Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A shorter proposal

Let's see if we can get a very basic mention that just includes what's in the sources and leaves out the parts people are objecting to. We have:

But on the details of Gavin’s death, the official record is clear: On Aug. 19, 1991, at roughly 8:20 p.m., a vehicle that was part of a three-car motorcade carrying Menachem Schneerson, grand rebbe of the Lubavitch Hasidic community, struck and killed Gavin Cato and seriously injured his cousin Angela.[1]

and

The Crown Heights disturbances in the summer of 1991, which became a central issue in last year's mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child.

...In Crown Heights, as in few other places in the world, Jews and blacks live side by side on the same streets, often in the same apartment buildings. Because the groups are so different -- in history, in religion, in diet, in dress -- there has long been an undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood.

This tension broke into the open in the summer of 1991 when Rabbi Schneerson was returning to his residence after a visit to the Queens cemetery. The last car in his entourage, driven by a Hasidic man, went out of control and struck and killed a 7-year-old black child playing on the street. In the violence that followed, a 29-year-old Hasidic man was surrounded by a group of black residents and fatally stabbed. [2]

While I personally think we should include a bit more about why this event was significant, I could go along with just mentioning the crash here and linking to the riot article.

The central points seem to be:

• Summer 1991 car crash
• Schneerson's motorcade (but not his car)
• killed a child
• followed by riots

If we can agree on these points, perhaps we can construct a sentence or two? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, with changes. KamelTebaast 03:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I am sure I tried it before. I only expanded because the other editors complained, but here we go again:

• Crown Heights riots

In August 19, 1991, a car in the motorcade of Schneerson (although he was not in that car) was involved in a accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy. After the accident, three days of rioting known as the Crown Heights riots ensued, costing the death of at least two men, who had not been involved in the disturbances, and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood. There had long been an undercurrent of tension between the Black and Lubavitch community in the neighborhood.(Ref = Ari Goldman article NYT)

This needs to go in the controversy section.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Shortened it further.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"There had long been an undercurrent of tension between the Black and Lubavitch community in the neighborhood"? What does that have to do with Schneerson? And no matter what is written, why must it go in a "controversy" section? Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Bus, agreed.
• Rococo, the "Controversy" section will be short lived anyway, but this isn't going into it while it's there. Where's the controversy? KamelTebaast 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast: I can not understand your statement above. Regardless, please source some neutral material that states that the events of that day were not a controversy. Even the video you posted on the confrontation between the Mayor of New York and the Rabbi was the textbook example of a controversy. It is a textbook example of an event important in the Rabbi's life and memorialized as such. It is a time when he pleaded for peace in the whole city. You seek to wash away the whole incident. You have no sources to do so.Rococo1700 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence stating an undercurrent of tension between the Black and Lubavitch community in the neighborhood derives from the Goldman biography which states in a section titled Tension in Crown Heights

In Crown Heights, as in few other places in the world, Jews and blacks live side by side ... Because the groups are so different ... there has long been an undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood ... This tension broke into the open in the summer of 1991 when Rabbi Schneerson was returning to his residence ... Schneerson was criticized by some black and some Jewish leaders for not publicly commenting on the violence or expressing his sympathies to the family of the dead child. His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue.

This is part of a succinct biography of the man. That is the definition of "have to do with Schneerson".

Again we argue all this time about something, and that is not a controversy? A riot between two communities, one of which had Schneerson as a major leader, and there is no controversy? The paragraphs above are a textbook definition of a controversy for which there are diverse opposing opinions. If you want, we can make it its own subsection after the Controversy section. I see no reason to change the text. Rococo1700 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I too agree with Bus Stop and others. I see no controversy that is related to the rabbi here. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, again, you fail to follow the norms of Wikipedia. You opinion to quote the an essay on sources for Wikipedia is worth between slim and none. And none left town. The reputable source on his biography disagrees with all of you. Here we are after pages of discussion and that still continues to be the point, neither you, nor BusStop dare address. It is your blind spot; you lack neutrality. I recommend the administrators of Wikipedia arbitrate this, and block you from editing this entry. You patrol it like a hagiography, not as an encyclopedic entry. My recommendation is that barring any reasonable sourced objections to this material being part of his biography. It should be entered into the text as a controversy or its own section. I am all in favor of trying to solve problems in Wikipedia by discussion, based on the principles of Wikipedia, but there are some editors, those mentioned above, that do not follow these rules. This page needs arbitrated settlement. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: Please explain in detail exactly what was controversial directly relating to Menachem Mendel Schneerson? (Please don't use anything related to the "stayed silent" as consensus has determined not to use that.) KamelTebaast 16:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we concentrate on writing the simplest possible sentence that contains the points above. Then we can talk about where to put it. It looks like we have a suggestion to add "undercurrent of tension" to those four points; while that's well sourced it doesn't seem to be essential. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, there are those who would read the events as having only to do with one accident. The section in the biography by Goldman on Schneerson is titled Tension in Crown Heights, the paragraphs you quoted.Rococo1700 (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the "controversy" vis-a-vis Schneerson? It is virtually axiomatic that if there is a riot, there must have been "tensions" that preceded it. What does this have to do with Schneerson, the subject of this article? What is the nature of this "tension" and does it trace its origin back to Schneerson in any way? If no, then it doesn't belong in this article. I'm not saying that your observations, if supported by sources, might not be appropriate for the Crown Heights riot article. But we are discussing the writing of this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. If we leave out "undercurrent of tension" then it sounds like the crash was the cause of the riot rather than just the trigger. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal (under New York):

In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death and injury of two immigrant children. This incident, among other factors, led to the Crown Heights riot. KamelTebaast 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

1. 1 Bus Stop: A riot linked to the biography of Schneerson is a controversy. And the riot is linked to the biography of Schneerson, for more than one reason, according to the sources (Ari Goldman's article). Again we are not her to do original research. All your questions are very heuristic, but have no value in determining the entry in this encyclopedia.
2. 2 The tension is linked to the biography of Schneerson, as stated by the sources. Schneerson, as evident in this article, was a major leader of one of the two communities, that by any stretch would have a role in the development of these tensions. But again, the Goldman source does explicity state that some of Schneerson's actions after the incident were criticized by the Black and Jewish community. This contributes to tensions between the too communities. Again go back to the sources, facts have a stubborn-ness to them.

I think the paragraph of Kamel Tebaast needs a third sentence. I am OK with the first sentence. I do not believe we should call them just "immigrant children". For one, that term could apply to "two blond Canadian children". These children were "Black", "African-Americans" from Guyana, and were perceived by the Black community of Crown Heights as one of their own. The riot had a racial component to it as evident by Ari Goldman's use of the term Black. In addition, the phrase "among other factors" is equally vague and unacceptable. That term could apply to anything. Ari Goldman's article is more specific, and I used the term "tensions between the two communities" to refer to these factors. Goldman states there are some deeper cultural (dress and habit) that separate the two groups. For that reason, I would be ok if the phrase "among other factors" were replaced by "among other factors that had led to tensions between the local Black and Jewish communities"

Here is a rewrite for an added section in the Controversies or as an independent subsection.

In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death of one immigrant Black child and injury of his sister. This incident, among other factors that had created an undercurrent of tensions between the local Black and Jewish communities, led to the Crown Heights riot.

Rococo1700 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking that this article is a biography of Schneerson. You say "I do not believe we should call them just 'immigrant children'. For one, that term could apply to 'two blond Canadian children'." We are not trying to establish the origins of the riot in this article. That is information of a potentially causative nature. Causative of what? Causative of the Crown Heights riot. We are, and we merely should be, linking to the Crown Heights riot article from this article in order that the reader might explore among other things the causes of the Crown Heights riot. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not in favor of adding details about tensions caused between Jews and blacks. That is in the main article and it is irrelevant to this article. (BTW, Rococo, the victims were cousins, not siblings.) If, however, Rococo continues to push to have more details added about tensions between blacks and Jews, I'll add the following: "Several hours after the accident, a group of African-Americans stabbed to death Yankel Rosenbaum, a Chasidic Jew from Australia". Here is my latest proposed rewrite:

In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death and injury of two Guyanese immigrant children. This incident, among other factors, led to the Crown Heights riot. KamelTebaast 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "Guyanese" is preferable to "immigrant". "Guyanese" is more specific than "immigrant". Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Where to place Crown Heights riot edit?

The consensus in prior discussions was not to place this under the "Controversy" section. However, Rococo1700 has persisted in placing it in that section or as its own section. As has been discussed, ad nauseam, although the riot was controversial, there was no controversy related to Menachem Mendel Schneerson, not related to the accident or riots. Can we create a final consensus as to where the edit should be placed? The options so far are:

• Under the New York section
• A new section for the few sentences
• Under the Controversy section

Please weigh in. Thank you. KamelTebaast 19:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast, I have looked at two prior discussions about Crown Heights and there was no consensus, none, to not put it in the controversy section. And the first problem I have with that statement, is that any mention of this controversy was absent from the article completely (speaking of controversies). And we are talking about an item that encompassed nearly ten percent of the man's obituary, now there is a controversy if you ever wanted one. Kamel, as I have explained to you ad nauseum, your feelings, your opinions about what Schneerson's relationship to event, while you are free to voice them, do not represent well-sourced material The entry from the section titled "Tensions in Crown Heights" from a biography of Schneerson is valid sourced material. Tensions within communities, one of which has Schneerson as a leader, are a controversy. Again this is sourced material in his biography. You need to put your feelings aside, and argue with me with well sourced facts. You do not understand an encyclopedia and what its optimum standard for information is. I do not agree with just New York, since these paragraph would have nothing to do with the prior ones except "locale". The controversy in this article to date, only refers to whether he is or is not considered the messiah or not, or some teachings. This controversy of Crown Heights led to loss of life and property for a community of which he was a leader, and to the neighboring black community which had tensions with the Lubavitch community. This was a major event in the history of New York, if not of the United States, and is an example of continuing controversies in this country. We could break up Controversies as religious ones and those between the local communities. I must assume we have agreement on the text, if you want to argue on this.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

By they way, until March 12, 2013, this article for years had a subsection titled Crown Height riot, within the section of Final Years, just before a section titled Final illness. It was deleted, without explanation by an editor titled Obama is the Lord. These were his only edits. It was never restored. Rococo1700 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're having a difficult time understanding what editors have written many times: here, here, here, and here. Even Kendall-K1 dropped his desire to add the one item that could have made this controversial. Yes, the riots had controversy, and it was a controversial part of New York's history, but that doesn't make it controversial in terms of Menachem Mendel Schneerson and his article. Your continuous WP:WOTs will not change that. This section's heading was very simple: Where to place it. Yet, you continued with your pontificating and WOTs. Pick where you would like it, let others do the same, and hopefully we'll build a consensus and move on. At one point, and that time is nearing, you will simply be considered a disruptive editor. Again, your options are:

• Under the New York section
• A new section (Crown Heights riot)
• Under the Controversy section

Please choose one or another that you would like. KamelTebaast 20:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel, none of what you states, I repeat none, constitutes "consensus". Sorry to be blunt but you have a difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works. Again, the episode is not controversial because I think so, but because the sources think it emerges from controversy, which the biography links to Schneerson. Again my opinion, like yours counts little. My sources count a lot, and far more than your biased opinion. See below for my choice for site.

Rococo1700—there is no controversy vis-a-vis Schneerson concerning the riot. If you disagree the burden is on you to at least articulate the case for that controversy. Our sentence alerting the reader to the existence of a separate article on the riot should be placed in the New York section because Schneerson resided in the Crown Heights section of New York at the time of the riots. Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

In previous discussion two editors said they prefer the "New York" section. That makes sense to me; the incident happened in New York, during the time covered by that section. I dislike "Controversy" sections and would like to see that go away. All great men have controversy in their lives, and it is better to weave those in to the text of the article. If it were up to me, I would make it a subsection; but I don't feel strongly about that. As to whether this is a "controversy": That is not up to us to decide. It is not called a "controversy" in either of the sources I consulted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This information had its own subsection in his biography. We are already limiting the content to a minuscule portion of his life, when a biography dedicated nearly ten percent of the paragraphs to the Tensions in Crown Heights. I would be ok if we restore it to a subsection titled Crown Heights riots; this would mirror the article as it was in 2013. With regard to the controversy justification that Bus Stop is asking, again I refer him to the source which has a heading Tensions in Crown Height: that is the part of the controversy. The issue is not only the riots but that the riots emerged at all, is a reflection, according to the sources of the events. I disagree with Kendall-K1 in that I am not sure what he would define the situation in Crown Heights, if not a controversy? The word uses for the section was "tension" leading to riots, that to me speaks for controversy, which is defined as disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. Riots kind of fit that definition. In addition, the Goldman article speaks of disagreements between leaders of the Black and Jewish communities with Schneerson and his family and vice versa. These arguments persist to this day. If you want we can make a section titled Tensions in his Community. But in the spirit of compromise, I would agree to my entry above in the New York section with its own heading.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen any source saying that any "tensions" are directly attributable to Schneerson. The term "tensions" is used by a source. So what? A riot took place. It is axiomatic that a riot takes place in the presence of "tensions". Is a riot going to take place amidst calmness? Did Schneerson do anything to exacerbate "tensions"? We don't need to burden a biography of Schneerson with concerns taken up in the "Crown Heights riot" article. Our main aim in this discussion should be arriving at the most appropriate way to alert the reader of the "Crown Heights riot" article. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop, none of the sources say the tensions are directly attributable to Schneerson, but neither does the proposed entry. Thus that seems a straw man argument. The tensions were forces emerging from two groups, the Goldman's New York Times article implies that the differences between the two groups had something to do with it. But this is not a "burden" in Schneerson's biography in the New York Times, it is an important segment of his life. When you say: So what? A riot took place. - you may want to rethink your phrasing. People died. Again, I do not want to be pulled into arguing Schneerson said this, or didn't say that, or nothing at all. The source on his biography mentions tensions both in a heading and in a sentence, for a section reflecting a major event in his life. Of course, there is a back story, a story during the riots, and later events, but the goal here is how to maintain reliably sourced material about the event into the biography. I have made a proposal above. Kamel Teebast stated that if the sentence including tensions were kept, then he wanted a sentence about Yankel Rosenbaum. OK there it is. I even changed the paragraph to reflect that he was a student returning home from studies when he was killed. Kendall-K1 and others can we agree insert this into a subsection titled Crown Heights riot (as the subsection in this article from about 2003 to 2013 had been titled) into the section of New York of this present article. I would reference the New York Times obituary for Schneerson.

In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death of one immigrant Black child and injury of his sister. This incident, among other factors that had created an undercurrent of tensions between the local Black and Jewish communities, led to the Crown Heights riot. Several hours after the accident, a group of African-Americans stabbed to death Yankel Rosenbaum, a Chasidic doctoral student returning home that night.

The above blockquote by Rococo is not in the correct thread for that discussion. This thread was created only to establish as to where the edit will reside within the article. KamelTebaast 01:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop, have you read the sources? Are you following the discussion? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We should not have in this article a subsection titled "Crown Heights riot" as suggested by Rococo1700. The relationship between Schneerson and the "Crown Heights riot" is too tenuous to justify a subsection heading. In the context of this article such a subsection heading would not be justified. Schneerson had little to nothing to do with the "Crown Heights riot"—other than being present when it transpired. Schneerson did not play a role in igniting the riot and he did not play a role in extinguishing it nor did he play any other role in it. Our goal here should be simply to alert the reader to the article titled Crown Heights riot. This is justified because it was a significant event that occurred during the time Schneerson resided in New York, and that is the reason that the New York section is probably most appropriate for placement. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I am OK with the article as it now stands today according to Debresser's last edit. I am also OK if anyone wants to substitute the paragraph above that also has Kemal Tebaast's recommendation, adding mention of the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum. If there are additional reliable sources that change the history of the event as stated, the text can be modified. It has its own section at the end of the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you say that you are "OK with the article as it now stands" as of the last edit by Debresser but this is a collaborative project and we are discussing this on the article's Talk page. Yes, you are "OK with the article as it now stands" but you have not addressed my objections raised immediately above. The "article as it now stands" is substantially as you edited it despite the minor alteration made by Debresser. Would you care to respond to the objections that I raise immediately above your most recent comment? This Talk page is comparable to a two-way street. Dialogue is the way we resolve differences of opinion at Wikipedia. That involves addressing each other's concerns. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I will answer your objection the same way I have done time and time again. The entry reflects well sourced material of his biography that disagrees with you opinion that Schneerson had little to nothing to do with the "Crown Heights riot". I respect your opinion. You have a right to your opinion. Having opinions is good. But it does not justify keeping well sourced, relevant material that disagrees with your opinion out of the biography. Again, I am not just saying that the information is in the source (and I can find other sources if you want), but that it is an important chapter in his life. We could debate whether you and I agree on the importance. But that is not the issue. I do not want to go there. It would be a delight for you and me and others to argue the details of the events of that week. But that would completely miss the point of the encyclopedia. Again, I think it is a valid debate, and would encourage you to start forums in The issue is whether what is in the article is based on the sources and relevant. My finding is that it is; your dissenting opinion carries little weight unless we can substantiate that with well-sourced material. I have. You continue to complain.

Second, I think you have a second quibble about where to place this information. The article, for years, have a paragraph on these events in a subsection titled Crown Height riots; I would prefer it to be in the controversy section, others want it in other parts of the article. I am ok where it is now, a subsection, but in a separate from other ideas, and with a minimum of background(all relevantly sourced), which is similar to its situation for years. Again, mos maiorum is not absolute in its application, but can serve as an initial guide.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo, if you add your own version again into the article while this is being discussed in Talk, I'll report you to AE. I'll place a warning on your Talk page as well. KamelTebaast 19:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel, there is a open debate about the neutrality of this article, by all means report me to AE. Threats mean little in Wikipedia if they are not backed by substantive contributions. And you are not providing any well-sourced material to counter the last entry by Debresser. And again, I ask you not to delete well sourced, relative material from the entry. Remember we are talking of material that was part of this article for years before it was deleted without any discussion in 2013. But again, that is not the reason, that it should be placed in the article; the reason it should be inserted is that it is well-sourced, relevant material. It is a substantial part of his biography in the New York Times obituary summarizing Schneerson's life. It is a controversy mentioned in histories of the events as linked to him. Kamel, this circle of argument has to end somewhere, if not it is merely your whim, your opinions against the sources. That is why I went before the neutrality committee. I have argued here repeatedly with well-sourced material. All you say is that you don't like it. That does not suffice. The failure by you and Bus Stop, and Debresser to support your position with reliable sources, or the counter what is stated in the reliable source material in the article. Again, my recommendation is that the solution here needs to be arbitrated, not mediated, because as your most recent post suggests, all you wish to do is argue based on your fancy, not focus on the subject on hand using well-sourced material. I am going to revert your deletion of Debresser.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Kemal you said in deleting the prior post that the consensus favors entering this as a subsection under New York with the heading Crown Height Riots. The latest text reads:

In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death of one immigrant Black child and injury of his sister. This incident, among other factors that had created an undercurrent of tensions between the local Black and Jewish communities, led to the Crown Heights riot. Several hours after the accident, a group of African-Americans stabbed to death Yankel Rosenbaum, a Chasidic doctoral student returning home that night.

So I am going to replace this paragraph in a subsection under New York. Or go ahead and report me. Debresser has already posted two warnings on my talk page. This is what happens in this article when you and Debresser realize that you do not have evidence and history on your side, you explode in accusations. I prefer to focus on the text and the sources. How about it? It time you face up to history.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever wording is used, it should not be given oversized importance. Placement matters in this regard. Rococo1700 has placed wording in its own section of the article. This placement is overstating the importance of this material in relation to Schneerson's life. A preferable placement for material of this nature would be within the New York section of the article. My reasoning is that within the context of this article on Schneerson the riot is merely something that occurred while Schneerson lived in New York. It is not something that he played a role in, in any way. He was neither instrumental in causing it nor in bringing about its cessation. He was never involved in any aspect of the riot. It should not be given oversized importance in the article on Schneerson. I object to allotting a separate section to "Crown Heights riots". I think that whatever is written about the Crown Heights riots, it should be subsumed into the "New York" section of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I warned Rococo here and on his Talk page not to insert the Crown Heights piece into the article while we are building consensus here. He did, and he completely went against the consensus on many items. As such, I'll be reporting him within the next few days (unless he self reverts beforehand). KamelTebaast 23:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The source that I use is summarizing Schneerson's life and dedicates a substantial portion of the text to this event. This event, in all its ramifications, plays an important role in the legacy of Schneerson in the history of the city and country. In the biography cited, this event has its own subsection. On the basis of this I strongly recommend it have its own section. If not, one alternative would be to make all the entries in the controversy section into paragraphs, and this be one of them. Another alternative is to give it its own section in the text, since it was this important in his biography. Additional support for this choice comes from how the similar text was used in the article from 2009 to 2015, when without clear discussion, it was deleted. Thus I provide external evidence of the importance of the incident to Schneerson, its importance to Schneerson, and that this is how the information was treated before in this entry, for years. "oversized importance" is an biased opinion of Bus Stop. I am not going to debate his statements of "merely something that occurred", again, I have and will continue to refer him to the source in the New York Times which is reliable and important. He disagrees with the source, but again, Wikipedia is not about personal opinions or original research. He does not give me a neutral source to support his personal opinion. My strong recommendation is that we have a solution in place now. Bus Stop should work to find a reliable neutral source that overturns the present history of the event and Schneerson's life, rather that only telling us how he feels or thinks. That is the continued failure of his proposals.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kamel Tebaast: Please, go ahead report me. Do not engage in edit warring. I believe that given your intransigence and that of your two fellow editors, administrators to arbitrate a solution here. The material in the text is well-sourced. And despite days of requests you fail to respond to that request. I am more than willing to discuss the entry on the talk page, but the entry had been in this article for years until removed without discussion, and subsequently blocked by you and others despite the reliable sources. I have no fear about an arbitrated solution because I have the sources. Your response is typical for an editor who knows that his biased gig is up. Again, if you could convince me with and equally valid biography about the unimportance of this event or about its lack of link to Schneerson, we would have something to discuss. Repeatedly I have requested that, and you fail to provide it. And then you and Bus Stop keep adding new criteria for the entry, like saying that it has to say that Schneerson was not in car, that the riot damaged property, that Rosenbaum was killed. I have made acommodations as long as they match the sources, but then there is always new demands. Now you want to decide what the heading and where it is. I have provided two choices: one of them is very similar to what was in the article for over five years. It is a subsection that appears in the index because it is a subsection in his life story in the New York Times. I will not hide this in the text because this is not hidden in the text in the source. Again, the biggest difference here is that I argue based on the prior entry in this article, and on the sources. You don't like it. Wikipedia writes articles based on reliable sources, not on individual likes and dislikes. I have been threatened by you an Debresser repeatedly now on this, on my talk page, on Talk:Judaism. But guess what: none of that dissuades me. It is really a battle between your whims and the biography in the New York Times. You are afraid of that match up. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If anybody is engaging in edit warring, and other battleground behavior, it is you. Please keep in mind that on Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add to a consensus version. You have been reverted by three or four editors, and still go on, including your rant-like posts and forum shopping. I will support any block or ban request against such an disruptive editor as you, even though I agree with the present paragraph. In the end, please reflect on the fact that it is not only what you propose, but also how you do it, and you have managed to utterly antagonize me. Debresser (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The importance of the event in other contexts does not automatically translate into the importance of the event in Schneerson's life. Sources do not show his equanimity shaken by the Crown Heights riot. To the contrary sources show that Schneerson declined to even comment on the riots based on his view that his concerns were international while the riots were merely of local importance. Sources do not show the Crown Heights riot occupying a position of any importance at all in Schneerson's life. Sources do not support the placement of material on the Crown Heights riot into a subsection of its own in this article. The Crown Heights riots are inarguably important but sources do not show the Crown Heights riots figuring prominently into the life of Schneerson therefore material pertaining to the event should merely be given a paragraph of its own in the New York section of the article rather than its own subsection separate from the "New York" section. By the way these are the sources used to support the edit that we are discussing: source one and source two. Commentary about the Crown Heights riot in a source does not, in and of itself, equate with significance in Schneerson's life. Bus stop (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser: discuss the topic. Again, when the argument goes against you, then you go against the person. This is telling. Also, the number of editors in this shindig over the past weeks do not add more validity to your arguments, since none of you, provides sourced material to argue with. Again that is another argument that wants to distract from the point at hand: discuss the topic.

Bus Stop: You say "Sources do not show his equanimity shaken by the Crown Heights riot" - that is an interesting opinion, but it is nothing that is found in my sources or in the text inserted. This is a classic straw man argument. Again, when the sourced material is not in the favor or your argument, you argue some off-topic comment. That applies to most of what your paragraph states. Again, I am not interested in arguing with you about what he said, did, did not say, or did not do. A major biography of Schneerson in the major newspaper of his city, dedicates about 10-20% of the entry to these events with its own subsection. The Wikipedia article on Schneerson had a specific subsection dealing with this subject from 2009 to 2015. I am willing to compromise: a subsection in controversies, a subsection in New York, or a subsection by itself. You choose. But you see, we are at the end of debate: I have the sources substantiating a section and the importance. You keep wanting to engage in arguments more appropriate to opinion boards. Again you say Commentary about the Crown Heights riot in a source does not, in and of itself, equate with significance in Schneerson's life. It is not just "a source", it is the major newspaper in his city (if not his country), writing a summary of his life. Second more sources of the importance of the significance of this event in the way history views Schneerson are in the historical retrospectives of the riots, both in the "New York Daily News" (cited) and also an excellent review in The Atlantic (not used, but I could). Again, you have an opinion. Finally, you then state The Crown Heights riots are inarguably important but sources do not show the Crown Heights riots figuring prominently into the life of Schneerson therefore material pertaining to the event but quote a posthumous biography of Schneerson that dedicates nearly 20% of the space to the Tensions in Crown Heights culminating in a riot, and give its own section in his biography. What you said is refuted by the source you quote. This is a problem in discussing this entry with you: the source clearly imply "XYZ is important", and yet you say the sources do not say "XYZ is important". Your statement is demonstrably false. You are flailing in your arguments. If you delete this entry now, I will continue to argue for arbitration by administrators, until we can insert relevant and well-sourced material into the text. I am not interested in arguing with you about what your opinions are. I am not interested in your threats or those of Debresser. Focus on the topic and back up your arguments with sourced material.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I will discuss the problem. Which in this case is you. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You say "I have the sources substantiating a section and the importance." No, you do not. This is the Schneerson article. Please bear that in mind. Aside from the sources you provide, countless other sources substantiate the importance of the Crown Heights riot article. But no source that you have provided substantiates the importance of the Crown Heights riot in Schneerson's life, or at least not the oversized importance that you wish to imply by placement of such material in its own subsection of this article. If you think otherwise, please cut-and-paste one or more excerpts from your sources on this Talk page and tell us how the source substantiates the importance of the Crown Heights riot in Schneerson's life. A source that provides background on the Crown Heights riot, even one in an obituary of Schneerson, does not necessarily support the argument that the Crown Height riots were important in Schneerson's life, unless the source tells us that Schneerson had some sort of an involvement with the Crown Heights riot. Did he interact in any way with the riot? Did he cause the riot in any way? Merely being in a separate car from a car that was in an accident is hardly interacting with or causing the riot. He was not even driving. He was a passenger. Did the riot affect him in any way? Was he a different or a changed person as a result of the riot? Sources say nothing of the sort. Events happen, but they do not necessarily figure prominently in the lives of all people who live in the time and place of the incident. In the case of Schneerson the sources are not supportive of any influence of the riot on Schneerson. That is why I am arguing for the placement of whatever wording we eventually decide upon, in a paragraph within the "New York" section of the article. We should be cautious about not distorting emphasis within the article by providing a separate subsection in the article for the Crown Heights riot. An event need not in all cases define a person to any degree. Sources are not saying that this event had a significant effect, or any effect at all, on the life and work of Schneerson. Your argument that a certain percentage of a source is devoted to the Crown Heights riot or a certain number of paragraphs within a source is devoted to the riots is akin to a vague hand wave. Dictionary.com defines hand waving as "insubstantial words, arguments, gestures, or actions used in an attempt to explain or persuade." I think we should be looking for a source saying something of a concrete nature and we are not finding that. This could hold true even in an obituary of Schneerson. References in that obituary are not speaking of any involvement or interaction between Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. Please post the excerpt that you think supports your point and please accompany it with an explanation of how it supports your point or your argument. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: Kendall K1 cut and pasted already in this talk section from a section titled "Tensions in Crown Heights" from the obituary of Schneerson in the New York Times up above. Look it up yourself. This information has its own section in this succinct biography. It takes up 10-15% of the story of his life (remember that this article previously had zero percent, and even now only has at most maybe 1-2%). Thus your next sentence: "no source that you have provided substantiates the importance of the Crown Heights riot in Schneerson's life..." is demonstrably false. All your other questions are good questions. You can open up further sections in this article to individually answer them, but they are ways to distract from your failure to argue the main point above with any evidence. All your argument about hand waving, is well hand waving. I am providing you with a source which dedicates a substantial portion of his life story to this event from a reputable, neutral biography of his life. You are making false statements when you say: "References in that obituary are not speaking of any involvement or interaction between Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot". That is a lie. I think you raise a lot of issues that could be expanded upon in the text of the article. If you have well-sourced material to add to the article, we can discuss it. Rococo1700 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser WP:DEADHORSE is a reasonable conclusion to this discussion.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—I am trying to talk to you. I am trying to have a dialogue with you. A resolution reached should be satisfactory to both of us. We should each understand that the solution arrived at makes sense. Obviously neither of us can dictate to the other in a collaborative project such as this. At this time the article reflects your edits in relation to the Crown Heights riot subject matter because you made the last several edits which added Crown Heights riot subject matter. You provided two sources to support your subsection on the Crown Heights riot. You provided this source and you provided this source. I argue that a subsection in the article is not justified by those two sources. But you may disagree. We are discussing words. Words can be cut-and-pasted from one or both of those sources for discussion. This is a Talk page. You are welcome to make your case here on this Talk page by providing one or more excerpts from those sources and especially by accompanying such excerpts with reasoning of your own. I have read the sources and I don't see justification for a separate section in this article. I think wording relating to the Crown Heights riot should be under the "New York" subsection in the article. Please discuss this with me in the presence of excerpted material from your two sources. In my opinion that is the way a collaborative project should work. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

BUS Stop:

• 1) It is a section in one of the sources. One of a handful of sections in his biography.
• 2) It is a major event, according to this and other sources in his life as well as influencing millions of persons in New York, as indicated by the amount of content, and the heading itself in the source.
• 3) It was its own section in the Wikipedia Schneerson article for years (2009-2015), until randomly deleted.
• 4) It is different from the other events in the New York section.

I favor placing it in the controversy section. I favor making much more substantial, since it is a far more substantial part of his legacy in the sources. I can source all this. I think this is something we can start to discuss.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—Schneerson lived a relatively long life. A separate subsection of the article is not devoted to his escape from Nazi-occupied Europe. His escape path through Vichy, France and Nice, France are recounted under the Paris section of our article. Under the New York section of our article we read "In 1941, Schneerson escaped from Europe via Lisbon, Portugal." These were arguably important events in the context of his life, arguably more important than a riot. The riot is not important in the context of Schneerson's life, or at least not according to sources. The article's organization shows a theme involving places, with New York being the location of the Crown Heights riot. The Crown Heights riot was of no significance in Schneerson's life, or at least not according to sources, yet inexplicably you are arguing to give the Crown Heights riot its own subsection in the article. Whatever wording we eventually decide on should be placed under the New York subsection of the article. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

BUS Stop: all those other events in his life do not pertain to the question at hand. One problem with your paragraph above is that you continue to make statements that Crown Heights riot was of no significance in Schneerson's life, or at least not according to sources. That is demonstrably false. The Crown Heights riots again:

• constitute about 10% of the wording of his life biography in one of the sources
• is an independent section in that biography with its own heading
• was an independent section in this very Wikipedia article for years until unexplicably completely deleted, ablating all mention of this important event related to his life.
• finally, it does not relate to the events in his new York section as it stands now.

I have offered two alternative sites for this material: 1) a controversy subsection, apt for what appears to be a significant unending controversy on this website or 2) its own section at the end or 3) a subsection where it is now. All those three would be acceptable to me. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop this is becoming a WP:DEADHORSE. You continue to argue with false statements and straw man arguments. If your next complaint continues to do so, then I wil not respond. You need to start an RfC, and have an external neutral group of editors edit this article.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No need for an Rfc or external editors. There are no such rules on Wikipeida. The present editors are enough to establish a consensus or the lack of it. Debresser (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you are conflating important event with important event in his life and you don't seem to be inclined to avail yourself of Talk page practices that help resolve these sorts of disputes. I've asked you to cut-and-paste the relevant wording from your source showing the importance that you argue for, but you have refused to do so. The Crown Heights riots were important but not especially important in the context of Schneerson's life. Why would you think the Crown Heights riots should be accorded a separate subsection of the article when escape from war-torn Europe is not accorded a separate subsection of the article? Bus stop (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK, as a third party editor, I have to admit I didn't fully read the walls of text here but did glance it over. I do 100% think a mention of the riot should be in the article, but it should not be under its own section. I removed the riot header and placed it under the NY section. That is my view and I think that should satisfy everyone. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I am not in agreement with your move.

• 1) this is not the way it is in the source. In the source, a biography of the man, it has its own section. There are books written on the topic of the riots (and they include chapters on Schneerson and the Lubavitch, with much ink.
• 2) we are already facing minimalization; it is less than a few percent of his biography now, and barely mentions even the controversies, in part because the editors were so combative about even mentioning the item. It is almost ten percent on his biography on the New York Times obituary.
• 3) previously there had been complete ablation of the topic from the biography, without any discussion. Placing it as text the way you have, raises the risk that this will recur.
• 4) This paragraph follows a paragraph that talks about Schneerson trying to make the world a better place. This does not make logical sense.

Again, I had given three other options as to where to place it. We can title Tensions in Crown Heights in the same way as his New York Times biography titled it. I do not think its is right, that one side looks for accommodation, but the other side is intransigent, and we bow to unsourced intransigence. Do you realize, I still have editors above arguing that the entire matter should be deleted. But by placing it hidden in the text, my next request is that we discuss why others thought the role of Schneerson in the events were controversial. You are welcome to arbitrate.Rococo1700 (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand you but you also need to be pragmatic. If I may throw on my non-neutral hat for a moment, you're never going to get consensus from the bulk of the editors who actually watch this page to do anything other than keep it under the NY section. I would let it in the NY section and if you really want it in a separate section, wait a bit and then open an RFC which will get more outside input, but going back and forth among the same editors is pointless. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited to add, since I see that we might still go in circles, I will initiate a simple RFC. Should the mention of the crash go under NY or under its own section. Hopefully we can put this to rest. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you say our present version "barely mentions even the controversies"[3]. What "controversies" would you like to see mentioned? Bear in mind this is the Schneerson article. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC on placement of Crown Heights Riots

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

---

I am just initiating this RFC to close this issue and I don't necessarily have a dog in this.

Should mention of the Crown Heights Riot be placed in the NY section or should it be placed in its own section? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Third option disussed in talk is adding a link in "See also" section. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• I see no justification to have a separate section for such a minor episode, which is not even directly related to the rabbi (as in, many editors think it shouldn't be here at all). Debresser (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC
• Oppose inclusion into text (that is, support separate section/subsection) I provide justification for a major episode linked to his biography (as in, major neutral sources make it a substantial portion of his biography).Rococo1700 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether you are trying to be a smart-ass or whether English isn't your native language, but by "Oppose inclusion" (which you copied into your response after I made my comment below) I meant exactly what that phrase says: I oppose including the Crown Heights riot in this article altogether. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion Forgive my meandering, but I am reminded of an incident in 2009 when U.S. president Barack Obama swatted and killed a fly during a televised interview.[4] There were hundreds, if not thousands, of news stories about the incident. It was a very significant incident, certainly to the fly, and even according to some people.[5] But it wasn't a significant moment in the life or presidency of Barack Obama, and I would be surprised to read about it in a history of his presidency or in his biography.
  Likewise, it was a tragic accident 25 years ago when a man who was driving the last car in the "motorcade" (ha! some motorcade) of the Lubavicher Rebbe sped through a yellow? red? light to keep up with the other cars, losing control of his vehicle, jumping the curb and injuring two children, killing one of them. Was it a significant incident? Absolutely! Ask virtually anybody who lived in New York at the time, certainly anybody who is black or Jewish, and they will tell you it was. Was it a significant moment in the life of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the subject of this article? I can't say that it was. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• oppose inclusion in the bio per WP:UNDUE. 'See also' suffices. Wikipedia is not paper. However if a significant number of people is for saying something in the NY section, I am in coalition with them. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per Malik Shabazz. Inclusion seems like Six degrees of separation in terms of its relation to him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include in NY section. I came here to close, and I see why no one else has been willing to close it. Responses in this survey section are minimal, behavior of parties on both sides has been bad enough to undermine people's credibility, and I had to read this entire talk page as well as NPOV noticeboard and other places to get a handle on what's going on. I can't made a good close on that, but maybe the next closer to come by will find my response to be a valuable anchor point for closing.
  • There is a solid argument that Schneerson is not directly tied to the riots. He was merely a passenger, and the accident was caused by a car following in the motorcade. However it was clearly a major event in his life, and the surrounding context makes it a notable part of his story. The New York Times deemed it significant enough to discuss in his obituary. (Note: The significant content is near the end.) It shouldn't be expanded into a full section or subsection, but it should be mentioned.
  • Schneerson was a leader, and in part his story is the story of those he led. The New York times lays the context: There were tensions in the New York communities, and Schneerson became entangled in those events. He was entangled both as a leader, and for his second-hand passenger connection to the accident that was the flashpoint for the riots, and to the extent he was involved afterward. This is a New York story, for the New York section.
  • WP:CSECTION explains that controversy sections are often problematical, and especially so here. The issues within the riot are obviously controversial, but we're not really reporting anything directly controversial, and not directly about Schneerson. Putting this in a controversy section would be a poor fit, and would tend to invite expansion in awkward directions.
  • It looks like participants here were pretty close to agreeing on some reasonable text. They kept getting sidetracked and descending into personal attacks. Hopefully pinning down inclusion in the New York section will enable a resolution here. It should mention the tensions, that he was a mere passenger in another vehicle, and that the accident led to the riots. Trying to expand much beyond that is probably a bad idea. A link containing the word "riot" will certainly draw attention, and anyone interested can read that entire article. Alsee (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Alsee, could you please explain why the riot "was clearly a major event in [Schneerson's] life"? It isn't at all clear to me or, to judge by their comments, others. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  Malik Shabazz, for one thing, he considered important enough to arrange a press-conference with the mayor.[6][7] Alsee (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That is nothing. The Lubavitcher Rebbe saw more ministers and heads of state than Dinkins. Also note that it was Dinkins who came to the Rebbe, not the other way around. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The Crown Heights riots paragraph in the biography of Schneerson should have its own section (or subsection) because:

• It is a major event linked to the man, and constitutes about 10% of the wording of his life biography in the major source. In this whole biography it was previously completely absent and now only a few percent.
• It is an independent section in that biography with its own heading (its own section)
• It was an independent section in this very Wikipedia article for years until inexplicably completely deleted, ablating all mention of this important event related to his life.
• Finally, it does not relate to the events in his new York section as it stands now. The prior paragraph extols Schneerson on how he "make the world a better place." This is a part of his history that is linked to Tensions in Crown Heights in the source.

I have offered alternative sites for this material: 1) a controversy subsection, apt for what appears to be a significant unending controversy on this website or 2) its own section at the end or 3) a subsection to the New York entry. Any of those three would be acceptable to me. Prior editors have deleted this without any explanation, and still want to do so: in addition, to the reasons above, leaving it as it is now, will only make that more likely.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a minor event in a very long life rich with events and meaning.

@Rococo1700 What "life biography in the major source" you are referring to? Debresser (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

His obituary, a retrospective on his life, in the New York Times. Why is this still your question after having been discussed many times with you. But you asked: other sources would be histories and retrospectives of the riots themselves. terms "Schneerson and Crown Heights in Google raise 30 thousand hits including in Googlebooks:

• Crown Heights: Blacks, Jews, and the 1991 Brooklyn Riot by ES Shapiro (2006) which states On the afternoon of August 19, 1991, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Lubavitch Hasidic movement headquartered in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, visited the Old Montefiore Cemetery
• The New York Times Guide to the Arts of the 20th Century: 1900-1929 by D. J. R. Bruckner (2002)
• Jujitsu Rabbi and the Godless Blonde, by Rebecca Dana (2013) which states Ever since the 1991 Crown Heights Riots, spurred by a car accident in which a member of Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade swerved and killed a sevenyearold black child, the neighborhood has operated under a kind of forced racial harmony
• Death of a Scholar by Constance Shames (2011), which states Rabbi Schneerson was actually riding in the car which struck the two children in Crown Heights and precipitated the Crown Heights riots. He was returning from the cemetery where
• Crown Heights Witness - Aug 29, 1994 by New York Magazine Volume 27, No. 34, which states A car escorting Lubavitcher rebbe Menachem Schneerson back from his weekly visit to his wife's grave careered over the ... Four days of vicious rioting between blacks and Jews spiraled across Crown Heights, riots triggered by Gavin's death

But please lets focus on the main source.Rococo1700 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—can you explain to me why you include the source above which reads "Rabbi Schneerson was actually riding in the car which struck the two children in Crown Heights and precipitated the Crown Heights riots"? (I am referring to that which is after a bullet point and is in reference to "Death of a Scholar by Constance Shames".) It is actually found in a source. It is found here. But why would you include that source? It is clearly incorrect. Schneerson was not "riding in the car which struck the two children". Can you tell me why you include that source when it is clearly incorrect? Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Honestly because it is one of the many entries in google books falling under the search criteria above. The main point for that was that you and others keep insisting this link of "Schneerson to the the events of the riots" is a minor point, not worthy of mention. But that is not the main point of the RfC. So back to the focus, Bus stop. Seems you and Debresser fail to address the main point of the RfC. I did, above. You (again) just didn't. Get to it.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So, Rococo1700, you just felt that incorrect information is better than no information at all? Schneerson was not in the car that was involved in the car accident. The first car was a police escort vehicle. In the second car Schneerson was a passenger—not even the driver. The third and last car in the procession carried four Lubavitcher men, one of which was the driver. That third car was involved in an accident. (By the way even the driver of that third car was not indicted for wrongdoing. It was an accident and it involved a collision with yet another car prior to striking the boy.) You still haven't explained, not in your own words, and not in any excerpt from any source, how this involves Schneerson. An antisemitic act (the riot) does not to any degree define a Jew, and no source in this instance shows that it does. Please find a source which draws a connection—any connection—between Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. The burden is on you, because you want to give the Crown Heights riot a position of prominence in the article. You would like the Crown Heights riot to be allotted its own subsection in the article. Schneerson's escape from war-torn Europe is not even allotted its own subsection in this article. The sources you've provided so far are just vague hand-waving. The wording in the sources you've provided so far rely on simplistic and superficial connections. There is no source drawing any real connection between Schneerson and his life and work and the completely unlawful and counterproductive riots. You are not even articulating in your own words, presumably supported by sources, what connection you see between the Crown Heights riots and Schneerson. The Crown Heights riots are an important event but they don't happen to be important in the context of the life of Schneerson, or at least no source makes that argument. You say "it is one of the many entries in google books falling under the search criteria above". I would suggest you keep looking. And please weed out patently incorrect assertions such as "Rabbi Schneerson was actually riding in the car which struck the two children in Crown Heights and precipitated the Crown Heights riots". We do maintain some standards here you know. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: The sources in the article for the paragraph presently there are two (2): a New York Daily News retrospective on the riots and the New York Times obituary on Schneerson. Focus on this RfC. The sources you are all worked up about are not cited in the article. As usual, you go far afield to look for arguments. If you want, you can also review the other 30 thousand hits on google for accuracy, but that has no relevance to this RfC.

You said "the burden is on me", and I delivered evidence based on the two sources above. You just don't like it. That has little value. It may be a passionate opinion, but not encyclopedic.

You say: Please find a source which draws a connection—any connection—between Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. I have. The two quoted in the text of the article at present. I assume this connection has been already established. If not, then start another RfC again on that topic. Hey, if you want to argue about the 30 thousand hits on google, go ahead. That has no relevance to this RfC. I have made it quite simple for you. Two sources. Both neutral and reliable publications. One is a retrospective of Schneerson's life by one of the major publications in the United States. It dedicates ~10% of the words on Schneerson's life to Tensions in Crown Heights and gives it its own section/subsection. Are you saying this is hand waving? How so? Are your unsubstantiated opinions more valid than a neutral, comprehensive, published biography of Schneerson in the major newspaper of the town in which he lived and died? Please don't go off topic. Address the RfC.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are two sources in the article supportive of the Crown Heights riot paragraph. There is this source and there is this source. Neither of them makes any case for the importance of the Crown Heights riot in the life of Schneerson. But you apparently disagree. Therefore you should cut-and-paste excerpts from one or both sources. Place them in this RfC. And explain in your own interpretation of your excerpted text how you feel such sourced text relates to the question posed in this RfC. The question posed in this RfC is: "Should mention of the Crown Heights Riot be placed in the NY section or should it be placed in its own section?" Bus stop (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You say "As usual, you go far afield to look for arguments." Excuse me but patently false "information" should not be posted. Supposing I didn't call you on it? Then the statement "Rabbi Schneerson was actually riding in the car which struck the two children in Crown Heights and precipitated the Crown Heights riots" would be part of this RfC. You can't post incorrect information. I am not going "far afield to look for arguments". Try to pretend that information matters. And please try to pretend that the prominence given information matters. Because that is what this RfC is about. Bus stop (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: The paragraphs from the obituary are excerpted above in the prior talk section. Really, if you want me to paste them in again, I can. You say Neither of them makes any case for the importance of the Crown Heights riot in the life of Schneerson. I say: the separate subsection on this incident makes up ~10% of the New York Times biography of the man. Golly, are you saying it does not say, literally, "this is important". If someone were writing your biography, and 10% were specific to events, and under it own separate title of Tensions at Crown Heights, wouldn't that alone make it important?

On the second point, it has nothing to do specifically with the RfC, except that I wished to add that the cumulative attention of multiple books, multiple authors addresses this topic, which you think of no importance. You can go on digging through the 30 thousand Google hits, one by one, assessing each for veracity. I only vouch for my two sources. Again, focus on the RfC. We seem to be at an impasse: 10% of the important events in his life's biography in a major neutral source, with its own heading, and you say its not important, and does not deserve a heading. The difference between your argument and mine, is that I cite a source for this. You don't. You have a biased opinion. I know that you want to protect Schneerson, but hiding these facts without a heading does nothing but to detract from this man's true life.Rococo1700 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

As suggested by Kamel Tebaast above, the wording in our article could read "In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death and injury of two Guyanese immigrant children. This incident, among other factors, led to the Crown Heights riot."[8], and no, that would not warrant its own section in the article. Slight variation on that wording would be possible. By that I mean that the wording could be tweaked. But it should be kept brief, because no source can be seen attributing importance of the Crown Heights riot to Schneerson or vice versa. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: this RfC is not meant to be for you to decrease the words in the text. If we go there and no give this information its own section, then we should certainly expand the paragraph, because multiple sources, including and most importantly, but far from solely, those cited in the article, attribute great importance to the Crown Heights riot to Schneerson and vice versa. (Again and again) I strongly objected in the past and continue to object to the phrase among other factors as extremely vague. My goal through this RfC is that the issue be made as important as it is in a central authoritative neutral review of Shneerson's life, and that it be given, as it has in those sources, its own heading, using similar or equal title, but ultimately one derived from an authoritative and cited source. That is the goal of the RfC. You need to address this. However since (again and again), even when a major authoritative review of this man's life and legacy dedicates about 10% of the text to Tensions in Crown Heights and dedicates a specific subsection to this, you have a private opinion that is unimportant, and think that private opinion is more valid. How are we going to compromise, when you are presented with facts, but ignore them, and are not required to bring any supporting your opinions? Wikipedia is built on evidence. I provide the evidence in the cited articles. You continue to have nothing but your personal bias. It is wonderful you can search above for Kemal Tebaasts comment, but then unable to read the cited source in the article, which is the main evidence for my four points above. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you say "my goal through this RfC" and you say "that is the goal of the RfC" but of course you did not initiate this RfC. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: Huh? Never said I initiated this RfC. This is quite silly. Address the point of the RfC.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—a suggestion was made that the article read: "In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death and injury of two Guyanese immigrant children. This incident, among other factors, led to the Crown Heights riot." Your response was "I strongly objected in the past and continue to object to the phrase among other factors as extremely vague." (Italicization yours.) So, why don't you enumerate the "factors" using non-vague terms? Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you say "I know that you want to protect Schneerson, but hiding these facts without a heading does nothing but to detract from this man's true life."[9]. What is his "true life"? Can you expand upon that? Maybe the article needs to know about his "true life". Please tell us about it. You can of course paraphrase sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: The life as presently spelled out in the authoritative neutral biography cited in the paragraph of the present text of the article we are discussing. Focus on the question.. And I strongly recommend that this same source be used to support a separate heading. Bus Stop, how come you fail to address the RfC and the source in question? And ask for it to be reprinted in the talk section? If you can't agree to discuss the source material in this Wikipedia article, and prefer only to discuss "your personal questions", then we again can not compromise. You need to address the issue with evidence, not biased rambling objections. My initial entry in this thread had four objective points related to the RfC. You have only opinions. Please set up a web page elsewhere on the internet for persons to argue the details of Schneerson's legacy. I know you would enjoy that. We are here for more focused issues raised by the RfC. I will make this simple for you Bus Stop: there is a paragraph now in the article, it has two sources, one of these two, alone, strongly supports importance and a separate section. Prove to me that the source does not think the issue was important in the overview of his life, nor requiring a specific subsection. Use evidence, not opinions.Rococo1700 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But please expand on this: "I know that you want to protect Schneerson, but hiding these facts without a heading does nothing but to detract from this man's true life." If you think that I am trying to protect him from something, what am I trying to protect him from? You apparently think I am trying to "protect" Schneerson from something. Is it not a logical question for me to ask you what you think I am trying to protect Schneerson from, Rococo1700? Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you tried to delete all mention of this important event in his life from the biography. Address my four points in the RfC. The point above only emphasizes your bias. The greater deficiency in your argument is the lack of well-sourced evidence, and your inability to confront the well-sourced evidence quoted presently in the article, and relevant to this RfC. Enough about you, and can you address the RfC?Rococo1700 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you say "well, you tried to delete all mention of this important event in his life from the biography." I actually only edited the article to revert you. But one somewhat rational approach to the question raised in the RfC and related questions is to not mention the Crown Heights riot at all in the Schneerson article. This is because sources support neither that the riots had bearing on Schneerson's life nor that Schneerson had bearing on the riots. That interrelationship is not supported by sources except superficially and incidentally. Yes, the cortege of Schneerson contained the car that had the accident that preceded the riots. But this is not the most substantial of relationships. Was Schneerson driving the car that was involved in the accident and did he deliberately try to hurt the children? Of course not. But you engage in vague hand-waving so you see things differently. In your calculation if a source mentions Schneerson and the riot in the same sentence, that serves as evidence of a solid linking in sources between Schneerson and the riots. This in turn by your calculation serves as justification for extensive detail and prominent placement of the riots in the Schneerson article. That sort of gibberish is opposed by me. I've seen that sort of basura at other articles. It is rarely justified. We have a system of internally linking articles that allows all articles to be relatively lean—not bloated by extraneous material which also serves the purpose of being misleading. The Crown Heights riots are incidental to Schneerson's life, and no source that I have seen indicates otherwise. In my view there is a justification for providing a link and even a brief blurb in this article to the riots because it is not inconceivable that an ill-informed (and who is not ill-informed?) reader could think that there is some interrelationship between the riots and the rabbi. It would therefore be responsible and helpful of us to anticipate that misimpression by providing an internal link to the article on the riots in order to facilitate the reader's further research. Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rococo1700 You keep telling other editors to "address the Rfc". Apart from the fact that it is becoming annoying that you try to tell people what to do, I think that all editors are addressing the Rfc. The fact that all disagree with you, is not the same as not addressing the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser: please provide the neutral authoritative source for BusStop's opposition to the whether the Crown Heights paragraph should have its own section. Find it in all his posts for the thread of the RfC. In fact, let me also remind you: address the RfC. You are both unable to focus on the topic at hand. See my points at the start of the thread for an example of how to do so.Rococo1700 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? You tell me to provide sources for another editors opinion. You're a nutcase, and disruptive. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser: You said all editors are addressing the Rfc. Now you won't back their opinions. Again rather than insulting other people, address the RfC.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

BusStop: Please see the four points I mentioned at the start of this RfC. How you can claim that 10% of the entry on someone's life, with its own heading, in a major retrospective biography is unimportant and tangential, baffles the mind. The fact you call it hand-waving stupefies intellectual conversation. Again, you are entitled to your opinions, the article is entitled to facts.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700, you are obviously not competent. Nobody agrees with your edit. This discussion is over. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

This article needs administrative supervision

The problems faced in editing this article are not new. Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement which also involved Debresser. But I also would counsel others to look at the arguments on this talk page and in Messianic Judaism. Ultimately I thought my paragraph was a muted tiny neutral introduction, attempting for a balance of opinions, all sourced, pointing to a link between Schneerson and the events surrounding the Crown Heights riot. I am the first one to understand that the events are complex. The protests and the riots involved anti-Semitic black nationalists, some of whom murdered innocents. Others looted because of plain greed. The complaints by those in the Black community against the actions of Schneerson and his community were that the Lubavitch, while living side by side, exist in parallel non-communicating worlds. Some in the black community resented Schneerson getting a police motorcade, while their leaders had no such privilege. They perceived that Lubavitch ambulances did not pick up blacks, and that they had failed to attend to the black boy killed by the car in Schneerson's motorcade. I also listened to the short snippet of public conversation between Schneerson and David Dinkins. Part of me wanted to see who won the exchange. But the answer to that question is very complex. I now think nobody won, both lost, we all lost. Because the two communities remain separate, they cannot blend, and our society (and tragically others in the past) in times of stress cannot accept such a parallel coexistence. Maybe, again perhaps tragically, we are not yet able to accept Separate but Equal lives in American neighborhoods. We are not, as a society in America, altogether comfortable with drivers licenses pictures containing a hijab. Blacks in Crown Heights were not comfortable with Lubavitch-only ambulances. Schneerson was not comfortable with even offering his condolence to Gavin Cato's family in the days immediately after the death. Again, Black nationalists marched with banners extolling the holocaust in those days. Schneerson never uttered words like that during the riot, but he did keep an awkward silence. Ultimately, I did not want to argue all this unsettled controversy in this one article, but to ignore even a link in the text, as Debresser, BusStop and KamelTebaast have done and deleted is abhorrent. These controversies can be discussed at greater length in the Crown Heights riots (or perhaps best in arts such as Anna Deveare Smith's Fires in the Mirror). Hopefully it can be discussed between the black and Jewish neighbors in Crown Heights. But to completely delete all mention from this article given the importance given to these events in the biography of Schneerson is hagiographic bias of the worse kind.

If Debresser and Bus Stop want, they can reopen a case about me with administrators about this controversy. I did not fear them before. Nor do I now. History (authoritative, neutral sources) prove them wrong. If they want, I can open it for them. This time it is not an RfC, but someway to enforce a block on editing while inserting at least the prior three sentence paragraph in. Again part of my reason for making it a section, was the importance given to the material in the sources. Also it was a subsection before in this article for years. But also, I admit that it will allow for easier surveillance. It is easier to check to see if it has been deleted in the future. We have years of evidence now that such material is deleted without any attention to consensus.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The only problem here is Rococo1700. His edits have been opposed by many experienced editors. Nevertheless, he is not willing to accept the consensus, and is fighting each and every step, from whether the material he wants to add is indeed appropriate for this article, to whether it should be placed in a separate section or subsection of its own. On each step he has posted overly long posts here, including personal insults and displaying incompetence, and he has been forumshopping at various places, including WP:DR, WT:JUDAISM and WP:NPOV/N. I do not know what his motivations are, but from the issues mentioned above, I get the impression of an editor with a personal agenda and lacking the competence and willingness to understand and abide by the process of consensus forming on Wikipedia. Even though initially I was inclined to agree with him regarding the appropriateness of the paragraph he has been pushing, his subsequent behavior has made me rethink that. I am now of the opinion, that the material is not appropriate, that there is no consensus for it on this talkpage, and that this editor is displaying disruptive behavior in this regard, including edit warring. I recommend a topic ban. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, I urge the administrators involved in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, to relook at the matter of these editors and Bus Stop and Kemal Teebast and Debresser (who was admonished for his pov editing in the past. While he claims he favors the paragraph, he has deleted such material in the past. He repeatedly has falsely stated that a consensus agreed it was not to be included. Now he is disruptive and deletes repeatedly. Debresser's fears with my edits are that I am factual, refer to sources, and argue individual points, and also raise how they seem to delay, obfuscate, to gain their aims. I am not deterred.

Rococo1700, you seem to be confused about the role of administrators on Wikipedia. They are not moderators. If you are unable to reach consensus with other editors, try WP:Dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

He posted there already. And at WT:JUDAISM. And at WP:NPOV/N. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor wording changes to sentences about Crown Heights riot

I'd like to propose two small changes to the new sentences about the Crown Heights riot. First, the children were Guyanese or Guyanese American or Caribbean American, not African American. Second, as the title of the article indicates, the incident is the Crown Heights riot (singular), not riots. I think both of these changes should be uncontroversial. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. In addition, I don't think the Rfc gave a mandate to decide how the precise wording should be, and the closing editor actually overstepped his authority. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(Unimportant, but, "her"). I've altered the content to be in line with the above, and have edited the comment I left in the article to reflect that the RfC considered position, not wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112224715/http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=67432 to http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=67432
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccoc.net/who-we-are/our-story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113112941/http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2033157/Trending-Topics-Natan-Sharansky-Praises-Work-of-Chabad-at-Federation-General-Assembly.html to http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2033157/Trending-Topics-Natan-Sharansky-Praises-Work-of-Chabad-at-Federation-General-Assembly.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010220335/http://urj.org/about/union/leadership/yoffie/biennialsermon03/ to http://urj.org/about/union/leadership/yoffie/biennialsermon03/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)