This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
Some IP user is adding material that Schneerson would have been born in 1895.
Debresser ( talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I have referred the above controversy for third party resolution.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Yes that is exactly what I mean. Thanks. 86.130.134.112 ( talk) 09:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
Some IP user is adding material that Schneerson would have been born in 1895.
Debresser ( talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I have referred the above controversy for third party resolution.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Yes that is exactly what I mean. Thanks. 86.130.134.112 ( talk) 09:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)