fact, it would be a "red flag" to think the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. All available evidence contradicts Ehrichs claim, your bit of OR & POV in that statement notwithstanding. Schneerson was a highly scrutinized public figure, and while I'm no Chabadnik, the claim made by Ehrlich is absurd to anybody even remotely familiar with Schneersons work. Fact is, that in the many hundreds (thousands?) of lectures delivered after 1977, he continued to speak unaided by any text, and quote extensively, verbatim, from memory. A major (if not the major)part of his novellae on Shas and Rambam were produced after 1977. So Ehrlichs claim remains 'controversial', highly 'exceptional' and a major Red Flag in every way. If there were any truth to it, surely somebody else would have noticed and made mention. Csteffen13 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I've removed the lines in question, and think they should be mentioned in a footnote, with an explanation of their highly questionable and disputed status, as that is what they are, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDFLAG.66.202.61.162 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I subscribe to 66.202.61.16's argument, which is what I had in mind as well. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind that Rabbi Schneerson would speak weekly for hours and hours on end. If he had made some sort of scholarly error, there would be plenty good "friends of Lubavitch" who would have pounced on it with glee. The fact that not even one such instance was adduced demonstrates that this claim is, indeed, highly doubtful and requires more substantial proof in order to be included here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In the real world, however, it is entirely common that a person's intellectual abilities would become less acute as they got old, and after they had been plagued by ill health. Anything claiming the opposite would be WP:REDFLAG. And the protestations of members of his religious sect, who tend to view him as the greatest intellect who has ever lived (or ever will), and quite often also regard him as the Messiah, with various God-like abilities, are not really good indications of what Wikipedia might consider to be a WP:REDFLAG. If you do have reliable sources refuting Ehrlich's claims, by all means bring them forward; otherwise, these protestations regarding Schneerson's undiminished abilities are, to quote, "bit of OR & POV". Jayjg ^(talk) 12:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg is again pushing his opinion by sheer force and lies, like claiming a (non-existent) consensus on WP:RS/N. To which he forgot to place a link here, although the main discussion is here, rather than there. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am an otherwise uninvolved administrator who was asked to come take a look at this situation.

First - Jay has a source which he's verified, which says that Schneerson's scholarship faded. There seems to be no question as to that source existing or saying what he says it said. Though the source's author may be imperfect, they are a tenured professor and they meet WP:RS and WP:V criteria. This does not make the source right - but it does make it verifyable and generally reliable.

Second - IF the specific quote was misquoted or accidentally fabricated, then that's a valid specific issue to be noted outside the general reliability and verifyability of the source.

HOWEVER - All we have at this time in evidence that the quote was fabricated or misquoted is one Wikipedian's claim in the article talk page above. The claim that it's misquoted or fabricated therefore does not meet reliable source or verifyability guidelines.

Out of an abundance of caution we might assume for the moment that it's true - however, and this is not really up for negotiation or discussion - a claim like that must be confirmed in a manner which meets RS and V requirements. Call Olidort back, and ask him to go on the record - with a letter to the editor of some scholarly publication, a blog posting, anything which will meet our RS guidelines for verifying that he said that.

If he does that - great, Ehrlich's claim on that specific point is rebutted, and we leave it out.

If Olidort won't go on record, then your assertion that he disputes Ehrlich's claim is not something we can take on your word.

So, please go back to him, and either get him to go on record or find out where he has previously gone on record and get a citation for that.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're rearranging deck chairs, George. It's an article generally guarded and written by folks who like Schneerson, and occasionally edited by a few other people who don't much like Schneerson at all. I mean: "Books and pamphlets were written containing proofs for the Rabbi's status as Messiah" is in the article. Any reasonable article would say something like "seeking to prove he was the Messiah." As for Olidort, one of Schneerson's discipless, getting a "denial" published in a letter to the editor should not then "disqualify" a scholarly source. At any rate, is it really so surprising that the scholarship of a 79 year old who had a heart attack would "begin to decline?"Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. Ehrlich makes a definitive statement about a public figure, for which the only basis he provides is a supposed conversation with a 'source' who denies ever having made it! If the facts are as Ehrlich wrote, then surely they've been reported in mainstream media, but all commonly available evidence seems to squarely contradict Ehrlichs claim. So yes, this discussion is about rearranged deck chairs...lol. And since the sole sole source claimed by Ehrlich is David Olidort, then if he denies having made the statement, out it goes.Winchester2313 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source on that please?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.....and vice-versa. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this point - Ehrlich's scholarship is reliable in general and verifiable. Even if it turns out he misquoted Olidort.

Olidort's specific claim that he was misquoted and disagrees with the position attributed to him may be true, but so far all we have to substantiate that is a claim by a Pseudonymous poster on a Wikipedia talk page - which absolutely and completely fails our reliable source guidelines. Personal claims of research fall under our original research policy.

I am assuming in good faith that you're not trolling or lying, that you made the call and that Olidort said what you say he said. However - even if that's true - for inclusion in Wikipedia facts have to be sourced to a verifiable and reliable source. A phone conversation isn't good enough.

The burden of proof here is on you - talk to Olidort, tell him that he needs to write a letter to the editor of something disputing Ehrlich's quote, or some other way of going on the record (or if he's done so, have him provide you a citation for such a reliably sourced existing refutation).

Continuing to snipe back and forth here on the talk page is not helpful. We've told you what you need to do - take this information from being a form which is not usable by Wikipedia and convert it into a form which is. Once that's done, then that resolves that aspect of the dispute.

If you focus on arguing back and forth here without going and getting that confirmation, it calls the accuracy of your claim into doubt. We're giving you the benefit of the doubt now - but that requires reciprocation on your part to attempt to get the reliable evidence to back up your claim.

It's really simple. Olidort goes on the record, we can use that. Please call him back and request that he go on the record.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and especially for your plain English. I will get on it very soon.Winchester2313 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(replying to Bali Ultimate's first)

If a quoted subject denies on the record (in a reliable verifiable source) that they said what is quoted, it is not the final word on the subject, as they can be lying. However, it is enough to establish credible doubt in our reliable source requirements as to the accuracy of the other source that quotes them.

If the original author comes back and again insists in the accuracy of the first quote, we can then cover it in a manner describing both the allegation and the disputation of it.

I don't think any independent reader will see the "Books and pamphlets" sentence and believe that anyone outside Chabad is asserting the ultimate truth of Schneerson's Messiah-hood. It's clearly a "they believe this". Which I believe is accurate. It's not the ultimate neutral way to portray it, but your alternative is going too far on the skeptic side as well.

Neutrality doesn't mean disrespecting article subjects' beliefs to the point that our articles phrase every one of their claimed beliefs in a skeptical and insulting way.

I don't have any problem with the general assertion that 79-year-olds who have heart attacks often or even usually go somewhat into decline. The accuracy of the quote in question - whether Olidort thought he went into decline or not - is different than the question of whether he went into decline. It's entirely possible that both Olidort didn't say he thought he went into decline, and that an uninvolved reasonable observer would have thought he did or was declining.

The statement as asserted is claiming that an insider thought there was a decline, which the insider is denying (but not yet on the record). If Ehrlich asserts from his own experience that he felt there was a decline, that's one thing, but he asserted both that and that Olidort agreed with that, which Olidort reportedly now disagrees with.

At the very least, if Olidort didn't say that then any mention of Ehrlich's comments needs to remove mention of Olidort.

All of this assumes that someone can reliably sourcedly substantiate that Olidort is now contesting the quote. Which, as I said, we can assume for the sake of argument for the moment, but which must be confirmed by a reliable on the record source we can verify within reasonably short order. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that a no?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to go from a hard to dispute generalization (79 year old + heart attack = tendency for decline) to a specific (in this case, there was a decline).

I do not dispute the generalization. I have no information regarding the specific with Schneerson. My family experience was that first heart attacks in the 80s didn't lead to abrupt mental or physical declines (My late grandfather was still walking 2-3 miles a day and working on the farm and in the shop). If you believe that the generalization is necessarily universally true then I totally disagree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the history of Schneerson believers' public claims about the "truth" I am more inclined to believe Erlich. I would quote erlich, and quote olidort denying (if and when this denial ever appears in print). As for the "generalization" I'm simply pointing out it isn't a particularly extraordinary claim (he didn't write, for instance: "After his heart attack, Schneerson sprouted wings and started flying, Olidort told Ehrlich.") What's plausible? That a disciple was candid in an informal setting, but for public image/propaganda reasons now denies they said it. Happens every day in my business.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees that Erlich is in general a reliable source. At the same time Georgewilliamherbert ignores the arguments specifically brought above to the extent that 1. it is unlikely that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would be able to give addresses for hours and make mistakes that nobody else would notice (including those who were ardent in finding fault in anything connected with Lubavich), and therefore 2. such an exceptional claim needs impeccable and unchallenged references. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your arguments regarding Schneerson's scholarship in his later years. Do you have any reliable sources for your claim that Ehrlich's view regarding this matter is incorrect? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg , please reread what I wrote. They are 1. not my arguments, and 2. the first argument is not about the the Lubavicher Rebbe's scholarship, but about the fact that it is unlikely nobody would have mentioned any changes in his scholarship if such were detectable. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish to make the additional point that once Erlich's claim is proven a fabrication through Olidort's repudiation, this calls into question Erlich's scholarship and integrity in general, perhaps disqualifying him as a reliable source altogether. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, if these are not your arguments, then please point us to the reliable source that makes them. And Yehoishophot Oliver, nothing has been proven, and even if Olidort were to make a public denial, it would have essentially no impact on whether or not Ehrlich is a reliable source. A public denial by Olidort would not mean he never said it, but merely that he later denied doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's painfully obvious to anybody reading this by now, that Jayjg has no interest in debating this issue on its merits, rather, he seems determined to browbeat everybody else into accepting his opinion as fact. Nonetheless, certain facts remain unchanged by all the hyperbole:

1. Ehrlich has made a rather exceptional allegation, one that seems to contradict all available public evidence.

2. Ehrlich provides no proof of any kind to support his allegation, save a single disputed 'quote'.

3. Ehrlich is unique in making this particular allegation about a very public and highly scrutinized figure - this itself is quite suspicious.

4. As Ehrlich makes very clear in his books, he is far from an impartial observer of the subject matter, and thus further arouses suspicion when one analyzes his controversial 'findings' and opinions.

5. Ehrlichs 'source' may not even have been formally interviewed. Should Ehrlich prove unable to provide audio (or at least written) transcripts of his interview(s), the thinking person will have to reconsider Ehrlichs veracity as a researcher. This would apply to anything he wrote that cannot be independently verified, or researched at-source.

I think it's rather clear by now in which direction the accusations of 'failing scholarship' would best be leveled... and not in an encyclopedia. Winchester2313 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Winchester2313, I thought you were going to "very soon" "get on" Olidort to disavow in a reliable source his former statements. Please make good on your promise. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though Jayjg might be (!) technically right, I think we should differentiate between two cases: if this were a discussion to include certain information, then yes, the source must be undisputed, but since this is about not including certain information, which is a lot more serious, IMHO the reasonable doubt casted by the report of a fellow Wikipedia as to the reliability of the source, with claims of a phone call and outright denial, are enough to remove this unflattery sentence from the article. Debresser (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm only interested in policy. The views of outside editors here, and at WP:RS/N, have been unanimous; Ehrlich is a reliable source, and, failing any reliable sources contradicting him, the material is in no way doubtful or objectionable. And by "reliable sources contradicting him", we mean, of course, WP:RS - Wikipedia editors, even though they might have been editing pseudonymously for almost 5 months, and have made over 300 edits, do not qualify. That Schneerson's followers are unanimous in believing their deceased leader had no flaws, was impervious to the normal effects of aging, and, indeed, might not even be deceased, is immaterial. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on WP:RS/N has been nothing of the sort. Perhaps you should start considering other editors actual points. And please explain why, logically, opinions of chabad-critics should carry more sway than those of chabad-supporters?! In any event, as per the discussion above, and as per Georgewilliamherbert, this issue seems to be pending resolution, albeit not to Jayjg 's satisfaction, so please give it a rest. (Oh, and forgetting to sign some posts doesn't exactly constitute editing 'pseudonymously', especially when said editor re-edits their own post by adding a signature, wouldn't you think? BTW, I hear there's a tenured position available at Shandong University - the Chinese government has awarded them 'National Key' status - even Yale and Harvard don't have that....) Winchester2313 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Winchester2313 's assessment of consensus on WP:RS/N, and would also like to point out again, that Georgewilliamherbert has not addresses the other points raised in this discussion. In addition, Jayjg should not forget that there are no policies that obligate us to include material, while there are plenty of reasons to remove material. In this case a few of them apply. In addition , Wikipedia specifically includes a failsafe in the form of WP:IAR, which would be a good start for any editor who wanted to remove false information which seems to have a reliable source. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing seems to be reliable. The only argument I can remotely conceive of that might argue against inclusion is the simple boring nature of most of what Erhlich says. Of course scholarship declined when he got older. That happens to everyone. But none of the reasons given at all resemble a reason to not treat this as a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The comments here that the WP:RS/N discussion resolved that Ehrlich is unreliable are an inaccurate view of that discussion. The only previously uninvolved opinion the discussion generated is JoshuaZ, and Winchester2313 and Debresser are misrepresenting his opinion and the consensus there.

As I said earlier, there's a clear and unambiguous correct way to resolve objections to Ehrlich's quoting and conclusion, and that's get the quoted person on the record. You (Winchester2313) agreed to attempt to do that. Where does the situation stand on that contact and confirmation?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one only claim that even is Erlich is generally regarded as a reliable source, still in this specific case, it is preferable not to include the information for several reasons. Your comments have carefully avoided those issues. In addition, please also notice that Winchester2313 might or might not be able to get Olidort to go public. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I and other uninvolved admins have concluded that the reasons to leave Erlich's material out here are not well founded in Wikipedia policy. I am not evading that point; I have concluded you're wrong on it.

Winchester2313 may or may not be able to get Olidort to go on the record; yes. That's clear. What Olidort is willing to do is up to Olidort. However, what Olidort choses to do affects whether we have a Wikipedia-policy compliant reliable source challenge on the table or not. A phone conversation comment is not a Wikipedia-policy compliant reliable source challenge. We need something on the record in a verifiable manner.

If neither Olidort nor anyone else in the Chabad movement bothered to go on the record challenging Erlich's writings on these points, then we are faced with an unfortunate case of esoteric knowledge colliding with modern reliable knowledge theory and Wikipedia's particular reliable source and verifiable source standards.

It might both be true that Erlich is wrong, and that nobody is willing to challenge his statements on the record. If so, then the community of those who know otherwise are responsible, for not taking affirmative action to (in a reliable and verifiable and on the record sense) correct the established written record.

Wikipedia policy is that we don't try to take sides and ajudicate underlying actual historical fact. We can't know what the truth was. What we go with, as we're a modern information resource and an encyclopedia, is what the record says, in the sense of reliable and verifiable information.

There are undoubtedly factually incorrect things in Wikipedia in many articles. We are attempting to severely limit our incidence of factually incorrect things for which we have no reliable or verifiable source. Our policies are entirely focused on operating not on truth, but on sources we can identify and presumably rely on.

If Olidort and all the others won't go on the record, they're conceding the academic (and historical, and journalistic, and so forth) record to those who did. Wikipedia standards are that we rely on the record.

If Chabad collectively won't go on the record - the article here must reflect the record, not the asserted truth. Even if the underlying factual truth is that the asserted truth is what really happened. The reason is that the rest of us cannot rely in any circumstance on any asserted truth that is not on the record.

The article here is not the right place to fight this. If the movement needs accurate history, according to their memories of the situation, they need to make the histories accurate, and fight that elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You "have found"? Get of that tree, please. You have not addressed part of the issues, just the by and large undisputed point of Erlich reliability. You'll have to do better, if you want to impress experienced editors. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous volumes of published scholarly talks by Schneerson between the years 1977 and 1992. I have found some Schneerson video with English subtitles of this era at Living Torah which reveal an individual of good mental alacrity. These bring Ehrlichs claims into the category of ”exceptional claims require exceptional sources”. Sorry. --Charleswindsor (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that, and secondarily to accept that consensus opinions including outsiders uninvolved in Chabad and Jewish issues are going to decide the issue, not your personal opinion on what's valid and what is not.

Also, primary sources are not as good as secondary sources, when it comes to descriptive analysis, because we would have to synthesize results from reviewing those primary source videos, and that falls afoul of our policy against synthesizing. It may help call Erlich into question but it's not necessarily a good source on its own. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Olidort on the record?

Has Olidort publicly disavowed these statements in a reliable source? I think we've waited a reasonable amount of time. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur that we've waited long enough for at least some sort of a status report. Winchester2313, do you have an update? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed have an update. I would respectfully beg your indulgence(s) a wee bit longer, as I am reasonably confident that this matter will soon be resolved in an unequivocal and permanent way. What this involves is a question of whether an academic fabricated 'quotes' and 'research', and a publisher failed to thoroughly fact-check a highly controversial claim. My guess would be that clarity soon comes from Ehrlich's publisher, KTAV. As I said, it's just a guess right now, but I'd ask everybody to wait a little bit longer. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• As much as I agree that the best solution to our problem here would be for Olidort to go public with a disavowal, never the less I would like to point out, that even in absence of such a statement there have been decisive arguments in the discussion to remove that paragraph and there is no consensus to have it in spite of them. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • the only opposition to erlich has been from members of the schneerson cult of personality. Unaffiliated folks support it. Now, in the absence of a WP:RS reliable source refuting his claim, we will soon restore that information.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. The argument has been that Rabbi Schneerson spoke year after year for many hours in public each week, with detractors following everything he said, and although many disagreed, no one "caught" him on his scholarship. That's what makes this claim exceptional. If proof is provided to the contrary--that such claims were credibly made--then the quote would be reasonable. As it stands, though, it's not. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you have a reliable source for the original research, synthesis and opinion you just expressed Mr. Oliver? If not, this discussion is pretty much over.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The removal of the information was non-consensual, and no policy-based rationale or evidence has been brought to support its removal. The only editors who support the removal are ones who are members of the movement that venerate Schneerson, the subject of the information. All other editors have confirmed the reliability of the source. We've been more than patient on this matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And the only editors insistent on restoring it are those who seem determined to cast the LR and Chabad in as negative a light as distorting the historical record will allow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources still applies here, imho. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One of my friends from college is now Chabad; I have as open a mind about the organization as I do about any other religious group. That does not change Wikipedia verifiability and reliable source policy.

I don't know any more about the factual events than I know about any other historical event that happened outside my direct experience; I care that the article be accurate and consistent with documented sources out there in the world. That's how Wikipedia works. We have explained this already.

Hopefully you can indeed get sufficient documentation on the record to support your assertions here and that will resolve the matter.

If not - please understand that this is not personal or antagonistic towards the group. It's Wikipedia policy, and it's there for a reason. We do not report persons individual memory, or original research, or any form of revealed truth. We report documented and verifiable information. Some of that may be wrong, but our standards are documented and verifiable. That's how we work. That's how this article must work. That is how you must work if you're working on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

GWH, you continue to be wrong about this basic matter of policy. NOR requires RS to include something, not to exclude it. The fundamental mission of WP is not to record what "reliable sources" have said, but to record what is true. RS is a way of making sure that WP says is verifiably true; if something doesn't appear in RS then it can't be included because nobody can check that it's true. But when an RS says something that we know is false, it doesn't matter how we know it. OR is perfectly adequate to remove false claims from WP. Mr Olidort has now posted his own disclaimer here. He's spoken to Winchester. And yesterday I called him and heard the same denial from him. If you're not convinced, look up his number and call him yourself. Having done so, you will know that the claim is false, and therefore must stay out of WP. -- Zsero (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're off on the mission. Have a read of Wikipedia:Truth. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody questions your intentions, please rest assured. But you have not even once addressed the concerns raised above, although I have asked you three times already to do so. So I do not think that hammering on one point is productive while ignoring others. As long as these issues have not been addressed to satisfaction, the information can not be restored. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments you keep referring to are contrary to Wikipedia reliable sources and verifyability policy, as has been repeatedly explained. "Lots of people know this" is not an acceptable counterargument to a written and evidently reliable source on the record. Counterarguments to written and evidently reliable on the record sources have to be written and on the record. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"the schneerson cult of personality" Please Bali ultimate, do I have to post you on WP:ANI again for your derogative remarks? Debresser (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i feel comfortable describing it as such and i can post chapter and verse reliable sources arguing that a cult of personality centered on Schneerson. If you have a complaint to make at AN/I go ahead. I think the issue of loyalists of small groups guarding and having too much of a voice in wikipedia articles (this is just one of the more eggregious examples of many) needs further examination.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We have been though that at ArbCom already, for your interest. You and your offensive language were luckely absent, if I remember correctly. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am David Olidort. The statement the Ehrlich attributes to me is false, I never said it and it is not true. He admitted to me that this was an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolidort (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation, however (as we have told others above) Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and verifyable sources (WP:RS and WP:V) require that claims made, or disputes about claims made in sources, be made in writing in external verifiable sources.

We need you to go on the record, in a publication which we can cite and refer to.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Herbert (if that is your name). I am inclined to believe that the poster is Olidort. I'm also inclined to believe that he's lying. I'm inclined to believe this whether he gets a letter to the editor published in the Mossiach is Coming newsletter (or however messiah is transliterated) or not. How will you handle your little computer science detour into the humanities, then? You've already gone on record as saying that all history you haven't personally witnessed is equally valid (good little 'wikipedian that you are) so this should be fascinating.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of your beliefs or otherwise, I'm curious as to what relevance you expect anyone to ascribe to your subjective guesswork. Do you claim to have witnessed or heard the supposed statement?!Winchester2313 (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, you post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia we assign credibility to sources (and thereby implicitly to people). I for one am sure that Wikipedia would be better of without your disruptive edits. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you fucking on about debresser? The only reliable source on offer in this entire megillah is the one saying that Schneerson's scholarship declined. There is no reliable source refuting this -- just the avowals of Schneerson acolytes named "Debresser" and "Winchester2313" etc... here on this talk page. The conflict of interest is rather glaring, and the failure of highly motivated partisans to find a single reliable source refuting Ehrlich is telling. Don't you worry though -- wikipedia is structured to help single-minded partisans seeking to control a narrative. You'll almost certainly get your way in the end.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to summarize:

It seems generally agreed that M. Avrum Ehrlich and his book The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present are to be considered reliable sources as in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, or at least were such till the present discussion. This is not the issue.

At the same time we have seen that claims have been made on this talk page that cast a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the specific information that was removed from this article. While it is agreed that these claims here can not be considered reliable sources, they have prompted editors to reassess the information and its sources. Being that the information being discussed is of such a nature that if it were true, it should have been published in many places; and in view of the rules laid out in Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources (specifically "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community"), we must come to the conclusion that this information is not fit to be included in a Wikipedia article. These rules and this conclusion are in effect a practical application of the Wikipedia policy to use common sense and logic. In addition, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deceased tells us specifically that "anything questionable should be removed promptly" from any biography. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with almost every word you just wrote in your summary. No reasonable doubt has been cast on the passage by the unsubstantiated claims of committed chabad partisans on this page. If the stonewalling doesn't stop soon, other means for dealing with what increasingly looks like a major conflict of interest will have to be found.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, please be more specific. How can you disagree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Unless you have anything specific (and to the point) to say, there is no reason to list your disagreement just for the record. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are making no sense at all here Debresser. The circular bullshit is getting tiring. We have a high quality reliable source that supports something not particularly stunning, on the one hand. And we have you insisting that your personal experience and claims should trump that high quality reliable source and you have persisted (succesfully) from keeping a mildly critical piece of information about a man you revere out of the article for weeks. You are ignoring wikipedia policy on reliable sources and verifiability on a subject with which you have strong conflict of interest.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Those Wikipedia guielines are something everybody here agrees upon. So you also ignore all the arguments above. That is not going to get you very far in consensus building and persuading other people that your opinion is the correct one. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take note that a point of view is not the same as a conflict of interest. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser and Winchester - to emphasize my prior comments, "rebuttals" that are not verifiable and reliably sourced and on the record are not valid rebuttals. You two are misreading fundamental Wikipedia policy. This is not OK.

As I have said multiple times now - get the rebuttal on the record. Talking Mr. Olidort into getting a Wikipedia account was not directly relevant to the problem of getting the rebuttal on the record. Stuff said here is not on the record - Wikipedia is not a reliable of verifiable source, and particularly not random comments on talk pages. We have no real-world way to verify that the account is really Mr. Olidort.

Erlich's claims are not so extraordinary in normal real-world context that they require extraordinary evidence. They may be wrong - we are giving you time to demonstrate so, in a reliable and on the record sense - but they stand as credible until refuted.

You have been given ample time to get someone to go on the record on this point. Please let us know, specifically, what actions you have taken in the real world to obtain on-the-record rebuttals, by whom, and what the status is of those rebuttals being published or documented.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, why is it you only repeat one and the same thing, and - for the third time - do not reply to any of the arguments, which are after all solidly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Is it because you know you can not refute any of them? As is, your contribution here as an uninvolved admin has not contributed anything to the discussion at all. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am repeating is policy. What you are repeating is a misunderstanding of policy.

Your other arguments are based on unpublished personal experiences; they fail to meet WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V. They are not valid arguments under Wikipedia policy, because the sources of information you rely on are not things any independent person can verify and trust.

We have told you specifically what needs to happen to bring forwards on the record sources which meet our policies to support those claims. Please listen and focus on that.

If you cooperate and provide sources which are on the record then everything will be fine. If you continue to refuse to do so, and then edit war to keep the Ehrlich information out of the article, you'll be editing against policy and disruptively.

You have been given weeks to work within Wikipedia policy on these points. One of you (Winchester) agreed and indicated that he understood and would work to accomplish that. I and others agreed that it would be reasonable and acting in good faith to leave things as they were while he worked on getting information on the record.

I asked for a status report on getting things on the record; what we got was instead a new Wikipedia account in a primary source's name, which we have no way of verifying is that person, which made as a first person claim the same claims we already stated must be made in writing in a reliable source. That's not how Wikipedia works. We told you all that at the beginning of this.

I don't assume that it's not Mr. Olidort - but neither I nor anyone else has any way to verify that it's not actually a sockpuppet account of you, Debresser, or one of the other Chabad editors here. It's not in writing, we can't verify it, it's not information we can actually use.

At some point in the very near future the presumption switches from "keep it out, out of an abundance of caution" to "go ahead and put it in, we can remove it later if a reliable source emerges". If you present me information that an article or letter on the record are imminently forthcoming we can continue to wait. If you can't or won't do that, then the presumption will change in the next few days.

I'm sorry if you feel that Wikipedia policy is unfair. But that's the policy. Sources need to be on the record, so that we can verify and validate. It's been that way since the beginning. You don't need to agree with that, but if you participate here, that's the policy that the site operates under, and what you must comply with here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You have again not addressed the arguments, which are all based soundly in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your assertion that you understand them correctly and I misunderstand them, is nothing more than that, an assertion. I brought links and pages and sound argument. You bring nothing but a repetition of an argument all agree with, but which is not the issue here. Debresser (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Has Mr. Olidort publicly disavowed his statements yet in any reliable source? Are there any reliable sources at all disputing the material? It's been quite clearly shown that the claim that the mental acuity of a man in his late 70s and early 80s, who has serious health issues, would be the same as when he was at the peak of his powers, is indeed "exceptional" and unsupported by reliable sources and logic. As no reliable sources, nor policy, nor logic support the material's removal, I'm not sure what else we'd need to wait for. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional about the claim in and of itself. If it were concerning a non-notable figure. But where it concerns a notable figure, whose every deed was watched and analysed by friend and foe, this should have been widely documented. And it is not. And the only source documenting it, is being questioned here. This is a more than reasonable doubt, and therefore this information, especially since it is negative which makes it so much more sensitive from a BLP point of view, can not be included in a Wikipedia article. Why do you repeat arguments that have already been shown to be false? Debresser (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't convinced any uninvolved editors that you've shown the arguments to be false. We have a source on the record. There apparently is no refutation on the record or forthcoming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither have you convinced anybody, nor have you addressed the arguments even once. So what are you trying to prove? There is simply no consensus that that paragraph can be included. This discussion is moot, and should be closed by now. Nobody has changed his opinion, and no consensus, so no paragraph. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not how reliable sources policy works on Wikipedia, nor how consensus policy works here on Wikipedia. If you seriously think it is and edit disruptively to try to enforce those opinions, you are at least facing a reopening of the Arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, and depending on individual actions perhaps other sanctions or restrictions.

I strongly urge you to follow Wikipedia policy. You are free to have your opinions, but policy is policy, and consensus is consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to follow Wikipedia policy. You are free to have your opinions, but policy is policy, and consensus is consensus. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Or must I see this comment of yours as a threat to make edits against policies/guidelines and despite a lack of consensus, using your admin powers to override those? Debresser (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I contacted Winchester2313 on May 20 regarding that question, a week ago. However, he hasn't been editing since May 12, two weeks ago now.

As he was the only person who claimed to have contact with Mr. Olidort, who (we presume it's him / User:Dolidort) also has not posted here since May 9th (one and only contribution, on this talk page), there is some concern.

Personally, my time limit for some sign of on the record refutation being at least announced while we waited is up. We were holding out of an abundance of caution, on the assumption that there were people here who were actively and responsively working to generate the on-the-record statement we'd discussed being needed. Not responding for 2 weeks is not a reasonable level of responsiveness.

This is not a final conclusion, or ultimate determination of truth, but I think we're past waiting out of an abundance of caution. If someone has a on-the-record refutation in progress and can tell us where and in what publication, that's fine. But until at least that's presented, there's nothing concretely on the horizon of being on the record. Nothing on the record or on the horizon of being on the record equals no remaining reason to hold on abundance of caution. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please check my blog where I reissued my denial: Davidolidort.wordpress.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolidort (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but blogs are not a reliable source of information for Wikipedia, as there is no verification of the person actually blogging (in nearly all cases) and there's no editorial control or filtering.

As we have said before, this needs to go on the record in a reference source such as journal, magazine, etc., or something else that meets Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guidelines.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any honest person who can check my blog with my personal details in my profile will find it obvious that it is not an impostor. Just for the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolidort (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did check the blog out, but there is no way of knowing whether it was created by David Olidort, or by some other person. The existence of the blog is not verification of identity.

Our reliable sources policy exists because of that, and related, problems verifying who said what. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you check my profile too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolidort (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that blog was created 4 days ago, and has exactly one post in it, a post on the topic of Ehrlich. Unfortunately, this is not really strong evidence regarding the creator of the blog, who could be anyone; had the blog existed for a significant period of time independent of this specific discussion, it would be somewhat stronger evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is true that I openned the blog for this purpose. If you check the profile you will see that it is me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolidort (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, that we have no external evidence that you (the Dolidort account and blogger) are David Olidort, the editor at Kehot and so forth. Wordpress doesn't verify or validate real person names associated with blogs. I could literally go create MenachemMendelSchneerson.wordpress.com tonight if I were a disrespectful opponent of Chabad. That would be offensive and I am not and do not advocate doing it - but it's possible. Existence of a website, particularly one at a site which allows open subdomain name creation like Wordpress, does not prove identity in any way.

Wordpress isn't and can't vouch for who you are; we can't count on that identity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, may I ask you a question. By now, you must have a serious doubt whether the information in the removed paragraph is correct. Do you really want to insist on adding incorrect information to Wikipedia? I am not even talking about the fact that I hold that Wikipedia policies and guidelines show us that in this case the information should not be added. Let's say even assume for a second that I'd agree with you about those policies and guidelines. Wouldn't that be contrary to all Wikipedia stands for? Isn't that why we have WP:IAR, which says, basically, "Do the right thing!"? Debresser (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I must?

I do not know what the underlying truth of Schneerson's mental acuity late in life was. I know that Ehrlich asserts one opinion and quotes Mr. Olidort, and that Mr. Olidort (who, via off-wiki communications, I now am reasonably sure is himself) is disputing that he was quoted accurately, but that the disputation has not gone on the record (still).

There are a range of possible underlying truths here. Assuming bad faith on someone's part, they range at one extreme from people willing to - for the sake of argument - slant a discussion in one way, but not willing to go in writing on the record opposing something they know at some level was true, all the way through an intentionally fabricated quote by a researcher on the other extreme.

Assuming only good faith, they range from a misinterpreted personal communication to misattribution of a conversation to someone on one side or the other who has genuinely convinced themselves that something didn't happen that way, melding their own memory to the convenience of either their faith or their academic contributions.

Debresser, your problem here is that you have a strong personal bias, under which you assume that everyone else must somehow come to agree with the revealed truth you believe in, and under which you apparently feel that we're using legalistic defenses to avoid the underlying truth.

I am not operating under that mindset. My personal beliefs about the philosophy and logic of knowledge - epistimology writ large - line up almost identically to Wikipedia policy on this matter. I do not assert that I know the ultimate answer here. I in fact assert that nobody here knows or can know the ultimate answer here, unless you were in Chabad in New York City in the 1980s and 90s and personally interacting with Schneerson and have an unbiased and clear memory of the events, as good as video and audio tape, and complete enough to have a full picture.

Regardless of who knows what - Wikipedia does not operate on the principle of personal knowledge. It operates on the principle of recorded facts. We do not assert that recorded facts must necessarily be entirely correct. But we do assert that we cannot, as an encyclopedia project, know a better and more credible truth than what has been reliably written down.

So, no. I do not have a serious doubt about whether the information written down is accurate. I don't assert its ultimate truth, because I can't vouch either for or against it. I assert that we can't know a better and more credible truth than what's reliably written down, under the circumstances.

This approach to knowledge horrifies some people, but it is Wikipedia core guiding principle. What you are asserting we must do is in fact completely contrary to the point of how Wikipedia is organized and works. This is not an encyclopedia of revealed truth. We explicitly ban that as original research and related personal attestations. It's not good enough.

Perhaps this approach horrifies or offends you. If so, I apologize that my epistimology and that of the project is something you find offensive. But that is what Wikipedia stands for.

If you are not willing to work within that, then there is no point to you being here. I do not want to drive you away, but you are asserting a theory of knowledge which is incompatible with the project's core values, and if you attempt to force the issue your career here will be over. I could entirely step back from this discussion (in which, note, I have not yet edited the article in any way), and the next time you made this change you would likely get blocked by any of the 850 other active Wikipedia administrators. All of them share the core values and understanding of WP:OR and WP:RS and WP:V. Any of them will enforce those values and policies. You will catastrophically lose that confrontation, and nobody will cry for you when you do.

It's your choice. This is Wikipedia. Are you in, or are you out? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I am starting to feel you would prefer to have me out, becaus I am so strongly opposed to your opinion, off course I am in. In addition, I have argued based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that the removed paragraph can not be put back. Moreover, in addition to being a violation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it would be a non-consensus edit, which is perhaps even worse, in a way. And to return the favor, I'd say that if you are not willing to reply to those arguments, your so-called non-involved adminship here is no more than a farce. Or start relating to what is being discussed, or go "solve" another disagreement. Tell me, how did you end up here in the first place? It wasn't on your talk page (which in relation with this article only has another untruth by Bali ultimate which is not related to this dispute). Please note that I prefer not to react to your assertation that I have a POV in regard with this issue, or the assertation that I will surely "lose that confrontation", which excludes knowledge of even the possibility that you could be wrong here. Debresser (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look for some place to ask a few knowledgable editors to review the arguments here, and give a really independent recommendation. I propose opening a page, and let all write their arguments for a few days. Then they could review it, and present their recommendation. Perhaps there is some proper forum at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests? Debresser (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "knowledgable editors"? So far, all followers of Schneerson insist the paragraph should be removed, while all others insist there is no reason to remove it. Which ones, in your view, qualify as knowledgeable? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a group of 3 uninvolved experienced editors (preferably not even Jewish, to make sure they are really uninvolved). I am sure there is something like that on dispute resolution. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And how do you propose going about finding them? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping there is some board at dispute resolution that offers such a service. Do you know about something? Debresser (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since there is clearly no consensus for removing the information, and since only followers of Schneerson (who would have a bias) argue it should be removed, why don't you restore it yourself, as a sign of good faith, and I will find and present "3 uninvolved experienced editors" as people to review? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm an African-American Buddhist from New Zealand (long story) and I've never seen a live Jew. I have, however, read up a bit on Chabad and I'm of the position that the proposal to remove the reliably sourced comment does not comport with wp:npov.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Chabad POV warring returns in full force

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

okay, let's move forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

---

It boggles the mind that clear-cut statements and sources, in full compliance with WP:V; WP:RS; WP:NPOV by academically reputable scholar/s as cited by User Jayjg and others, should be so censored, removed, manipulated, attacked and torn to shreds by the obvious pro-Chabad editors when all they have to do is just let a statement stand in the correct spirit and style of "Scholar X has stated 1,2,3," and "Scholar Y has stated 4,5,6," and they do not have to agree with the approved Chabad party line, which can and should also be stated as "The official Chabad movement maintains and believes 7,8,9 and [either] denies or agrees with scholar/s X or Y" -- that is the way Wikipedia articles are written and not to violate WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a pattern of Wikipedia:Edit warring that involves not just struggles over content but reveals a more deep-seated pattern of negative controlling behavior that violates WP:OWN that relies on wearing down opponents and not really seeking to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS. Following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, the ArbCom has warned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies: (1) "Editors reminded: With respect to topics related to the Chabad movement, all editors are reminded to edit these articles, and to collaborate with other editors, in full compliance with all applicable Wikipedia policies, including those mentioned in this decision." -- So on what basis are the pro-Chabad editors fighting the scholar/s that Jayjg is citing? (2) "Editors encouraged: Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links." -- but as can be seen, pro-Chabad editors wish to cut out unflattering information from their POV and only insert what they like. (3) "Future proceedings: It is hoped that good-faith efforts as described above will be sufficient to address disputes on the Chabad-related articles. However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed. Editors are requested to allow at least 60 days from the date of this decision before filing any such request, to give renewed efforts at collaboration in light of this decision a reasonable chance to succeed." -- Well, it's definitely NOT "succeeding" as is evidence above. The present situation indicates that the same pattern of obstructionist editing is the benchmark for pro-Chabad editors. They continue in the same ways of the past. User:Zsero who did not even participate in the ArbCom case that included him, blithely returns to wage the same kind of struggles and censoring that he is famous for, see User:Zsero’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs. So how is this different to before? It is not! 60 days have long past since the close of the ArbCom case on 13 February 2010, and still and all the pro-Chabad editors are in full WP:OWN swing yet again. Indeed the behavior of the pro-Chabad editors is worsening and definitely not improving, not just here but wherever they set foot in Chabad-related articles they deem important to their movement, and therefore it is not too early to approach the ArbCom to re-open this case as per the ArbCom's closing statement: "However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quit your stupid diatribes, please. We had quite enough of them the last time. People who can not reply to sound arguments and reasoning (and I mean the editors who in the section above do nothing but repeat the obvious without addressing the real issue), just won't have their way. This has absolutely nothing to do with Chabad, or POV, or whatever else you were talking about in that dull post of yours. This is a most straightforward content issue. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "stupid" is uncalled for and borders on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, something you do quite often. To clarify: Anything that concerns any of the the Lubavitcher Rebbes, especially the 7th and last one, runs to the heart and core of Chabad, so you make no sense. Sorry if you find my detailed explanation to be a tiring diatribe. If you don't like it you don't have to read it. Others will, and will draw their own conclusions. There is nothing "stupid" in pointing out that the pattern of ongoing edit warring, as exhibited above, by pro-Chabad editors working in tandem against editors or views they do not like is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia that goes way beyond mere arguments over "content" but is instead a reflection of stifling and controlling behavior designed to control, intimidate and censor what pro-Chabad editors do not like. If it was just about content then you would be following the normal procedure of allowing verified sources to be quoted instead of deleting them and coming up with excuses to cut out whatever you don't like. My point is very simple, that you and the other pro-Chabad POV warriors need to remember that the ArbCom has already once reviewed your actions and for now has given you the benefit of the doubt, but if you persist in your obstructionist and negative edit warring the case of Chabad editors will go back to the ArbCom requesting real sanctions against all of you to stop what is very obvious to even the "stupidist" user here: The ongoing encroachment and violation of WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NPOV; and many other serious policy violations of any and all articles related to the gamut of Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism by pro-Chabad POV warriors. Thank you for your attention. IZAK (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If User:Bali ultimate could use the word "fucking", I can use the word "stupid". And mind you, I said your diatribes are stupid, not you. And they are. And all they do is full up wasted space on the Wikipedia servers. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate was close to being blocked for his comments. I have warned you on your talk page that your last comment here also was inappropriate under our WP:NPA policy. Please don't emulate the worst behavior we have seen here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He was not close to being blocked at all. In fact, a dozen editors on WP:ANI used the f-word themselves in the ensuing discussion, and had a great time about it. Sad.

As to IZAK's edits. It is hard to take them seriously. He just rants off accusation after accusation, without any basis to a word he says. We are used to it already. In the best tradition of Chabad persecution over the last two-and-a-half century. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

IZAK is correctly summarizing the Arbcom decision (to not decide, at the time). I believe that he's making his point in a somewhat overly confrontational and not particularly friendly way. IZAK, I would like to request that you act in a more collegial manner.

Debresser, you both have multiple uninvolved admins and an Arbcom case hanging over this. When the uninvolved admins tell you that you've got a policy problem, it would generally be wise to listen.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall we archive this bit then and return once again to content? I can't see this segment proceeding without further friction which will be counterproductive to one or more people (no party is going to magicall convince any other party at this point). Let's close it and start with a clean slate and return again to carefully discussing content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a reasonable approach. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why didn't the Rebbe visit Israel

After seeing this edit, in which an unsourced statement was correctly removed, I recalled an article in the Kfar Chabad magazine a few years ago, in which it was related that over the years the Rebbe had mentioned to Shlomo Goren 4 different reasons not to visit Israel. Anybody here who can dig up that article? Debresser (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Further Reading" section

If there is to be a section listing works about the subject, then it shouldn't consist solely of the Heilman/Friedman piece of junk. The fact that a university press publishes something doesn't give it any credibility if the press has not checked the facts, because it has not had any way of doing so. Rapoport's expert demolition job on this book shows exactly how lacking in merit it is. If it were part of a list of works of varying quality then that would be one thing, but standing on its own the mere listing seems to give it some sort of undeserved credibility. -- Zsero (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's not call names. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are enough references and external links. If this book is controversial, perhaps the wisest thing is not to mention it here. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ZSero that the fact that it is not peer-reviewed, and that it has been seriously criticized by an expert, makes it not fit to list alone. Perhaps it may be listed alongside other similar texts (with a link added to the critique), but not alone. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The above is an exercise in censorship. We have individuals who decide that a biography published by Princeton University Press is "junk". Come on! This is fanaticism and has no place in Wikipedia. Evidently they have not read the book. Don't speak about consensus. And stop the vandalism. (Highland14 (talk))

The book is written by respected academics whose area of expertise is Orthodox Judaism, and published by a respected university press. It more than qualifies as a reliable source, and it could be used without reservation in this or any related article as a source, so there is absolutely no reason to reject it as a mere "Further Reading" entry. The fact that Chaim Rapoport takes issue with it on a blog is not particularly relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Respected by whom, exactly? By nobody who knows anything about the subject. Which work by either author shows their great scholarship? And what difference does it make what company published it? It was not fact-checked or peer-reviewed, so what difference does the imprint make? Rapoport completely demolishes it, and shows it to be a work of ignorance, deception, and outright fraud, and worthless as a source for anything. Nevertheless, if there is to be a "Further Reading" section listing many works about the subject, this work deserves a place in the list, if only for its recency and publicity. But where else would it belong? Certainly not in a list of works by the subject! Nor does it belong as the sole entry in a list of works about the subject, as if it were the most important such work. -- Zsero (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:V and WP:RS. Samuel Heilman "holds the Harold Proshansky Chair in Jewish Studies at the Graduate Center and is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Queens College of the City University of New York. In 2007-2008, he was a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Jerusalem." He has been a Fulbright scholar, and a guest lecturer at many prestigious universities around the world. In addition, "In 2004, Heilman won the Marshall Sklare Memorial Award for his lifetime of scholarship from the Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry; he also was awarded the highest university rank of Distinguished Professor of Sociology by the City University of New York. His book, The Gate Behind the Wall was honored with the Present Tense Magazine Literary Award for the best book of 1984 in the “Religious Thought” category. A Walker in Jerusalem received the National Jewish Book Award for 1987 and Defenders of the Faith was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award for 1992. Portrait of American Jewry: The Last Half of the 20th Century was honored with the 1996 [first] Gratz College Tuttleman Library Centennial Award. When a Jew Dies won both the Koret Award in 2003 and the National Jewish Book Award in 2004. Heilman is also recipient of fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, and the Mellon Foundation. He received a Distinguished Faculty Award from the City University of New York in 1985 and 1987."

Heilman has published many books on Orthodox Jews and Judaism. This particular work was published by Princeton University Press, a prestigious University-backed publishing house. On the other hand, Rapoport's critique was published on a blog. Again, please review WP:RS and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the following an acceptable edit backed by a reliable source for this biography

(Avrum Ehrlich's book is already liberally used in the article). "According to Ehrlich, towards the end of his life, particularly after his heart attack in 1977 his scholarship began to fade - one of Schneerson's editors, David Olidort, "told how most of Schneerson’s aides and editors adored him and saw him as virtually infallible, despite their numerous corrections of his failing scholarship."The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present, M. Avrum Ehrlich, Chapter 8, p. 80, note 35. KTAV Publishing, ISBN 0881258369

• Yes (obviously, as proposer).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• The tendentious proposer failed to mention the huge discussion on this subject in a section above: see here.

My opinion is clearly stated there: no. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you please desist with the attacks (i.e. "tendentious.") I'd appreciate it.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is tendentious. I don't see why Debresser shouldn't say so. -- Zsero (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly think it is. And you have a record to go with it. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• No
  1. The source for the alleged quote says it's not true, and that Ehrlich has admitted to him that he fabricated the quote. He's done so here, and on his blog, and in private conversation with at least two editors. Anybody can look up his phone number and call him, and he will confirm that he is the person quoted, and that he never told Ehrlich any such thing. What more can be expected of him?
  2. Literally thousands of witnesses can confirm that the subject's scholarship continued after his heart attack without any discernible change. So can anyone who wasn't there but reads the transcripts of his talks before and after the heart attack.
  3. That Ehrlich's book is already liberally used in the article is a pity, and the assumption that the publisher fact-checked it is without foundation, but on most points we don't know that it's wrong; on this specific point we do.
  4. Truth is not a sufficient condition for inclusion on WP, but it is a necessary condition; WP must not deliberately tell lies. WP:NOR applies to adding a contentious fact without a reliable and verifiable source, not to removing such a claim.

  -- Zsero (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3. how do we "know"? See 1

  pablo_hablo. 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I gave the cite. "He's done so here, and on his blog, and in private conversation with at least two editors. Anybody can look up his phone number and call him, and he will confirm."
2. What do you mean, who? All the thousands who heard him, and anyone else who reads the transcripts or watches the videos.
3. How do we know what? We have the original source's word, from the horse's mouth, we have the testimony of thousands, and we can confirm it ourselves. Those of us who are familiar with the language and subject matter, of course; those who are not will have to rely on those who are, as on any other subject.

-- Zsero (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, as was the consensus of all outside editors in the discussion on this topic above Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#"Failing scholarship". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Yes It's verifiability, not truth. It's not verified that Ehrlich disowned the comments. Until said comments are verifiably disowned the comments should stay in the article. As much was said at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#"Failing scholarship" where there was no consensus for its removal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter whether Ehrlich disowned it; the important point is that Olidort, who is Ehrlich's alleged source, disowns it and protests against its inclusion. In addition to other considerations, this is a BLP issue: having the quote there defames Olidort. -- Zsero (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, because of WP:OR, we must go with the published sources. If there should be a published dispute over the quote in a RS, we can include the dispute. Talking generally, that a person asserted to have made a quote now denies it, is of course relevant if properly sourced, but is not evidence that he did not say it--people have been known to make such statements for all sorts of reasons. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  You keep harping on OR. OR is irrelevant; it applies to adding content, not to removing it. The first rule of any encyclopaedia is that it records truth, not lies, no matter how well attested. Truth is not be a sufficient condition for inclusion in WP, but it is always a necessary one. And here, in addition to all else, we have a BLP issue. -- Zsero (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, as things stand the removal of this is wrong. If the text is disputed, and if that dispute is cited in some reliable sources (more reliable than some nebulous claim of "thousands of witnesses" or a report from an involved editor of a blog he or she may have read) then, per DGG and brewcrewer above, that dispute belongs in the article too.   pablo_hablo. 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• yes DGG summarizes things pretty well. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the RFC ran a month. Will add this material back in.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable edit?

Juse added the following. The third sentence and quote has already been contested on the grounds that it's execcessive. I diaagree -- it's a to the point quote from a scholarly source characterizing Schneerson's relationship to those who revered him.

• "Many of Schneerson's followers believed he was the Jewish Messiah and some have persisted in that belief since his passing. The reverence with which he was treated by followers led many Jewish critics from both the Orthodox and Reform communities to allege that a cult of personality had grown up around him. Moshe D. Sherman, an associate professor at Touro College wrote that "as Schneerson's empire grew, a personality cult developed around him... portraits of Schneerson were placed in all Lubavitch homes, shops, and synagogues, and devoted followers routinely requested a blessing from him prior to their marriage, following an illness, or at other times of need." (from Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook, pg. 187] Moshe D. Sherman, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the third sentence is a little overly elaborate. In addition, all of these apply to any Rebbe, not just the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)