Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Barry

How long should this text be left in the 'Leadership" section with the words 'citation needed'? Let's find a citation or remove it:

Some people wanted Bere Gurary, Schneersohn's only male descendant, to become Rebbe but Bere did not want the position and supported his father's candidancy.[citation needed]

This is the first I hear that Bere was a candidate and it's hanging out here on this page with no citation for a while... Samueldad (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The only source I can think of is in a novel titled 'The Rebbe' by S. Heilman and M. Friedman. On page 34 they write "a position that involved endless dealings with the personal problems and lives of the Lubavitcher Hasidim and others who approached the Rebbe for counsel. This was something that Barry, who saw other opportunities in the New World, did not want." As their source they quote: Comments made by Shaul Shimon Deutsch in an interview by Samuel C. Heilman, March 9, 2008". How Deutsch knows this is apparantly something we have to take on trust. Larryyr (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I hear you -- but even the source you quote does not make the point above -- that Barry was a candidate. The theory is quite novel, and one which should be supported by evidence or purged. Samueldad (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, of course there is no source. They may claim that he himself said that he was a candidate, but if there is no clear will stipulating who the next leader should be, one cannot just go and make himself a candidate, the Chasidim have to do it. Larryyr (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. 1. It has been left unsourced for half a year. 2. It is not likely that he would be considered while his father was still alive. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not very clear, at least to me

Maybe it's because I'm a Reform Jew or maybe it's just me, but I still don't get from this article why they thought he was/is the Messiah. Leaving aside my prejudice against the Orthodox and extraordinary dislike of the Kharedim I will not attribute it to the latters' ability to misinterpret anything and everything. So I ask again, why do these people think he is our Messiah? I get that he was influential and all, but I think I am missing something. TheArchaeologist (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Year of birth

Some IP user is adding material that Schneerson would have been born in 1895.

1. This is a fringe theory, while tons of sources state the well know birthyear 1902.
2. Schneersons father was born in 1878 and his mother in 1880. And they were married in 1900. Not so likely that a rabbi and a rabbi's daughter would have an illegitimate son for five years. Not to mention bearing child at 15 years.
3. The date mentioned does not correspond to the Jewish date of 11 Nissan, which Schneerson observed publicly himself as his birthday.
4. The proof is a picture of an American naturalization application. Either the picture was doctored, or the document was filled out incorrectly, for unknown to me reason.

Debresser (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Racism

I have re-instated Schneerson's commentary regarding Jewish versus gentile bodies and souls. The comment is well-known and was originally recorded in "Gatherings and Conversations" (a collection of Schneerson's comments and discussions) and reproduced by Shahak and Mezvinsky in their book "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel". A biographic entry must include the good, the bad and the ugly. Please don't delete my addition in an attempt to present a sanitised view of Schneerson and Chabad. 37.130.224.202 (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be something of an edit war going on here... perhaps some measure of page protection should be considered?--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that is the best course of action to take. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is an IP from a certain range of addresses vandalising this and a few other articles. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the page for Category:Racism says clearly: This category ... must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly racist. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the material this IP insists on inserting contains blatant fabrications, e.g "three satanic spheres" - a term that simply does not exist in the supposed 'sources'. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable statement. Have you checked the sources? What Schneerson is referring to -- viz. Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot (“three totally impure Kelipot”) as Debresser correctly identifies -- is from the Zohar and re-iterated in the first chapter of The Tanya. False accusations of "blatant fabrication[s]" only inflame tempers. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Among many other violations, this nonsense fails WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Shahak and Mezvinsky were both well-known as extremists and not 'mainstream' in any way at all. Deliberate mistranslation of a well-known kabbalistic term such as 'impure' into 'satanic' would be typical for fringe theorists such as Shahak and Mezvinsky. Pluto press is a fringe vanity press and quotes would need further substantiation from mainstream publishers to be inserted, as per WP:V.--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

He is obviously referring to the kabbalistic "shalosh klipot hatmeot legamre". Debresser (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

מה זה הזה באנגלית? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The three completely unclean kelipot. Google it. Debresser (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate censorship of well-known racist comments made by Rabbi M. M. Schneerson by his followers

A few people including myself have been trying to add verified sourced citations which show an incredible (and well-known) depth of anti-gentile racism made by Rabbi M. M. Schneerson, such as calling all non-Jews separate inferior biological species.

Wikipedia is a place where the objective truth needs to be stated, thus the militant actions of the above people who are all no-doubt fanatical religious followers of the rabbi who is seen as the Mosiach (Messiah)of Chabad Lubavitch.

Thus I am demanding that these people stop their deliberate censorship of the sourced objective truth, as it is THEM who are committing vandalism on the Wikipedia website, and acting against everything that Wikipedia stands for. This is no place for religious bigotry. The truth and the truth only must be written.

Below I will provide the unedited and sourced citations of the Rabbi M. M. Schneerson:

(i) "..we have a case of 'let us differentiate' between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world..."

(ii) "Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness."

(iii) "Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew."

(iv) "In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity. It is written, "And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews."

SOURCE: Quotes from "Lubovitcher Rebbe," Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson - “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” - Chapter 4: The National Religious Party and the Religious Settlers – By: Dr. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.

Action Taken

I have referred the above controversy for third party resolution.

Censorship is usually deliberate. What considers "well-known" is an arbitrary matter. I removed it today because it was in a section named "Controversy" without any indication of controversy. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dovid, a doctrinal claim that Jews are metaphysically superior to non-Jews and that non-Jews are metaphysically/intrinsically evil is indeed a controversial claim. Such a belief may be uncontroversial amongst Orthodox Jewry but it is inflammatory amongst non-Jews and disputed by liberal Jews. In any event, the claim is well-sourced, so even if it can somehow be deemed lacking in controversy -- and so inappropriate for a sub-section dedicated to controversy -- it represents a legitimate addition to the biographical entry. Would a separate section entitled "Racism and Jewish Supremacism" be more agreeable to you? 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dovid, since your justification for the removal of the sub-section is that there is no controversy regarding Jewish supremacist claims, rather than debate this matter, I have moved it into its own section. The issue of controversy or its absence is now rendered moot. Shalom. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked your solution, as it is a good one. But there is one more problem. The quote itself does not use the terms "racism" or "supremacism". These terms are POV. So they would need to be sourced, before you could use them. Debresser (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for trying to meet me half-way as it were. Need the quote explicitly use the terms "racism" or "supremacism" to be deemed racist or supremacist? I think not. Ethnocentrism and Jewish exceptionalism is unequivocally conveyed by the quotation. Actually, I would be happy to replace "Racism and Jewish Supremacism" with "Ethnocentrism and Jewish Exceptionalism". 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dovid, the source for reading Schneerson's commentary as racist and supremacist is of course "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" by Shahak and Mezvinsky. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That source is from a book about "Jewish Fundamentalism". Any more than that would have to be sourced. User 114.76.75.113, need I give you an official warning about this? You can not edit war just like that. If you reinstate such statements without sources, you will be met by administrative action in the end. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I suddenly remembered [Talk:Maimonides#Israel_Shahak_as_a_source|this discussion]], suggesting that Israel Shahak is not the best of sources about anything related to Judaism. Perhaps you could find the quote in another, less disputable source? Debresser (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dovid, I have sourced the quote including providing the pages from which it came. Click on the superscripted number. Given that I have properly sourced the quote I am re-instating it. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The beginning of that section "is characterised as" is well formulated. The quote seems overly extensive to me. The last sentence is a personal opinion (of the authors of that book), and I think that as such it should be removed. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of an authority is citable but I am prepared to tolerate that edit if you are prepared to be fair and reasonable about this entire matter. The quote is extensive because I wanted to avoid being accused of selective editing for rhetorical purposes. You and I know that Schneerson is essentially paraphrasing from the first chapter of "The Tanya" -- a text that is definitive of the Chabad approach to Hasidic mysticism. That he was recorded (in "Gatherings and Conversations") teaching from "The Tanya" is to be expected. Schneerson's commentary is consistent with -- if not drawn from -- the text "Lessons in Tanya" because his elucidations match those of Rabbi Yosef Wineberg (for those interested http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7880/jewish/Chapter-1.htm and in PDF http://hebrewbooks.org/15840). For these reasons I find your demand to source the quote from a "less disputable source" unreasonable, obstructive and disingenuous. I would appreciate that you show me the respect I am showing you. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I am showing you all due courtesy. And I agree that the basic doctrine is there. Still, the source is questionable (that is not my personal opinion, but my conclusion from the fact that several discussions here on Wikipedia have raised the issue). I think we have a good compromise here by me not protesting against the quote from that specific source, and you not reverting my deletion of the authors personal opinions. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is NOT a questionable source in relation to this matter -- there is no basis for such a defamatory claim. As you have conceded, the Schneerson quote represents a synopsis of one of the fundamental doctrines of the Chabad conception of Hasidic mysticism. That teaching can be found -- in a more lucid form -- in the first chapter of "Lessons in Tanya" (http://hebrewbooks.org/15840). The previous discussions on this matter, that have (illegitimately) concluded that Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is a "questionable source" -- laced with opprobrium, which reacted to the quote regarding a basic Chabad teaching as if it amounted to a claim that Schneerson ate children -- were totally disingenuous and redolent of bad faith. The previous editors that innocently attempted to include the quote were apparently ignorant of central Chabad texts and allowed themselves to be bullied by a cabal of zealous editors that pretended that there were no such doctrine in Chabad Hasidism and that Shahak and Mezvinsky fabricated that quote in an effort to besmirch the good name of Schneerson. That is a defamation of Shahak and Mezvinsky and it also amounts to an attempt to render an encyclopaedic biographical article into a hagiography that is intended to mislead non-Jews and liberal and secular Jews (that typically have no knowledge of "The Tanya"). 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, can live with the present version. You seem to be very agitated about all of this. I wish you pleasant editing.

If, as you correctly claim, this idea of there being a difference between Jews and non-Jews is present in all of Jewish literature, including kabbalah, chasidism and specifically chabad chasidism, then it might be incorrect to mention it only in this article about one rabbi who came at the end of all of those traditions. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am more disappointed and disillusioned than agitated. I think that my addition of the section and quote has made this article more complete -- if not entirely complete -- hence the action cannot be described as "incorrect". If there is any omission in the Wikipedia Judaica articles then that does not in any conceivable way render my edit "incorrect". Rather, it suggests that the authors of those articles have made an omission either out of ignorance or deliberately. Please do not try to use the deficiencies in other Judaica articles as a pre-text for removing my edit. If this is not what you are positioning to do then please accept my apology. If you are suggesting that other Judaica articles be made complete by including reference to salient passages of Kabbalah and Tanya regarding the matter of Jew v. non-Jew then I agree and would count this article as the first in that effort.114.76.75.113 (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not bother reading WP:RS and WP:V before polluting the page with any more fringe nonsense? Or create your own site 'exposing' chassidic 'racism' (or any of your other conspiracy theories)... Perhaps Shahak and Mezvinsky could be quoted freely there, because they certainly fail the relevant guidelines on Wikipedia.--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is a citable source. How does Shahak and Mezvinsky fail as a source?

Shahak and Mezvinsky are both fringe sources, and as such clearly fail WP:RS. Please read the discussions regarding both of them earlier on this page, before wasting everybody's time with a silly re-hash.--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Until you can provide sources that comply with WP:RS for your edits, you will simply have to cope with your 'disappointment and delusions' on your own. Not to mention the slick misrepresentation of 'Lessons in Tanya' that you tried above, did you really expect to get away with that? (Which would only be a source for the author of Tanya and Rabbi Weinberg, in any event.)--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not mis-representing "Lessons in Tanya". The first chapter is entirely consistent with the quote of Schneerson from Shahak and Mezvinsky. You are the one that hadn't even heard of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" until Dovid pointed out that the "three Satanic spheres" that Schneerson refers to are the unclean kelipot and now you are trying to pontificate on "Lessons in Tanya". I have reverted your reversion because you are just spouting a bunch of nonsense. Go away and read the first chapter of "Lessons in Tanya". 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"slick misrepresentation of 'Lessons in Tanya' that you tried above, did you really expect to get away with that?" LOL. Here is the text in HTML and here is the first volume in PDF http://download.hebrewbooks.org/downloadhandler.ashx?req=15840 Show me what I have mis-represented Are you now going to contend that Rabbi Yosef Wineberg's elucidations are "fringe", "extremist", "fanatical" perhaps even "anti-semitic" LOL? Perhaps you will suggest that "Lessons in Tanya" -- even though it appears on chabad.org -- is a "fringe" text? 114.76.75.113 (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that the idea of "fringe theory" (WP:UNDUE) had crossed my mind as well. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that the "three Satanic spheres" have returned to the text, even though that clearly is a bad translation. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The quality of the translation is a matter of opinion and no grounds for banning a book as a source and defaming its authors. Yes, a strict literal translation would be "three unclean husks" or "three unclean shells" or "three unclean peels" but we don't translate texts by mere literal substitution as that typically fails to communicate the intended meaning. "Lessons in Tanya" tells us that "every Jew possesses two souls...One soul originates in the kelipah and sitra achra..."the other side" - the side of creation that is the antithesis of holiness and purity." (p.43 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840) Further, "From [this nefesh] stem all the evil characteristics, deriving from the four evil elements within it." (p.44 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840) Finally, "in the [case of the] Jew, this soul of kelipah is derived from the kelipah called "nogah", which also contain's good; and the good within this nefesh gives rise to these positive natural traits...The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever" (p.45-6 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840) The second chapter of "Lessons in Tanya" begins "The second, uniquely Jewish, soul is truly "a part of G-d above, " (p.47 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840). This is elucidated as follows: "A part of G-d above" is a quotation from Scripture (lyou 31:2). The Alter Rebbe adds the word "truly" to stress the literal meaning of these words. For, as is known,' some verses employ hyperbolic language. For example, the verse2 describing "great and fottified cities reaching into the heavens" is clearly meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. In order that we should not intrrpret the phrase "a part of G-d above" in a similar manner, the Alter Rebbe adds the word "truly", thus emphasizing that the Jewish soul is quite literally a part of G-d above." (ibid.) By implication, the non-Jewish soul is part of Satan. Hence Shahak and Mezvinsky's translation of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" as "Three Satanic Spheres". (For HTML version of "Lessons in Tanya" see http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7880/jewish/Chapter-1.htm) 114.76.75.113 (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

May we assume that the rest of this supposedly academic book is not based on implication?! Debresser (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of Shahak and Mezvinsky's book is irrelevant. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are policies on Wiki, policies that you are obviously not willing to comply with, yet they remain. I refer particularly to WP:NOR and WP:RS which your edits clearly fail. I have again removed your WP:OR from the page, and suggest a careful reading of the relevant policies before you attempt to continue edit-warring Here is some of the relevant wording, as you seem to be having some difficulty;

"This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT performing any synthesis or analysis in the edit. The edit is a quote from a reliable published text. Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) are performing the analysis and synthesis and I am merely quoting them. Since I am quoting a text (that I did not write) then ipso facto I am not including original material. All of your objections are without foundation. None of your policy references are relevant either. For these reasons I am re-instating the section in toto. The onus is on you to demonstrate that Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is not a legitimate reference. So far you have failed entirely in that task. So for this reason also the section goes back into the article. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Winchester23213, your manoeuverings in connection with this edit and similar edits in the past is both amusing and disturbing to follow and shows you lack all objectivity and should remove yourself from editing this article. You have moved from a reflexive shout of "fabrication!" which suggests you are entirely ignorant of the primary Chabad texts. Your critical faculty appeared to be based on the primitive heuristic that "If it is unflattering it must be the fabrication of anti-semites". To your embarrassment Debresser prompted you to "Google it". Then you dropped the cry of "fabrication!" and accused me of mis-representing "The Tanya" and "Lessons in Tanya" even though they are two texts that you haven't read -- as evidenced by your earlier ignorant claim. So now the heuristic appears to be "If it is in a Jewish text and it is unflattering it must be a mis-representation of that text". I haved since demonstrated that neither I nor Shahak and Mezvinsky are mis-representing any Jewish text (which you hadn't actually read but were still prepared to make the accusation). Now you have raised the entirely specious matter of OR. My edit does not embody any OR, there is no analytical effort or synthensis embodied in my edit. My edit is nothing more than a report, I am merely quoting Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999). The analysis and synthesis that I demonstrated within this talk page is confined to the talk page and was offered to (a) demonstrate that you are merely reflexively crying "fabrication!" and "mis-representation!" without having actually read the texts that your defamatory remarks pertain to; (b) defend that Shahak and Mezvinky in so far as their translation of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" as "Three Satanic Spheres" is actually reasonable; (c) illustrate your total lack of objectivity in this matter. The edit itself is not in any way predicated on my exposition within this talk page. It stands on its own merits. So for these reasons the section is returned to the article. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole screed by Merzvinsky and Shahak is fringe and a fabrication. The supposed 'quote' from Gatherings and Conversations' (whatever that is?!!) fails WP:V and therefore has been removed again. If your goal is to have the page protected again and your IP blocked, I suggest you're going about it the right way. Your screeds do not outweigh previous editorial consensus on this issue.--Winchester2313 (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is "screed" your word of the day? It's "Gatherings of Conversations", was published in Israel in 1965 and is a collection of Schneerson's talks on a variety of topics. As I have already stated the concpet of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" is a fundamental teaching of Hassidic Judaism that can be found in Kabbalah, Tanya and Lessons in Tanya. It matters not one iota whether "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" is translated as "Three Satanic Spheres", "Three Unclean Spheres", "Theree Impure Peels" or whatever other variant of the same. The central point -- that is made plain in Tanya -- is that Jews have different, superior souls to non-Jews and this makes Jews metaphysically superior to non-Jews. This is Jewish supremacism plain and simple. Given that this is a central teaching of Orthodox Judaism it is not surprising that Schneerson would be recorded teaching this. Since being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion it qualifies as extreme ethnocentrism and racial supremacism no different from the ethnic supremacism that we find in the pseudo-Islamic UFO cult "Nation of Islam" and in so-called "Christian Identity" churches. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we need some mediation here, two resolve this problem. Perhaps we should agree to leave this text out for, let's say, to weeks, in which time we should actively work on reaching a consensus or solution at some other place.

I want to repeat that I see a few serious problem with the text. See the lead of Israel Shahak that he was a chemistry professor who was an anti-establishment political activist and known critic of Judaism.

1. Accusing this revered rabbi and all of Judaism of being racist, is rather fringe.

It is "rather fringe" because in the West since WWII it has become nearly impossible to criticise Jews and Judaism in the public square. Christianity and Islam are often criticised but any critique of Judaism is answered with cries of "anti-semitism", "neo-Nazi" and other such agitprop. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that your claim is exaggerated or even totally fiction. Also, if you were to be right, where were racism claim before WWII? Debresser (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Shahak's credentials, both academic (a professor of chemistry) and political (a. controversial and b. anti-everything, anti-establishment and anti-Judaism), shed doubt on his reliability.

Fallacy of poisoning the well. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this well is poisoned! Most everybody seems to say so, including our own Wikipedia article about him. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

3. The claim of racism against a revered rabbi and a world-religion (no less!) is a huge claim, and needs to be impeccably sourced.

The Tanya and the Kabbalah are impeccable sources regarding Orthodox Judaism. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Academic and third-party sources... Do I need to cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you? Debresser (talk)

4. Even if this claim were correct, it would be wrong to start adding it to the articles about each and every rabbi and movement in Judaism. Rather it would have to be added to the more general Criticism of Judaism article.

5. Shahak's translation and interpretation of the original texts seem flawed, as has been shown here in one instance.

6. We all see that Jews live in peace with non-Jews (at least from the side of the Jews) the world over. If so, in how far is this theory of supremacy actually "racism" in the usual sense of the word, if it doesn't have any notable manifestations? In more general terms, is every "theory of supremacy" automatically "racism"?

I don't think the Palestinians would agree with you. No, supremacism is not automatically racist but if the privileged status derives from ethnicity then that supremacism is racist. Jewish supremacism is racist because Judaism is an ethno-religion and Jewishness is an ethnicity.114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The problems between Jews and Palestinians are political, territorial, not based on religion or ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem between Jews and Palestinians is essentially two ethnic groups (both Semitic) fighting over territory. That is all. Two Semitic tribes fighting over land. The politics comes from the allies of each side intervening, assisting, propagandising, warring, saber rattling, mediating, terrorising, etc. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you disagree or simply make a statement. In any case I think it is clear that the problem is not about ethnicity but about territory. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That last remark is both a misdirection and simplification Debresser- particularly as the claim to ownership of the disputed territory is based on ancient religious texts and of membership of the religion of the group of occupying claimants. Palestinians have (by Israeli leaders) been called cockroaches, crushed grasshoppers,from another galaxy,beasts,woodcutters and waiters,slaves et cetera. If a figure like Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson as revered for his piety, erudition and love amongst Jews and Gentiles alike has also made remarks in speeches which infer that Gentile bodies are inferior to Jewish ones then that merits at least a section in this lengthy article, including any available reputable interpretation of those remarks whether exculpatory or not .--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It was indeed a simplification. But essentially true. Definitely nothing that Schneersohn has to say about chassidic theory relating to the primacy of the Jewish soul would influence the policy of Israeli secular leaders in this primarily territorial conflict. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is more useful to consider whether the consequences in actions (killing or deprivation of human rights ) by those taught that they are a superior form of human arises from teachings in religious manuscripts or by interpreters of those writings or ideas such as this man. I leave the consideration of souls (whatever they are) to others, but if "souls" or bodies of one group are alleged to be more precious than those of another group the corollary can be fatal. This guy never visited Israel but its leaders sure visited him a lot. How about including the two controversial texts about superior bodies and souls within the article in a section titled "Remarks concerning Metaphysical and Physical Superiority of Jews over other Humans  ? When and where did he spout this stuff ? Also no-one has yet offered any reference to interpretations of why this man said these odd things. Some better referenced material on his "territorial compromise" ideas about Israel "toned down" by his followers might be enlightening too. Hagiographic articles are as frustrating as negative agenda driven ones --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As to your question ("How about" etc.), I have stated my opinion already. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The "How about" suggestion was addressed to all fellow editors, (not just one !) and particularly to those who might have the means to dig out the dates of utterance etc.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

7. As a continuation of the previous point, but separate from it. Isn't some theory of supremacy inherent in at least the three major Abrahamic religions? It certainly seems to me that Christianity and Islam believe that being a Christian or a Muslim is the highest state for mankind, and they are, and have historically been, much more explicit about this, including many and bloody manifestations of this doctrine. And if we accept an inherent supremacy as being part of any religion, are we to speak about it in a condemning voice?

I understand that the 7 points above range from simply concerning Wikipedia policies and guidelines to heavy philosophical issues. I remind my fellow editors that they should be viewed independently, each on its own merit. I think that even part of these points are already sufficient reason not to include the controversial text in this article. So keep the discussion simple and to the point, I would recommend and ask that it be centered mainly around the first four points. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither Islam nor Christianity differentiate "souls" on the basis of ethnic extraction and furthermore neither designates one type as intrinsically good and the other instrinsically evil. Generalising intrinsic evilness to all non-Jews is no different than generalising intrinsic evil to all Jews -- both are racist except the latter generalisation has a special term, viz. "anti-semitism". The doctrine that non-Jewish souls derive from the three unclean shells -- which has its roots in Kabbalah and carried over into texts such as Tanya -- is thoroughly racist and thoroughly ethnocentric. Neither Islam nor Christianity are ethno-religions, there is no metaphysically priviliged ethnic group within the doctrine of either religion. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They differentiate and very clearly designate as good (and worthy of heaven) or bad (and worthy of hell) based on religion. Which, if not officially, is practically often determined by the fact of being born into a religious family. And has a less intrinsic relation to the person than his ethnicity. And they have killed many people based on this difference. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The differentiation you refer to is entirely based on belief NOT ethnicity. Christianity and Islam are purely religions and hence they are not inherited. Judaism is an ethno-religion and Jewishness is an ethnicity that is -- according to halakhah -- inherited from one's mother. Jewish intellectuals such as Jared Diamond are excited by the idea of identifying a Jewish gene (or genes) to accurately determine who is actually a Jew (see Jared Diamond, "Who Are the Jews?" Natural History, November 1993, p12) to determine who should and shouldn't be given Israeli citizenship. Diamond is especially concerned with the "Falasha" or Ethiopian Beta Israel and suspects they are merely African converts rather than ethnic Jews. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, religion. So it is called "discrimination", not "racism". Does that help, or make even the slightest difference, to the thousands of Jews murdered because of it? Debresser (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is really no point engaging in useless theological debates with blatant WP:POV editors hiding behind anonymous IP's, (especially when they falsify data and misrepresent sources such as this IP had done with the Tanya). The issue of Shahak and Mezvinsky failing WP:RS has been discussed and resolved on this talk page much eartlier, and the debate need not be reopened every time a banned user chooses to hide behind a new IP. I recommend the IP address be blocked and the page protected if this continues.--Winchester2313 (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I came to this page in all innocence, looking to find pro/con perspective on an unrelated Schneerson controversy. None of that other topic is here, but I've learned (from Monsanto edits, first) to check talk pages as controversy is commonly censored. Still nothing here on "Talk", but this thread caught my eye. I am goyim, but nice... this appears to be what my Israeli friend terms "Hasbara", yes? Why is there not the obvious compromise of including the controversial quotes, with alternate translations as needed, and without using loaded and judgemental wording such as "racist"? I need to trust wikipedia. Please put wikipedia ahead of ideology. Thank you. Rad314 (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Same here. It is quite blatant that the censoring about this point is political; the IP’s argumentation in favour of inclusion is convincing. Why does Winchester2313 react so aggressively? What’s more, the terms the IP has proposed (“ethnocentrism” and “Jewish exceptionalism”) are neutral. — SniperMaské (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I find my and others' arguments against inclusion a lot more convincing. And as far as "blatant censoring" is concerned, is that what you always say when people disagree with you? Debresser (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

the Rabbi's Talmudic anti-gentile hatred is well known, the fact that concrete sources are not enough to get it listed shows the deep seated bias in the wiki editing standards.

--Savakk (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You want to write an article about Talmudic sages' view of gentiles, go ahead, but that is not in this article. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it never the correct article?

Anytime an editor brings up the issue of anti-gentile hatred in Judaism it's not the correct article.

there isn't even a section in the criticism of Judaism article because of how dedicated you people are at hiding the truth.

--Savakk (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that "us people" consist of thousands of active users with thousands of different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, yes? If you have evidence to support the allegation that these thousands of individuals have engaged in wholesale censorship of this site, you are invited to bring it forward. As for all that material we've been censoring, you may find Criticism of the Talmud to be an interesting read.Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, given that Dr. Shahak deliberately and admittedly fabricated claims of particular instances of racism, I would like to see a primary source for the quote. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement merits a place in the article, but the source is a bit problematic. As it is, at least partly, a paraphrase, i might be best to summarize the quote, using the words "three unclean shells". (If somebody could obtain the original source, it would be ideal.) It should be placed under the heading Anthropology. This can be expanded with material from Elliot Wolfson: Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menahem Mendel Schneerson. --Jonund (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just reminding that the statement may be in this article only if it is ascribed directly to Schneersohn. This is not the place to bring statements from the Talmud, the Tanya or other works that were not written by Schneersohn. As was the case with the removed statement that stood at the beginning of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are ugly and disrespectful bits about non members or non-believers in the sacred texts of all three abrahamic religions. All three also contain some sublime ideas about tolerance and forgiveness and love too. I think the point here is not as Debresser and others maintain that an editor is attempting to shoehorn these ugly ideas into the article but that the discrepancy between the kindly reputation of Schneerson and his choosing to select for repitition these ideas from a vast text choice are noteworthy. Rad314 has made the fairest and most useful suggestion above- namely to include the quotes with the several various translations/interpretations. On an unrelated point this quote in article fascinates me "Controversial issues( raised by S.) such as territorial compromise in Israel that might have estranged benefactors from giving much-needed funds to Chabad, were often moderated, particularly by...Krinsky" Had Schneerson been proposing sharing Palestine/Israel in some more equitable way ? If so, then this is also noteworthy and needs expanding.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Public addresses

User:Jayjg recently reverted an edit by an anonymous IP user who had corrected an unsourced statement in the article claiming that the LR spoke "with only brief notes...". That these addresses took place without any notes is a matter of public knowledge. There are (at least) several hundred hours of these talks available for viewing in the public domain, and the only text in sight is the same old prayerbook - closed - every time.--Winchester2313 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the edit was undone with the editsummary "material in front of citation changed". Actually, the citation doesn't say anything about this subject at all. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So, where is the reliable secondary sourcing for the claim that he made these addresses without notes? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If the above is not enough for you, that is, if you think that there is reason to contest this statement, which I, for one, would consider an exercise in futility, you are welcome to be your principled self, and add a {{Citation needed}} tag. Sigh... :( Debresser (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Asking for a citation for claims isn't an "exercise in futility", it's good practice, and policy. If there aren't any reliable secondary sources that comment on it, one should also consider the possibility that it's simply not notable, whether or not its true. There's been plenty written about Schneerson, so there should be absolutely no difficulty writing an article in which every statement is sourced to reliable secondary sources, and which (in general) complies with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jayjg here - it's the sort of thing that (if true) I'd strongly suspect exists in some source somewhere (damn, why is this page still on my watchlist, it lights up so often...). Debresser, I strongly strongly recommend getting it to GA or something which acts like a "stable version" and can be reverted to (like a rubber band) with ease.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like this article to get to GA. But I also like editors not being a pain in the ass. Which is what Jayjg is, with all of sudden being very strict about OR or RS when it suits him. I know him for a long time already... Debresser (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Debresser, if it goes to GA and/or FA, it will be subject to broader scrutiny - lots of folks who are pretty neutral, so a broader bunch to get consensus. It works well generally. FA and now GA articles have to be inline referenced to the proverbial eyeballs anyway....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Debresser: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In your case I am past WP:AGF. And where such seems justified, the guideline you mention looses its relevance. Note that Winchester2313 also seems to have noticed your tendencies in this regard. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a policy, and it is always relevant. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What a surprise - a sentence about the Lubavitcher Rebbe or Chabad that may seem positive, and User:Jayjg manufactures a 'technical' issue....really!! I've found a source that mentions this fact, and will update the article shortly. By the way, are there any sources mentioning that Obama uses a teleprompter.....?!--Winchester2313 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the source as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The exact words in the quoted source are; "...in precise Yiddish without a text or even any notes". If Jayjg had bothered to actually read the edit summary of my edit of Jan 26th, he/she would have seen that I had "revised wording to precisely quote source". I have now removed the tags Jayjg keeps needlessly attaching to the sentence in question. Please respect the WP:NPOV policy, and refrain from harassing other editors as you have on this article simply, apparently, because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Winchester2313 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're quoting a source, why aren't you using quotation marks in the article text? Please review WP:Plagiarism and WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so that you what have a policy to throw at him... :( Debresser (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you really need a policy to know that if you are copying text directly from a source, you need to enclose it in quotation marks? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are not bringing it as a direct quote, but have worked it into your text, then no, there is no need to add quotation marks. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Winchester2313 justified his tag removal on the grounds that he had "revised wording to precisely quote source". Please review the discussion above. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very much aware of that fact, and have closely followed this discussion, Please do not insult my intelligence or seriousness in editing here.

I am very much getting the impression that your actions on this article and its talkpage are meant to be annoying. And I very much not appreciate that feeling. Forgive me if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you closely followed the discussion, then why did you say If you are not bringing it as a direct quote, but have worked it into your text, then no, there is no need to add quotation marks? How could it possibly be relevant to the discussion that immediately preceded it, regarding something that was explicitly brought as a direct quote? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Elipsis outside quotes

If the text, "were often moderated, particularly by...Krinsky," is a quote, it belongs in quotation marks. If it is not in quotes, it does not require the eliplsis, which outside quotes represents a rhetorical device (give the audience time to guess what accusation you are going to make) that has no place in an encyclopedia. 71.175.134.163 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Image

I hope we are not going to have an edit war about the image. For what it's worth, I agree that the new image is better. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rise in America

I am not sure why the information of YYS becoming a citizen is relevant to MMS's bio page. I dont think this was such a significant part of MMS's life. If it belongs on Wikipedia, I am considering moving it to the page of YYS. EhadHaam 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EhadHaam (talk • contribs)

I see no compelling reason to remove this. Wait until some other editors voice their opinion. GREJ Grejorrey (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Grejorrey

Ehad Haam, would you mind telling us precisely which sentences from which section of the article you would like to move to the YYS article? Debresser (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This: "In 1949, his father-in-law would become a U.S. citizen, with the Rebbe assisting to coordinate the event. A special dispensation was arranged wherein the federal judge came to "770" to officiate at Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak's citizenship proceedings, rather than the wheelchair-bound Rebbe travel to a courthouse for the proceedings. Uniquely, the event was recorded on color motion film" -- I dont see any reason why this is so significant in the life of MMS. EhadHaam 23:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EhadHaam (talk • contribs)

Well, apart from the first sentence, perhaps, this does seem like details that should be moved there. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a source can be found emphasizing the Rebbe's role in coordinating it, but agree, the details definitely have no place here.Larryyr (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As per discussion here, I have moved the relevant information to page of YYS. EhadHaam (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Traditional

In this edit User:86.130.134.94 has changed "to spread [[Orthodox Judaism|traditional Judaism]] among the Jewish people" to "to spread [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Judaism]] among the Jewish people". First of all it it not necessary to leave the pipe, and the text could simply be "to spread [[Orthodox Judaism]] among the Jewish people". But that is a sidenote. The editsummary was "Traditional is clearly a weasel word in conjunction with Judaism, which has many branches." I disagree with this for the following reasons:

• Even though Judaism has many branches, Orthodox Judaism, in whatever form, is traditional Judaism. Both in the sense that it is the form of Judaism that was traditionally practiced, and in the sense that it adheres to the age-old traditions of Judaism. Modern Orthodoxy, well, the word says it all. Reform the more so, is a modern denomination, which can point to a fairly recent period and area, where and when it arose, and does so for all to see. Therefore, using the word "traditional" in connection with "Orthodox Judaism" is correct. I will not involve minor denominations like Karaite Judaism into the discussion, as that would be troubling the water, without having much relevance, being that it is of minor importance in the history of the Jewish people. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• It took me a while to formulate for myself what bothered me most with the change: it is not true. Chabad does outreach activities in many areas. Many of these, most actually, are not the legacy of Orthodox Judaism alone. Isn't the belief in one God (as Judaism understands that) the legacy of all of Judaism? Isn't lighting the Menorah a tradition held dear by all of Judaism (not including, again, Karaite Judaism, I guess)? And more traditions - call them rituals, if you like, like that. Chabad believes in spreading Judaism one thing at a time: one tradition here, one good deed there. So I think that the word "traditional", from the same root as "tradition", is the best possible term here. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

See my comments below, I did not spot this section. Unfortunatley there are many traditions in Judaism, and to call one traditional is POV. Hellenistic Judaism is older then Chabad, who are a recent movement in historical terms. It is irrelevant that there are no Hellenistic Jews any more, and irrelevant if there are few Karaites. It is still POV to call any one of these branches or movements traditional, as it implies that the others are not. Traditional implies legitimacy which is POV. The word orthodox is more accurate and NPOV. 81.129.211.120 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In this

He led the movement until his death in 1994, greatly expanding its worldwide activities and founding a worldwide network of institutions to spread traditional Judaism among the Jewish people.

the word traditional is POV and a weasel word. Who decides what is traditional. It should be replace by the word Orthodox or Hasidic which are accurate and have a meaning that can be checked. See these other wikipedia articles.

See Chabad outreach

Chabad Hasidic outreach is a Kiruv phenomena, whereby Chabad Chasidim attempt to encourage Jews to adopt Orthodox Jewish observance.

See orthodox Judaism outreach

Orthodox Judaism outreach commonly referred to as Kiruv or Keruv, is the movement of Orthodox Judaism that reaches out to non-Orthodox Jews to practice the Mitzvot in the hope that they will live according to Orthodox Jewish law

See chabad

Chabad, also known as Habad, Lubavitch, and Chabad-Lubavitch,[1] is a Hasidic movement. 81.129.211.120 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

1. The movement is Hasidic. So what? We are not discussing the movement, we are discussing their activities.
2. What our Wikipdia articles say is not an acceptable source.
3. What is important is what they do. And what they do is, as I said, spreading isolated traditions from traditional Judaism. That there also exist other options, allowing people to adopt a more traditional Jewish lifestyle, is also true. And again, that does not mean that everybody who does so automatically becomes an Orthodox Jew. There are many people who are not Chabad chasidim, and not Orthodox Jews of any other type, but have become more traditional Jewish than they were before in their lives, because of Chabad. You seem to have a too limited view of Chabad, which seems to be why you think you are right, but it is simply not true. I would even wonder if the link to Orthodox Judaism is correct. Perhaps it should be removed and leave only "traditional Judaism". But removing the word "traditional" is not justified by the facts. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Since we agree that it is what they do that is important let us compromise on spread traditional (I would prefer historic) religious practices among the Jewish people. 81.129.211.120 (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean, replace "[[Orthodox Judaism|traditional Judaism]]" by "traditional religious practices"? That would be fine with me. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what I mean. Thanks.86.130.134.112 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unparalleled Genius

When i was a kid studying in yeshiva, I was told by a Rabbi that the Lubavitcher Rebbe invented atomic submarine, speaks 40 languages, and everyone believed it. I was told that a isreali soldier was saved by the photo of the rebbe in his breast pocket stopping a bullet

Thank god for internet.

Your Rebbe is literally an idol whom you worship like a deity. --184.161.151.104 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And your point? In your answer please take into account the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I can find no support for the statement that this person was an "accomplished scholar in mathematics and science." Footnote 9 cites to a speech by Bill Clinton, certainly not adequate authority. I propose to eliminate this statement. ~nswlaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswlaw (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This entire article is a giddy, breathless diatribe on how wonderful this person was. Surely inappropriate as a bio. Needs rewrite. ~nswlaw

The source for "accomplished scholar in mathematics and science" is solely a White House press release. I don't think it belongs in the lede based on this source. There is no other source for this and it appears to be untrue. He did not publish anything in these subjects so how is he considered "accomplished."?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Contending a source

I'm contending the validity of "The Early Years" series as a valid source. They do not provide sources or documentation for the public to see. We are relying on the producer's word (which may have been impacted by his personal disposition).

The main issues this problem causes are:

{28} "Schneerson studied mathematics, physics and philosophy at the University of Berlin for five semesters from mid-1928 through 1930." Please look for legitimate documentation, such as an actual copy of diploma, or certificate of academic acknowledgement (not from the "Early Years"series).

{33} "During this time he would keep a diary in which he would carefully document his private conversations with his father-in-law Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, as well as customs he witnessed his father-in-law observing over the next fifteen years." This is based on claims of an interviewee. Is there any physical evidence for the existence of this diary?

{47} "On June 11, 1940, three days before Paris fell to the Nazis, the Schneersons fled to Vichy, and later to Nice, where they stayed until their final escape from Europe." Again, based on an accounting by a second degree witness. I don't think there is any real way to verify this. It would be better to state this as a claim (in quotation marks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamensky (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Objectivity

I am reading this article as a news reporter looking to verify some simple facts, as well as a practicing and "in-the-know" Orthodox Jew familiar with Chabad.

It is obvious to me that this was written by someone from Chabad who has put a shiny/promotional sheen on everything. While Chabad has done a number of wonderful things, and I revere the Rebbe very much, this portrayal is not objective and inappropriate for Wikipedia. I ask senior editors to handle this and perhaps even lock editing after it has been made more balanced.

(If I can't even use this for reference, this is bad.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.24.65 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This article was not written by any one editor, rather is the result of the collaborative work of many editors from all kinds of backgrounds over many years. I have no problem assuming that this article is of great interest to Chabad adherents and has been influenced by their contributions in a major way. Please feel free to try to further improve this article, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The rule that Wikipedia articles can not be used to reference other Wikipedia articles, makes eminent sense, and has no implications for the quality of any Wikipedia article. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article is now a joke, starting with the opening sentence "was the most influential rabbi in modern history and most famous rabbi since Maimonides." There used to be editors checking on its objectivity but it appears that now it is pretty much edited by Chabad Hasidim only. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "most famous rabbi since Maimonides", but if we interpret "modern history" as the last 100 years, I think the statement "most influential rabbi in modern history" may be correct. If you want to challenge this statement, feel free to do so. There is a Wikipedia guideline that the larger the statement - the better the source has to be. That could be a good starting point for a challenge. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That remark is now sourced 24.186.83.186 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed This article reads like religious propaganda, which is unacceptable in an Encyclopedia. I myself don't have time to go into a Wiki war, which judging from the previous edits is what would be necessary to make this article balanced and objective. I hope that objective editors step up and improve this very poorly written article. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Good examples of pretty objectively written articles about major religious figures are Joseph Smith and Mother Teresa. In these articles, the intros situate their work, lives, and doctrine within larger traditions so that a non-Mormon or non-Catholic can understand where they fit into world history and the history of ideas. In Rebbe Schneerson's article, in contrast, his beliefs are presented as if they are assumed to be true, and without context. I actually came to this article because I couldn't remember the genealogy of which branch of Judaism he was in and which branch he started, and this article was of zero help for that very encyclopedic purpose. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Some sections that are particularly lacking information are the sections of 'scholarship,' 'public address' and 'early life.' I don't think its a joke or an non-credible article, only a poorly written one. TM (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As per above, I started clearing out some old mess, trying to piece things together a bit better. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary rumbles on the page. TM (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed This is part of a pattern which includes concerted resistance to any mention of the hit and run of a young black man or the Rabbi's pronouncement on the superiority of the Jewish soul over the Gentile soul.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, no need to put this article on your political agenda. That hit and run has not much to do with the rabbi, and mentioning it would be out of place. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No agenda here Debresser -please confine your remarks to improving the article in future, and try to contribute to creating more balanced and inclusive articles. I repeat my earlier question re whether any editor is aware of any record of whether the Rabbi's organization contributed any compensation to the parents of the child whom their driver killed -or the second maimed child  ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the assumption. In any case, and as I said in a section above, there is no connection to the rabbi, so all of this is not relevant to this article. My reaction might be related to the fact that some have over the years for unclear but likely unpleasant reasons tried to connect the incident to the rabbi, and I (and others) have grown rather tired of that. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I found some material, new to WP apparently, that relates to the compensation question. I have put it on the talk page of the Crown Heights riot WP page. See what you think. I wonder did the Rabbi ever make any public statement himself on the tragic accident? It seems out of character that a person of such apparent compassion would not have done so if one of his team/followers/employees had been the inadvertent cause of the death and injury of two children. It may be that he chose to remain silent as any statement at the time might not have helped but I wonder whether any record ( diary etc.) has come to light since his death illuminating his opinion, if any on the matter ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

9/13 reverts

Per the discussion, I was attempting to make it more encyclopedic. Basic background info was missing, as someone noted a couple weeks ago, and the biographical information doesn't belong. Is there a better way to do it? Larryyr (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Larryyr is right. His edits make the page more encyclopedic. They have now been reverted. TM (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't just add things (which were good things), he also removed things (not always so good).

TM, do not revert an undo without discussion as per WP:BRD, which I recommend you to review. This is becoming tiresome. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, TM, please do not "decide" who is right or wrong. This is Wkipedia, and things like that are open for discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, thank you for the input. If you feel any of the reverted additions were justified, please add them.

Which of the removed sentences do you feel belong there? Larryyr (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Larryyr. Your edit removing repeated information about educational institutions was undoubtedly correct. The sentence "Schneerson was born in Nikolaev in 1902 to a dynasty of Chabad-Lubvaitch rabbis. His great-great grandfather and namesake was Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, the third Lubavitcher Rebbe." deserves a place somewhere in the article, imho. If not in the lead then at least in the Biography section. I have a few problems with "was an Orthodox Rabbi, talmudic Scholar, and Chassidic Rebbe. He was the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the 20th century." as well, since "rabbi" and "scholar" probably should not be capitalized, while "Talmudic" probably should, but more importantly because I think the two parts of the last sentence are not connected. Perhaps the following would be better: "was an Orthodox rabbi, Talmudic scholar, and the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the 20th century." Note the internal links. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will make the changes you suggested, and move biographical stuff to its proper place.Larryyr (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Once we started cleaning it there's no reason to stop. The biography section has tons of useless details, long unnecessary quotes, testimonials, and all kinds of non-encyclopedic stuff. It should be fixed. If anyone wants to help, object, or suggest, please do so.Larryyr (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Larryyr, in this edit you removed a whole sourced paragraph with the edit summary "continue dividing". What that your intention? Why should that paragraph be removed? Debresser (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Larryyr has a point. The page is full of trivia and reads more like a story then an encyclopedia. This is something that has been mentioned in the past also. I think there is a lot that can be cut. What do other editors think? TM (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Debresser, I was moving a paragraph from the top and that must have gotten chopped by accident. Larryyr (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Debresser. As was suggested on this talk page, I have removed information that doesn't seem to be encyclopedic style. There are still many long quotes, redundant sentences, and story type information that needs to be worked on. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks. TM (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, I'll say which sentences I think should have been kept, and we'll discuss it. I based myself on this diff.

1. equivalent to 11 Nissan, 5662 - Jewish date is important, even has an article 11 Nissan
2. and Menachem Mendel proved gifted in both Talmudic and Kabalistic study - relevant
3. Although Schneerson didn't attend a Soviet school, he took the exams as an external student and did well on them, and he immersed himself in Jewish studies while simultaneously qualifying for Russian secondary school. - at least the facts that 1. he didn't go to school and 2. that he did do exams are relevantDebresser (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Debresser. I appreciate your advice. I will work on making these changes in the best possible format. Thank you. TM (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is much better than it was earlier this summer, so thanks for the edits. I gather from the above that you two were in a bit of an edit war, but have found some resolution (or at least I hope so). What I'm looking at now is much more encyclopedic and objective. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Rebbe"

Is he the only rabbi known as The Rebbe? I do not know very much about Lubavitcher history, but elsewhere I have heard this phrase used by many people about their rabbis, because what it means is "Rabbi" in Yiddish. Could we change the first sentence to "known by his Lubavitcher Hasidic followers as The Rebbe" or something like that? Or is there documentation that in wider Judaism (much less the wider world) he is distinctively known as The Rebbe?

I think the article "Rebbe" has a much better and more encyclopedic way of addressing this issue, and I am tempted to cut and paste it into this article (but not in the introductory paragraph):

"While the title Rabbi and its Yiddish equivalent Rebbe are terms that refer to many teachers of Torah or leaders of Jewry, 'Rebbe' (/ˈrɛbɛ/) or 'Rebbi' (/ˈrɛbi/) when mentioned in the Talmud is a reference to the redactor of the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ("Yehuda the Prince").

In common parlance of modern times, the term 'The Rebbe' is often used specifically by Ḥasidim to refer to the leader of a Ḥasidic movement (for example, by Lubavitcher Ḥasidim referring to their 7th Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson).[2][3]" Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your are correct, many chasidic movements refer to their heads as "the Rebbe". Perhaps you suggestion has merit. Nevertheless, I think you should have waited with making the edit you suggest till you established consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

While some people in other groups may at times refer to their rabbi "The Rebbe" of their group, Rabbi Schneerson is the only one to be called "The Rebbe" by people unaffiliated with his movement. It therefore also does not make sense to say "known by his followers as the Rebbe," since many people who are not "his followers" call him "The Rebbe." TM (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I had thoughts along the same lines, but when I thought about it, I am not sure in how far non-affiliated people would use "The Rebbe" for the Lubavitcher rebbe, if not in conversation with Lubavitcher hasidim. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to get into original research territory, since you're making claims of opinion and fact, without citations. Such efforts at original research are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

For example, the article rebbe does not refer primarily to Schneerson -- he is one of many examples. This needs to be changed. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no original research on talkpages. In any case, what do you feel should be changed precisely? Debresser (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that can be cited to support the claim that Rabbi Schneerosn is known and referred to as "The Rebbe" beyond his followers. For example, Prof. Noah Feldman wrote that Rabbi Schneerson is the man who came to be known simply as the Rebbe. TM (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact is outside of lubavitch and some secular fans nobody referred to him as "the rebbe." If you want to insist on adding this misleading claim into the lede because you found a couple of sources that seem to say so, then knock yourself out.brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

770, 10 Campaigns

Per earlier discussion to make page more encyclopedic, I shortened and merged these sections into their relevant biographical locations. I also shortened lengthy quotes. TM (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of the Messianism section

For the past week or so, I've been on a bit of a kick on Jewish Messianism articles. I've noticed that the section on Messianism is very small, which is strange considering that it was such a big aspect of his followers both during his life and after his death. Whilst there is a page dedicated to it, there should definitely be something here too. Jews who grew up in the 80s or 90s definitely remember how it was almost impossible to talk about Chabad or the last Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L without also discussion the messianism aspect. How he encouraged his Chassidim to prepare for the coming of Mashiach, which manifested itself in newspaper, radio and billboard ads encouraging people to do mitzvos and bring Mashiach. 1-800-4MOSHIACH was even the hotline for Chabad, and the Chabad websites all had something "moshiach" related in their URLs (like gopher://moshiach.com for instance, oh the 90s). Then there was the whole Meshichist movement which still persists today and resulted in a huge backlash of controversy from virtually all major non-Lubavitch Rabbis and Jewish institutions. I would add it all in myself, but I've noticed that this page is very carefully monitored and would probably result in my stuff being reverted. Can we decide on what to add and how to add it? Yserbius (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-org for clarity and readability

I did a series of minor changes (diff) intended to improve clarity and readability of the article generally trying to follow MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:BIO and common sense. These were chiefly some section header renames, some new subsections to break up long sections, and moving some paragraphs around to a more logical section. None of these added or deleted any substantive text. In a few cases, moving a paragraph from its old location to a better one left an awkward break or hole in the flow at the old location, and I patched these up by adding a few connecting words, or reprising a brief version of what was moved away. All references were kept.

Highlights: the "Life" section is now "Biography", the subsections which used to be named by date range (e.g., sections '1902-1923' or '1923-1941' etc.) which didn't give any hint about what they were about, now have textual names: 'Early life and education in Russia', 'Marriage and family life', and so on. The long section '1951-1994' is now 'Outreach, spiritual and political campaigns', with the addition of seven new, informative subsection headers to divide it up and help readability, e.g., 'International outreach', 'Chanukah campaign', 'Iran youth immigration' and so on. As a result of giving some of these sections a name, it became evident for the first time that some content in those sections was out of place. Accordingly, a few paragraphs have been moved out of the 'Outreach' section up in to the 'Family life' subsection. Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1951-1994 was the period he was the Rebbe of the Lubavitch movement. That is what sets this period apart, and therefore I think that is what should be in the header, rather than some activities like 'Outreach, spiritual and political campaigns'. I suggest "Lubavitcher Rebbe" as header. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Likewise I think that replacing 1950-1951 with "7th Lubavitcher Rebbe" was a mistake, as it is misleading. I'd call it "interregnum", but with the quotation marks. I suppose another, better header, can be thought of. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't he run over somebody?

I feel like I'm really missing something - but on the (UTC)Crown Heights Riot page it says he was the one who ran over young Gavin Cato in 1991. Surely this should be mentioned somewhere. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You misread. It was a car from his entourage. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It was actually a guy following his car. There was never an official entourage. Caseeart (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Entourage/Cortege/ "official"or "unofficial" Was the escort driver who killed the child an employee of the organisation? Was any compensation ever paid to families of the dead child or the surviving maimed one ? There is likely to be some record -No ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not an "escort driver", and it had nothing to do in any other direct way with the rabbi. So it is not relevant to this article. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If it was a car from the entourage (as you say) and in a police accompanied convoy, and the running of the traffic light to rejoin the convoy caused the deaths and riots then it IS relevant.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ, and see no connection to the rabbi. This would definitely be important in an article about those riots, but not in an article about the rabbi. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ, absolutely relevant. In fact, the only reason I'm even here is because I was redirected from the wiki for the Crown Heights Riots. How can you say it isn't relevant? That event probably had more influence on the Rebbe than a lot of this other nonsense. 2601:A:6480:10E9:4CDD:C0B8:14D5:EBF0 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What influence are you talking about? And what nonsense? If that is your attitude, no wonder you are searching for something sensational. Debresser (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A car in this man's convoy killed an innocent child and set off one the of the worst race riots in the history of New York, and also also what is known as one of the most antisemitic events in the history of the United States. Can you really say that that shouldn't be included on this page? It's ludicrous. His convoy's accident caused a riot. When you read this page is seems like a blatant, intentional omission. I think this should be moderated by an unbiased party, not religiously affiliated with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:6480:10E9:4CDD:C0B8:14D5:EBF0 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So far, editors, both I and others have removed such information as being not relevant to the rabbi himself. It is an important piece of information, but not for this article. In addition, in any case, that would not be considered a controversy, so should not be in the Controversy section. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'd be willing to compromise and say that it shouldn't be in the controversy section, but do you honestly believe that the man's biography shouldn't mention a riot caused by his convoy? Even if he just happened to be present in Crown Heights during the riots, as a rabbi that should be mentioned in his biography. I'm sure this was an important moment in his life. I doubt he was sitting at home watching TV. And like I said earlier, this should be moderated by a neutral party. You yourself claim to be a Rabbi. This is a factual encyclopedia. It is inappropriate that you lord over this page like it's your own property. I would consider it just as inappropriate if a Catholic priest controlled the pages for the various Popes that have done less-than-pious things. And this accident wasn't even Schneerson's fault. You act as if by including it on this page we're somehow assigning blame. We're not. But don't pretend he wasn't there or it wasn't his convoy. There are dozens of newspaper articles written at the time of the riot that mention him by name. How can you deny his involvement. It's historical revisionism, like the fools who say the Holocaust didn't occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:6480:10E9:4CDD:C0B8:14D5:EBF0 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment. Unfortunately, Debresser has been sanitising this and other chabad-related articles on Wikipedia for years. pablo 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Pablo X, where did that come from? Please read WP:NPA and/or WP:CIVIL. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Basically, if a car in his convoy killed someone, then I agree, not relevant information. But that fact that this accident set off a serious antisemitic riot, much of which was fueled by the perceived preferential treatment of the Jewish citizens of Crown Heights over black citizens, including the aforementioned police escort, make it relevant to the man's biography. I wish he was still alive so we could ask him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:6480:10E9:4CDD:C0B8:14D5:EBF0 (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is not in the lead or the Controversies section, perhaps. Perhaps we should agree to ask for uninvolved input, perhaps at WP:DR, and do as they recommend? I would be fine with that. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. You have had my uninvolved input but by all means seek more. pablo 10:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a few comments. First, civility is not always enforced, but it is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and there is an odd fact about it. Civility doesn't always work, but it sometimes works. Incivility very seldom "works" in the sense of promoting collaborative editing, or even in the sense of making it possible to "win". Second, the article on Crown Heights riot does mention that the motorcade of the Rebbe was what caused the death of one child and injury to another child that led to the riots. I would suggest that one sentence in the article should state that, with a link to the article about the riot. I am sure that it weighed heavily on the Rebbe for the rest of his life, even if he didn't say anything about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A one sentence mention is not illogical. This was an important event in his life. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a source that this was "an important event in his life". Thanks. TM (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"many Jews "/"many people hoped that he would be revealed as the Messiah"

Regarding this revert, the WP:PEACOCK/WP:WEASEL reverted to text is unsupported by a source.

The relevant text is: "During his life many people hoped that he would be revealed as the Messiah.[17][86]...Recognizing Schneerson's vast achievements, many Jews felt that if there was indeed a person worthy of such stature, it was Schneerson.[17][186]" Citation 17 is Sue Fishkoff. "10 Years After His Death, Reach of Lubavitcher Rebbe Continues To Grow". Jewish Federations of North America. Retrieved 2013-11-13. and the nearest this source comes is "Some of his followers tried to proclaim him the Messiah". Translating that to "many Jews"/"many people" is an exaggeration. Citation 86 is Ruth R. Wisse (2014-06-01), "The Rebbe, Twenty Years After", Commentary Magazine. The nearest this source comes to it is "So it was not surprising that some of his followers saw him as a messianic figure, if not the messiah himself". Again, no cigar. Citation 186 is Sue Fishkoff (2003). The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 320. ISBN 9780805211382.. The 2009 edition of this book (which is the only version I have access to) has nothing to support the text. Has the cited 2003? I doubt it, given the misuse of the other sources. In any case "recognizing Scheerson's vast achievements" is hopelessly WP:PEACOCK and hagographical. DeCausa (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If that is what the sources say, then you were correct in your changes. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)