Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 7

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/20141018013842/http://www.uchicagohillel.org/news/blog.aspx?id=428514&blogid=13574 to http://www.uchicagohillel.org/news/blog.aspx?id=428514&blogid=13574
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903140845/http://www.thejewishweek.com/free-book-excerpt-rebbe to http://www.thejewishweek.com/free-book-excerpt-rebbe
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018013842/http://www.uchicagohillel.org/news/blog.aspx?id=428514&blogid=13574 to http://www.uchicagohillel.org/news/blog.aspx?id=428514&blogid=13574

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section
Dear other editors,

Two paragraphs concerning criticism of Rabbi M M Schneerson have been merged from Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies (now a redirect to Chabad). The more contentious of the two paragraphs is the one about Rabbi Shach, and some earlier consensus concluded that if the same paragraph exists on Chabad, then it shouldn't remain here, this is no longer the case as it only exists here and this page is the more logical place for the section (Chabad is a page concerning a 200+ year old movement, while the Shach criticism is mostly dated to the stances and viewpoints of Rabbi MM Schneerson during the 1980s. Hence it needs to remain here. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 22:06, 29 October 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/20070307162809/http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=%2Fadmur%2Fig to http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=%2Fadmur%2Fig
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310003553/http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=%2Fadmur%2Ftm to http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=%2Fadmur%2Ftm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310003558/http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=%2Fadmur%2Fhymym to http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=%2Fadmur%2Fhymym

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Birth date
so is it Apr. 05 or 18? Or is it Apr 05 OS/Apr 18 NS?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

List of works needs references
claims that the list of works doesn't need to be referenced because other articles don't do it, but I contend that WP:V overrules that. This can be done by using ISBNs if available, a link to one or more pages that has a list of works (such that each item is covered), links to individual WorldCat entries, etc. In short, there should be some way for readers to know that items in the list aren't just made up. had requested that Schneerson's death be included in Selected anniversaries/July 1 (for 2014), which was denied because at the time, we were only including births/deaths on the centennial anniversaries, but now that we have them every day, I was evaluating this article for possible inclusion, but I'm not going to use it when that list is not cited (there is also the matter of the external links). I'm not going to pursue this matter any further, so it's up to the editors here if they want to do anything about it. — howcheng  {chat} 18:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between something that exists (WP:Other stuff exists, you linked to) and something that is an uncontested practice projectwide (WP:Pactice redirects to WP:Consensus). In any case, please see WikiProject_Bibliographies. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that the article won't get chosen for Selected anniversaries without the citation(s) (and the link cleanup). If that doesn't matter to you, then it's fine by me as well. — howcheng  {chat} 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Howcheng Can you please point me to where it says that without the link reference an article can not be chosen for "Selected anniversaries"? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahem - the tag is wrong as some of the books' titles lead to their articles - as in item 1 of WikiProject_Bibliographies. However it'd be good for more of the books to have articles or citations. the OTD guidelines talk about an article needing no yellow-level (or worse) tags to be there. could feasibly be put there with the same result in precluding it from OTD. Hence I am afraid that some more articles on the books or references will be needed to resolve this problem once and for all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think there is no justification for a tag here (in which case there would be no issue). I think that WikiProject_Bibliographies makes it clear that in the standard case there is no need for references for a bibliography. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is an issue. Per WikiProject Bibliographies bibliography information must be WP:V, which also applies to everything else on Wikipedia. This needs some sort of off-Wikipedia reference to verify the names, publication dates, etc. There also needs to be a neutral criteria for inclusion, which these lists currently lack. The article says that there are hundred of works, but it isn't possible, or desirable, to include all of them here, so it isn't obvious why these works are being listed and the others unnamed. ISBN numbers would be a good start. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * strictly speaking, unless fully or mostly referenced (including links to standalone pages on any given book) someone could theoretically slap a  tag on it. Much better tp actually find the references rather than sit here arguing about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Casliber It is certainly not customary to add a reference to every title in a bibliography list. That would look awful, IMHO. As though somebody came along and climbed the Reichstag.
 * @Grayfell It would indeed be nice to find a site that would list major opuses, and use that as a reference. Something like that might actually exist, theoretically at least. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Unparalleled spiritual experience"
I removed the sentence, "To attend one was an unparalleled spiritual experience." has put it back, citing WP:RS. Regardless of whether there is a citation, that sentence is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is WP:PUFFERY, it violates WP:NPOV, and it is not verifiable. I'm not opposed to a different version of the sentence, but I don't have the source, so it's difficult for me to propose one. The sentence as it is, however, cannot be in Wikipedia. agt x 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:20th-century apocalypticists
@User:Sir Joseph: See List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. Make of that what you want, but those two articles should be consistent.

Also, it would have been smarter if you had just deleted the category instead of reverting the alphabetic sorting too. Now you will have to sort it again; I won't do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Never visited Israel
The article mentions that Schneerson never visited Israel. I would assume that there were good reasons for visiting Israel or even immigrating there, and also reasons why he did not. But the article does not mention any discussion of this point.

--217.149.163.18 (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Escape
As I understand it, Schneerson and ghis family were rescued from Warsaw. The US Embassy in Berlin asked the German government to rescue him. Hitler and Himmler ordered a Jewish German officer named Bloch to take him from Poland to Finland then Sweden and send him and his family to the USA. Did he ever thank his rescuers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.105.161 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You are talking about his father in law and predecessor, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaGabi (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Plus, to the best of my knowledge that was Canaris, not Hitler and Himler. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"I have the education of the first-born son of the rabbi of Yekatrinoselav"
Is city's name spelling an exact quote from book cited? The thing is that Yekaterinoslav is usually transliterated without an additional 'e' (i.e. not Yekatrinoselav). Rabbi himself would doubtfully misspelled it as he lived there, but I don't know about the book.


 * Yiddish spelling/pronounciation maybe? Many places in these parts had their own Yiddish names (just as they often had German, Polish and sometimes Hungarian names too)... --2001:8003:4E77:D900:106E:6651:EE0A:E22A (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Short description
It appears we need to answer our friends question, although he appears to have answered it himself: "What detailed knowledge? All you need to know is that there exists a Chassidic movement called Chabad, and that many know.” That there exists Chassidic movements is extremely detailed knowledge, let alone that there is specific movement called Chabad. Per WP:short description we need to have a description that is “readily comprehensible” which the current one clearly isn’t. This applies to all seven Chabad Rebbes, perhaps it should say something along the lines of “Russian-American Jewish leader, Seventh Chabad Rebbe” so that it can be both generally accessible and specifically descriptive? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to have this same issue on all Chabad rebbes pages, may I propose you make a centralized post at WT:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? This appears to be specific only to the Chabad Rebbes and not to Judaism as a whole (Chabad being but a minor fringe sect). The violation of WP:short description also seems pretty clear, by your own admission it isn't readily comprehensible as one must already know that there is a Chassidic movement named Chabad. But if you say that it is standard procedure I would be more than willing to make a post on WT:JUDAISM. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted the overarching question to WT:JUDAISM, thank you for identifying the appropriate forum in which to ask this question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call Chabad a fringe sect. It is arguably the most known movement of Chassidism.
 * I don't think terms like "Chassidic" and "Rebbe" are much less known to the general public then "Orthodox" or "rabbi", e.g. In any case I am confident that almost all readers will associate them with Judaism, which is a good start.
 * WP:Short description says that the short description must help distinguish articles. You sound like you propose to use "American (or Russian) Orhtodox rabbi" for all of these rabbis and a few thousand more. That is not helpful. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would dispute your second point, and only vaguely concur with the second half of it.
 * However, I agree with distinction between related rabbis just as with related articles in general, but I do think the current descriptions could do with more clarification. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Short description 2
It seems I recently tried a similar change to the above user,, unaware of this discussion. I understand that when all 7 rebbes are in line in their short description, that shouldn't be disrupted, as per 's revert summary of my edit.

But, my edit was just a passing clarification. I usually don't get defensive over short descriptions; I just thought "Seventh Chabbad Rebbe" could've done with some clarification. As a young person who is not Jewish but is somewhat versed in global history, politics and religion, I knew what the words "Orthodox", "Hasidic" and "rabbi" meant but neither "Chabbad" nor "Rebbe". · • SUM1 • ·   (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you propose? Debresser (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me about this! I had completely forgotten, I was waiting for someone other than Debresser and I to give an opinion but it was archived before anyone did and I had not realized it had been archived. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 37, I believe we came to a near consensus on either "Hereditary Orthodox Jewish Leader” or "Hereditary Orthodox Jewish Rabbi” (both of which I would consider today to be acceptable alternatives to the current descriptions) for the first part and then a consensus on ", _______ Chabad Rebbe” for the second part. If I misremembered your opinion Debresser please feel free to correct me, I apologize for leaving the discussion unfinished back in September. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Dynastic" is better than "Hereditary". I think "leader" is better than "rabbi" in the case of a rebbe. By the way, neither should be capitalized. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020
On April 12th 1991 (28 Nissan 5751) Menachem Mendel Schneerson cried and asked why the Moshiach was still not here. He told his followers that he had done his part to bring Moshiach and it is now the job of his followers to act and bring Moshiach.

source: https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/2487406/jewish/Helping-to-Bring-Mashiach-5751-1991.htm RaphaelNacache (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Content Dispute RE: “influential and controversial"
Let hear some actual arguments for why influential and controversial cant be in the lead, its clearly not in violation of WP:LABEL... So whats the argument against? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested that Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2 is relevant, seems like some parties here have been involved in related disputes for close to a decade. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The cited sources so not seem to support controversial, nor does my recollection of coverage here support it. (Obviously the whole messiah thing was controversial - but tmore in regards to those who did the labelling).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Interestingly the decade old talk page has a good section on this, user:Jayjg actually argues rather fabulously against his current position:
 * ""4. In reality, Schneerson was even more "controversial and divisive" than Shach ever was (admittedly in part because he was simply better known in the non-Orthodox world). For example, American Jewish Desk Reference (p. 85) has a biography on Schneerson that starts "SCHNEERSON, MENACHEM MENDEL (1902-1994) Perhaps the most controversial and charismatic contemporary Orthodox Jewish leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, inspired both a legion of devoted followers and band of critics who denounced his leadership as a cult of personality".""


 * Im doing a review of the sources now but this is ironically extremely convincing. Given as this is the lede we don’t have to strictly go by what the four attached sources say, nor should there really be so many attached sources in the lede but thats a different point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't argue at all against my current position (read that discussion more carefully), and your insertion in this article is obviously in violation of WP:LABEL. WP:LABEL says "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies". Which did you do? "Describe the individual using the subjective and vague term controversial", or "give readers information about relevant controversies". Clearly the former. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please clarify your statement, I was not the user who added this text I simply object to its removal. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You "objected to its removal" by revert-warring it back into the article after a one-edit editor added it to the article today. Now, which did you do when you made those edits? "Describe the individual using the subjective and vague term controversial", or "give readers information about relevant controversies"? Please clarify. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please observe Civility, this is an minor disagreement so theres no need to go around making personal attacks. Your continued edits to my talk page are unnecessary. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I clearly haven't made any personal attacks, and if you don't want me to respond on your talk page, then don't write messages to me there. Now, please respond to the relevant issue here: when you made these edits, did you "Describe the individual using the subjective and vague term controversial", or "give readers information about relevant controversies", per WP:LABEL? Please clarify. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hold that in context statement "influential and controversial” is substantially different from “controversial,” so different in fact as for WP:LABEL to no longer apply. If the sentence simply said "He is considered one of the most controversial Jewish leaders of the 20th century.” you would have a point, but it doesn't. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I hold that it is sophistry at best to argue that if you stick the phrase "influential and" before the word "controversial" you no longer violate WP:LABEL. Now, per WP:LABEL are you planning to "give readers information about relevant controversies" in the article lede? If so, what do you propose to add? Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to remember the history of the page, there is plenty controversial but it has been merged into the main text or placed somewhere more relevant. See Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 7 as well as much of Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 6 and Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 5. Should we quote the American Jewish Desk Reference as you did? "controversial and charismatic” is similar and perhaps more appropriate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, please consider that WP:BRD means that since your edit was reverted, you should discuss and obtain consensus before you redo it.
 * More to the point. At Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2 there was a discussion whether to mention that Shach was a controversial and divisive person, which was amply sourced, and neither of these terms were allowed as being WP:LABEL violations and additional references to WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:LEDE and WP:WTA. The same must be upheld here. It may be noted that I was of the opposite opinion in that discussion, and still am, but insist that the same rules be applied to all articles. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would note that Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2 does not in fact come to a consensus... There was “no consensus” to add but there was not in fact “a consensus” that it shouldn’t be added, I know thats wikipedia lawyering but you are misrepresenting the facts. Unlike with Shach we actually have a WP:RS that does in fact say that Schneerson is unambiguously one of the most controversial Jewish figures of his era, so its a completely different argument (you now say that theres ample sources that describe Shach as controversial, but that does not seem to be accurate given the policy based arguments made over there that center on a lack of reliable sources as well as WP:LABEL). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there was no consensus at that discussion. The result was that the information was removed shortly after its addition. That means de facto that the result of the discussion was against inclusion. Indeed a bit of Wikilawyering.
 * As I remember it, there were some who raised issues with part of the sources, but not convincingly, and part of the sources was not challenged, if I remember correctly. There definitely was no consensus that all of the sources were below par. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just making a note than another independent editor (admittedly one who has edited the page before) has agreed that “controversial” belongs in the lede, Wikipedia is not a democracy but if it were there would appear to be a clear majority decision... We do appear however to be approaching a consensus that controversial does in fact belong in the lede, sorry guys I know you have your hearts set on excluding it however obvious its inclusion is. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you guys have seen but the LA Times uses controversial, as in the story "A Long-Distance Calling : Brooklyn’s Controversial Rebbe--Who Some Believe Is the Messiah--Makes an Impact on Jews in County” . The text reads “ The rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is the controversial chief rabbi of the Lubavitcher movement, an ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish sect whose members still retain 18th-Century European dress and many of it customs.” I also note that none of the sources used to cite the relevant sentence in the lede are used at all in the text of the article which is highly abnormal. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At present the lead reads: "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the 20th century." That statement has 4 sources. Only one of them uses the word "controversial". That source is the Wall Street Journal on the issue of crowd-sourcing the High Holy Days. A non-academic source, and in general probably not the best of sources for Judaism-related issues. Not to mention the rather peculiar subject of the article, come to think of it. In any case, the rabbi was not the main subject of that article, and for that reason as well any passing mention of him n this article is probably not the best of sources. I am aware tha same can be said for the word "influential", but that word is supported by at least three other sources.
 * The LA Times is another non-academic source, and probably not the best of sources for Judaism-related issues either, generally speaking. Not to mention that there is no indication in the article, why the term "controversial" would be fitting for the rabbi.
 * I would like to add to the above that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and based on that rule it is my humble opinion, that any claim that a person is "controversial" is in need of good sources.
 * IMHO, using the word controversial in the proposed way would be a clear violation of WP:LABEL. The burden is therefore upon Horse Eye Jack to explain his stated opinion that "its clearly not in violation of WP:LABEL", when even a superficial reading of that guideline suggests otherwise. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that if he supported one side in a war, then the other side is going to have something to say about that, and it needs to be said here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)