Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Append This Photo Please

I apologize for this crude edit, but I am not wholly familiar with Wikipedia editing methodolgy and netiquette. I would appreciate it if someone could tactfully append this photo to this article somehow.

Thank you.

File:Http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/1735/1125200484449pm0000xd2.jpg

Question about his education

This article lists his educational experiences, all of them being non-secular, and then in the same paragraph says that he assisted his father with communal affairs "where his secular education and knowledge of the Russian language"!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.161.115 (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:David Spart's changes

I finally got round to going through the article. I tagged many (but not all) the unsourced statements with "Fact" tags. I removed the occasional line that described miracles etc. I made a few changes to the early life and removed two (out of 5) refernecs to Soloveitchik and hoe "everyone knew that there was a great presence in town". When I tag a statement it is not because a statement is untrue - but because there is no source. Really every statement of fact should be sourced - but at the very least the ones which involve others need to be. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth place

There is an inconsistency in the name of the town in which he was born: "Mykolaiv" and "Nikolaiev". They are transliterations of the Ukranian and Russian versions. Tsf 12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should be history, not mythology

IZAK, I am not touching the article for now any more than removing the Sorbonne, which is a popular urban legend but little more. This really needs a LOT of NPOV, especially since Schneerson is still one of the most controversial figures in Orthodox Judaism. To be intellectually honest, some mention must be made of Berger's book, whether you agree with it or not. You might also want to mention the brother-in-law (the one who got the streimel) and how that threatened Lubavitch unity, and give a more thorough coverage of meshichus (Messianism). Danny

the rebbe is not "History". The rebbe's influance is still felt throughout the whole world; to say the least.

Check out "Early Life": According to this article, The Rav claimed that the Rebbe got higher grades than him. Yet, I've found in another source Rav Soloveitchik's son claims they never met in Berlin! Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, super shady! And who's the "Lauffer" mentioned in this section, by the way? You're kinda supposed to let us know his first name and credentials before quoting him...sorry, but as a big fan of the Rav and an amateur at the Wissenschaft des Judentums as it relates to Acharonim, this whole section seems unreliable. Marc Shapiro, where are you? Help us, PLEASE!!! --Yodamace1 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, this article is total crap from start to finish. There is almost no factual, sourced, valuable info in the whole thing. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I add my agreement and concerns. Does it make sense to be diplomatic yet firm--begin removing all un-sourced info, all non-facts, and just pare it down? Gruber76 04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes very good sense. The article we have today is the product of 4 years of edit warring. A battle that was eventually won by the forces of Chabad in or around December 2005 when everyone else just became exasperated at the exploits of certain editors. We should go through the article, removing all the unforced info, even if it means we start from almost nothing. We need a rule on all Chabad articles that nothing goed in without a reliable source - there are plenty of them out there. There are currently c.75 articles on Chabad in wikipedia, most of which are links in the toobar I made. But there are only 4 main ones: This one, "Chabad-Lubatich", "Chabad messianism" and "controversies of chabad". The last two are now fixed.

What needs to be done: (1) This article must be redone. (2) Chabad Lubatich article, I fixed the philosophy to some extent, but it could be expanded; The history section is missing and needs writing. (3) Write proper articles on the other 6 rebbes most of which are very poor. (4) Go through the remaining 60 articles (most of which are short stubby things) cleaning them up and proving sourced.

Then we are done! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off until Monday to allow time for discussion, especially since many interested parties are not able to use computers on Saturday, but if no serious and reasonable objections are raised I'll start with the pruning and see how things go. Gruber76 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. I think we should bring each piece of info that is questionable to the talk page and give a chance for editors to find the sources. For some there wont be and they can go. Shlomke 19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shlomke is correct, there have been fact tags throughout the article which have been placed even by items which are not disputed. The fact tages should be removed from those items which are not disputed, so that everyone can focus on bringing sources for the disputed items. Chocolatepizza 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a rough comparison for another controversial topic, the Jesus page has over ten times as many references for an article a little less than twice as long. Gruber76 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gruber76, I totally agree the article needs good references (though I'm sure the Jesus page is over ten times more popular and viewed much more then this page), what I'm saying is that it should be done slowly, carefully, and via the talk page, to be fair and give all wikipedians a chance to see whats going on, look for sources, and enhance the article. After all, this article has been built over some four years, with much effort from many wikipedians. I dont think its true that this article is the product of edit waring as David Spart says, as I've been watching this page for over a year and have seen only occasional edit waring. Also, I would suggest holding off a little bit more until all interested parties are back from holiday vacation. Shlomke 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

successors

Yes it's better, but it still makes it sound as though there was a quest for successors, but in truth there was never a any serious search for one. Thus I dont think that should be there either. Shlomke 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements needing sources

Succession

all the suggested successors such as Rabbis declined the mantle of leadership in the days after his death diff. Shlomke 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - Rashi

Redacted "He frequently used Rashi's commentary in his discorses, delving into it with sharp analasis giving it mystical meaning." at being POV. This might be a good place to discuss that edit if there is disagreement. Gruber76 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That is from Ehlichs book. I put the source in. Perhaps you want to change it a bit so it more NPOV? Shlomke 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure adding it furthers the entry. Perhaps it would work as an excerpt instead of as a cited part of the entry. Still, I'm not certain that modification of what's currently there is necessary. I'd love to hear a third perspective. Gruber76 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually find the current version POV since 1) It was not "Mainly" Rashi (this is limiting) 2) They were not necessarily "Hasidic" (also limiting). I also find the line "which were annotated by his aids" unnecessary. I think (tell me if I'm wrong) what you find as a strong POV are the words "delving into it with sharp analysis giving it mystical meaning", so I'll go ahead and change that. Shlomke 01:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, All new discussions should be placed on the bottom of the talk page. Shlomke 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would make it easier to know what's been updated, wouldn't it? Point taken. Gruber76 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Skullcap in Berlin

Shlomke, you removed the "rumor" about Schneerson not wearing a skullcap in Berlin as an "outrageous claim." Is there only one source for this? What about this: http://www.mentalblog.com/2005/03/email-interview-with-dr-bryan-mark.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruber76 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

An anonymous blog claiming to have an email interview with someone is not a reliable source. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Cool

I have a policy of not reverting edits simply because I don't have the patience. But check out what a certain somebody did to the Rabbi Soloveitchik section since I reverted it to be appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson&diff=126915653&oldid=124844980. Note that the inserted chunk of trash contradicts the rest of the section, as well as Lubavitch lore. --Yodamace1 11:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part in particular are you talking about? is it the "matriculation"?, "Soloveichik"? Shlomke 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice anything else in the article? How about, "Dr. Haym Soloveitchik claims that Rabbi Soloveitchik only saw Schneerson pass by in Berlin." I could believe that the two met and Reb Haym either forgot or never knew about it, but Kowalsky's claim is not only highly unlikely, it's sheker. That Soloveitchik conferred to Kowalsky a mythological mikvah and fast story his own son and daughter didn't know is a joke. So why did the editor see it fit to allow the claims of R' Zvi Kaplan, R' Haym Soloveitchik, and Dr. Atarah Twersky to remain just that--"claims"--while putting in Kowalsky's claim as a fact? I wonder what the Rebbe thought of GENEVAS DAAS! --Yodamace1 11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ps see my earlier edit, found at the link above, for how this ridiculous view could be allowed to remain in the article. --Yodamace1 11:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove it's sheker or you just believe it's not true. It does have a source. I dont know what the editor was thinking, but according to wp:wta we should not use the word "claim". Shlomke 13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is like so: R' Soloveitchik's daughter claims that the two once briefly met at an apartment in Berlin and R' Soloveitchik's son claims they never met. I highly suspect that Kowalsky (I don't know who he is) is using the famous "We never knew what R' Soloveitchik really said" thing to his advantage. I can't prove it so, as Kowalsky is contradicting R' Hayym and Mrs. Atarah Twersky in what the Wiki regards (correct me if I'm wrong, believe me, I'd like to be) as a reliable source (a cited book), that makes them all alternative claims. --Yodamace1 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So lets state all of their opinions using the words "according to"... Shlomke 00:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Yodamace1 08:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship

I find the part starting "Towards the end of his life" unnecessary and POV. I'm removing. Shlomke 20:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section, since there is no POV issue, it is well sourced to a reliable source and is highly biographically relevant. If his scholarship fell for the last 20 years of his life that's a) relevant and b) provides a logical closure for the section. JoshuaZ 12:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, can you explain why you think it highly biographically relevant? Shlomke 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What could be more relevant to a bio on a scholar than a discussion of his scholarship? I put that back now. Can you imagine any other scholar having such an exemption. Lobojo (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper article title

I've always seen him referred to as "Menachem Schneerson". The Wikipedia rule is that a biographical article should be located at the most common version of the subject's name. For example, the article on Bill Clinton is at Bill Clinton, with William Jefferson Clinton being a redirect. I think this article should be moved to Menachem Schneerson. JamesMLane t c 07:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you've seen that, but in print it's always been "Menachem M." or "Menachem Mendel". And informally, back when he had people who referred to him informally, he was always "Mendel". I don't think anyone has ever referred to him, in speech or in writing, simply as "Menachem". Zsero 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, I've only ever seen in print menachem mendel (in more contemporary books with either A"H or ZT"L next to his name.), but never Menachem M., well,that is, until I came to stumble upon wikipedia. JamesMLane, You seem to be coming from the secular world with only knowledge from the books written from the perspective or reform and/or non-Jewish writers (No offense if you are/aren't), but with them it is a matter of they think that a double name is stupid and that just using a single name is stam ok. In the frum world, the common name is a double name, I.E; Menachem Mendel, Yitzchok Isaac, Sholom DovBaer (Technically three names, but as with the others Dov and Baer are the same name in two different languages) Yosef Dov/Yoshe Ber (Ber here is same as Baer in relation to the R"asha"B, but common spelling differences based on normalities of Lubavitch and The centrist litvishe world) Nosson Tzvi/Nota Hirsh, ETC. They are all double names, and with exception of Sholom DovBaer (DovBaer is also a double name and can be used seperatly, Dov and Baer/Ber actually mean what the yiddish one sounds like, a bear.) Both names mean the same thing in yiddish and Hebrew.

I hope that enlightened you. --Shuliavrumi 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You never saw MH"M after his name? I did. --Eidah 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. You are completely wrong, just as you were wrong about Joseph Isaack Schneersohn. I didn't have the gedult to argue with you then, especially when you made your unilateral change and then immediately went off to get the page protected, but you were wrong then and you're wrong now. In most L and non-L publications he was referred to as "Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson", just as the previous rebbe was always "Joseph I. Schneersohn". I won't speculate about your background if you won't speculate about mine, but you don't show very much knowledge about your subject. Zsero 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to left I don't know where you are getting your information. You're dealing with a lubav here, and what you are doing, it aint funny. I never seen "Menachem M. Schneerson" as, until you started screwing up the titles of the articles on the last two rebbeim of Lubavitch. Its Menachem Mendel and Yosef Yitzchok. Period end of discussion. Have a git shabbos. --Shuliavrumi 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting beyond funny. You may be a Lubav now, but where were you five years ago? Just look at the rebbes' stationery fercryinoutloud. Have you ever seen letters from either of them? (I won't ask whether you ever actually received such letters, or have them in your possession.) Have you read any L publication in English from the 1940s?

Here's something I'd like you to do: look up the obituary for the FR in the Adar 5710 issue of Talks and Tales. Then look up the one for the first yortzeit in the Shevat 5711 issue. You'll find the result informative. Zsero 17:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The 40's. Over 60 years ago, that was the norm. But in 2007/5767 the normal is to use the Hebrew Names and to write them in full. --Shuliavrumi 17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, there's no norm either way. People either write the name in full or they write an initial. Also, IMHO it's a silly thing to make a fuss over. Yehoishophot Oliver 11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shuliavrumi is correct that I'm coming from an almost exclusively secular perspective. If the use of the full name is reasonably common in other sources, then either version is OK for the article, and it wouldn't need to be moved from either to the other. I don't think, though, that there's a secular belief that the double name is "stupid". It's just a question of convention. Some people are typically referred to by full name (Henry Cabot Lodge), some with the middle initial (George W. Bush), some with just given name and surname (Britney Spears), and some with nickname and surname (Ted Williams). Where, as in each of those cases, there's a clear preponderance of one form of the name, then that's where the article should be. JamesMLane t c 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to be neutral neither being Lubavitcher or particularly anti, though I am anti enough I will not edit this article; but Mendel is alsmost always used in the name in normal discource. Chiefly because that was his name. Mendel is ot a middle name but part of a two part first name. Basejumper 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No source for this

What's the source that says he was a creationist?

Um, everything. This needs a citation about as much as "Einstein was a physicist" does. Zsero 14:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he belongs in this category - of course, he believed that the world was created by God - that much is obvious. But so does an overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews - that doesn't mean that every Orthodox Jew who has an article should be in this category. I think that only people who are publicly (and specifically) outspoken about the issue of creation vs. evolution. I don't think the Rebbe was known for that. --DLand^TALK 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Most Orthodox Jews today, especially Modern Orthodox ones, believe in some form of evolution, and in treating the beginning of Genesis allegorically. The LR vehemently and repeatedly insisted that the six days of creation were to be taken literally, and argued against any acceptance of evolution. He was famous for this, so famous that it hardly needs a source. If you really need one it wouldn't be hard to dig up, but it's not at all controversial, and not everything needs to be sourced. Or shall we start with documenting that he was Jewish, and Orthodox, and a rabbi, and go on from there? Zsero 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am most definitely not arguing that this is controversial or dubious. What I am arguing is that he shouldn't be called a "creationist" because he is not known specifically as such. That is not to say that he didn't share the beliefs of today's creationists. --DLand^TALK 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by what you mean by "known specifically as such". By whom exactly is he not known to have been a creationist? Other than you, I suppose. Zsero 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to show that he is known as a creationist. As a counter-example, Walt Brown is a "creationist", by dint of both multiple external sources and self-identification as well. The Rebbe, while he certainly believed in creation, is not known as a "creationist". Have a good Shabbos, DLand^TALK 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rebbe is known for having specifically promoted the literal biblical account of creation, when many or most others did not lay this emphasis. See here for instance. Yehoishophot Oliver 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

The article right now doesn't cover the controversy around it titular figure, as per the conflict between him and RavShach, the Brisker Rav, and the two Satmer Admorim. Those are interesting pieces of information, particularly witht he Brisker Rav. I am not going to add anything because I do not want to take part in an edit war. I just wanted to point out these things are missing. Basejumper 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in the Controversies of Chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But as you well know Pinchas, that is an outlawed POV fork unless there is a summary of the controversies in the main section. Lobojo (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Rebbe"

Regarding this edit by me, a comment: the Rebbe of every Hasidic group is known within that group as "the Rebbe". I myself am a chossid (Hasid) of the Dushinsky Rebbe, so when I am talking about "the Rebbe", I am talking about Rav Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky shlita, not about Rav M. M. Schneerson zt'l. It is true that many people, particularly non-Orthodox Jews, who cannot strictly be called "Chabad/Lubavitch Hasidim" also refer to Schneerson as "the Rebbe", but this is wide from universal. In the Orthodox world (outside from Chabad, as I mentioned previously), when a chassidic person refers to "the Rebbe", he is referring to his rebbe - which could be the Kloizenburger Rebbe, Bobover Rebbe, Puppa Rebbe, Vizhnitzer Rebbe, Dushinsky Rebbe, Satmar Rebbe, Lubavitcher Rebbe, Gerrer Rebbe, Belzer Rebbe, or any of a wide range of rebbes. So to write that this one is known as "the Rebbe" is plain incorrect, unless we want to write exactly that same sentence ("also known as The Rebbe") at the top of every Rebbe's biography. --Eidah 09:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When a non-L chosid says "the rebbe", knowledgeable people assume he's talking about his own rebbe, whoever that may be. But in the general world, when someone who is not a chosid says "the rebbe" without qualification, this is who is meant. And even when a non-L chosid says it, many/most people who aren't that knowledgeable, will assume the reference is to the LR, because while they may be aware that other rebbes exist, they couldn't name any. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

In any case, this particular sentence is sourced to the Encyclopedia Judaica. Presumably it comes from there. Does anyone have a copy to look it up? Zsero 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this ridiculous claim again (ie, reverting back to "The Lubavitcher Rebbe"). If you revert me again, I will indeed immediately begin adding "also known as The Rebbe" to all Rebbe biographies. My point is clear and there is no compromise on this. :) --Eidah 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the EJ reference given; if it doesn't say what it's claimed to, then you can delete it, but until then it should stay. This is how it's been for a long time, so you're the motzi mechavero. The fact is that the LR is known as "the Rebbe" by people who are not his chasidim, while no other rebbe is called that except by his own chasidim. If you add the phrase to other rebbes you will need a source. Zsero 23:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I need a source? I don't need a source for everything. I don't need to source to know that most (BUT NOT ALL) of Chabad consists of a bunch of idol-worshipping nutcases who are even more despicable than Yoshke y"sh. I don't need a source to know that I do not want this group to steal the title 'Rebbe' and claim that only THEIR 'rebbe' is known as 'the Rebbe'. --Eidah 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for writing that. You've just given me legitimate cause to stop WP:AGF. I can now revert you in good conscience, and have ammunition to defend myself if I'm ever called on it. Zsero 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

"In general it is Chabad Lubavitch policy not to mix in to any politics" Well according to what follows after that clause it isn't.

-- 194.46.239.166 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I removed that. Nothing could be more untrue, "no land for peace", "Netanyahu is good for Jews", and his close relationships with politicians and Chabad funding of politics is renowned. Lobojo (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean its not everyone that gets a posthumous CGM. Lobojo (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"No land for peace" was a support of a philosophy, namely that land surrender is dangerous because security experts say so, irrelevant to the opinions of politicians.

"Netanyahu is good for the Jews," which didn't happen until after the Rebbe's passing, was an unprecedented and highly controversial compaign initiated by one person within Chabad itself for naming and supporting a particular candidate, instead of supporting a general philosophy, and leaving it to the individual voter to choose which specific politician most lived up to that philosophy. This was the exception that proves the rule, an exception that has not since recurred. That is the implication of the statement (made by the Rebbe himself, by the way) that "Chabad doesn't interfere with politics."

The posthumous CGM was awarded for service to mankind, not involvement in politics, as should be obvious to anyone who read about it even briefly!

Thus, the statement, "In general it is Chabad Lubavitch policy not to mix in to any politics" is quite correct. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as is famous, he held close relationships with politicians to influence them to observe Torah and use their influence to teach that to others. As for "Chabad funding of politics," nothing of the sort exists except for the one occasion when an individual used his money to fund Netanyahu's campaign, as above.--Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Political Activities

For some reason the entire section on America, simply argued that he was not active in politics (not the case) and then went on about Russia. I have rewritten this section with sourcing. Lobojo (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Soloveitchik again and again

This is slightly out of hand. Most of the info on Soloveitchik is nonsense and has no bearing on their lives. Its all nuts. It is sufficient to say that according to some they met in Berlin according to others they did not, and that the mater remains in dispute. I am going to summarise the 300 words in two lines. This does not deserve 10% of the article. Lobojo (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One person says that he does not know about it, and you have multiple notable individuals (non chabad) that say on video that it is true. This section is important as it speaks about his early years of which there is little information about. Chocolatepizza (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Look it goes in the article, we put all points of view with all sources just like before, but you cannot have a full 500 word section on whether they met in Berlin since it is such a trivial point, and there is no evidence that Soloveritchik influenced Schneersohn's life in any way. Even as it stands there is too much info here. It doesn't tell us anything about his early years - it just tells us about whether two people knew each other socially or not. The matter is entirely trivial and deserves a few lines at the most. Lobojo (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is simply a matter of trivia that is now taking up about 10% of the article. I am going to return this issue to a proportianate state. Lobojo (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated complete reversions to clearly infrerior verison

You repeatedly revert any and all edits I make to this page and others in good faith. Your ownership of these pages seems to be more or less complete. This just cannot be allowed to work in the long run. Lobojo (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo owns Chabad page?

Lobojo, I am vaguely aware of some wikipedia terms, but don't really care when it comes to reality. There are multiple published points of view of Kennedy's assasination, they are placed in a separate article under conspiracy theories. If you wish to create a separate page called conspiracy theories about Chabad, please do so. If you want to have a gentlemanly discussion about this, please restore my edits and I will make my case point by point and we can discuss it. Your statement in the edit comments about scholarship not being lectures betrays your lack of familiarity with the person whom this page is about, the Rebbe wrote almost none of his talks, all of his scholarship is oral.

It may be wikipedia policy to quote any source, but if the source itself is not NPOV perhaps that does not apply. It is very difficult to find any published source NPOV on Chabad, and some of the books quoted such as Deutsch were written by people either predisposed to dislike the Rebbe or who felt animosity towards the Rebbe.

I would suggest either paring down the article to essentials, or be ready to deal with a more highly charged environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I dont know which edits were yours. You are free to edit the article. All I have done it to edit the article in line with wikipedia's policies and standards. I have had to remove a small amount of info that was not sourced, and I have added some info that is sourced. Wikipedia standards on sources are fairly unambiguous, and I always try to follow those rules. So we can quote from Ehrlich and Berger even though you argue they are critics. The more sourced info we have the better and I encourage you to ADD properly sourced material where you have it available to you. This article is very generous to the Chabad movement and the Rebbe in my view. If it were more rigorously sourced and contained more academic commentary, as it really should, Chabad partisans would not like this article very much. You can't simply remove quotes and details that you don't like, neither can you add unsourced or poorly sourced information. This article has been improving slowly over the past year or so, and should continue to be expanded - it is not complete by any means. Any attempt to remove sourced information is unacceptable. Lobojo (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be facetious, all of the edits immediately before yours were mine. If the article were more rigorously written academically, most of the sources provided would not stand up to such a rigorous examination. The most rigorous historian on Chabad to date, Menachem Friedman, has just been found to be utterly wrong on the issue of the Rebbe attending the Sorbonne in Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• You are one of many anon IPs to edit the article in similar fashions, something that you are encouraged to do, so dont let my error put you off. These are you edits. Some of the are completly valid and remain in the article. Some of them are problematic, I will list them and explain why, and wee can work it through OK? Lobojo (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go

These are the problematic edits: Lobojo (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. You removed the bold words from this "Schneerson’s younger brother, DovBer, was mentally disturbed from childhood and spent his years in an institution for the mentally disabled near Nikolaiev. He died in 1944 at the hands of Nazi collaborators" This is problematic because that is sourced material. If you have a source that disputes this then you can add tat source in too. Lobojo (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
2. You changed the wording of the "Wills" section considerably, so of these changes change the meaning of the passage, which cannot be allowed to stand since the sources have not been changed. Changing sourced statement requires the removal of the sources too otherwise the actual content of the sources is lost forever. These is a serious problem in wikipedia and please take care not to change sourced info without changing the source. Indeed at the end you reversed the meaning of a line but left the same source on the end, you must see how this is an error! Lobojo (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
3. There are many sources that say that Kahn and Krinsky were possible contendors for the leadership after 3 Tammuz, both in the article and elsewhere on wikipedia. You changed this to there were "no serious contendors" which isn't sustained by the sources but if you have such sources please add them in. Lobojo (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Politics, Lubavitch may well be apolitical, but this article is about the Rebbe. It is not controversial that was politically right-wing, and I will add sources that say this soon. If you can add information to say that the Rebbe was left wing or held some left-wing positions, that would be fantastic, but please dont just blank the section.
5. Scholarship: You added "However, this position is not born out by the wealth of audio recordings and unedited transcripts of the Rebbe's talks showing if anything an increase in scholarly talks, including a series of expositions on the Mishne Torah." You are attempting to contradict a peer-reviewed source. If you want to add such an opinion to wikipedia, you need to find a high quality source to do so, as it stands this is just your personal opinion which is WP:OR in wikipedia. To dispute strong sources you need strong academic sources. Lobojo (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of your editing were very constuctive, welcome to wikipedia, and please consieder creating an account! Lobojo (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are small details to quibble over, I don't have the time or patience for it, I don't have the source quoted in front of me to see if he actually stated this. The most egregious error is the one in the Rebbe's scholarship, for which the source is the Rebbe's spoken words, all available online and linked to below. We can provide that as a source. The issue here is getting good sources, because on the one hand Lubavitch is controversial enough that questionable biographies would be published, and on the other hand it is small enough that no one bothers to publish a counter biography. The exception has been Dr. Berger's book which was countered by Rabbi Rappaport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand that this is a sensitive subject but wikipedia is no-holds-barred. Sourcing is the back bone of wikipedia and since other editors have "taken the time and patience" to add them you owe your own "time and patience" if you want to contradict them, something that you need other sources do. "The rebbes speaches after 1977" does not constitute a source; it is the antithesis of a source since it relies on our OR interpretation that "actually they were just as good as before" or some such. Berger's book is a valid source since he is a scholar, Rappaports for example is not as it was self published and distributed. Lobojo (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If it were only a question of sensitivity. The issue is lack of reliable sources to use. At the end of the day, very few facts have been published about Chabad, a lot of noise is engendered but little investigation. Perhaps the Chabad articles need to have a separate policy issued for them. The general policy of wikipedia works well in other subjects and about other groups that are marginal (relative to let's say the Mormon church, Chabad is marginal). I would join if it were to have a total discussion with whoever is up in the hierarchy of wikipedia about the issues faced in writing about Chabad (do others have this problem?).

HA :-) "Chabad is on the margins of the Mormon Church", dont say to Krinsky's face! There are plenty or reliable sources published about Chabad, these include dozens of scholarly journal article, many scholarly books about the history, encylopedia articles, millions of words of newsprint and so and on. All such things are reliable sources. There simply isn't the shortage you describe. I cannot think about any other subject in Judaism today that has a greater availabilty of reliable sources. Lobojo (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a list of such articles and books, because only Hoffman, Ehrlich and Fishkoff are sources used in this. Riggs is one more, on only one brief part of the history, and Friedman another, but again - no one has bothered to address their innacuracies. I can think of almost every subject in Judaism that has more sources, including beliefs, practices and history. If you mean that Satmar has less sources, that would be because Satmar didn't open to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The first half of the Politics sentence is about Lubavitch, not the Rebbe. And it is about politicians, not political issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.50.83 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed, you are correct. Lobojo (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The rebbe's brother -- contradictory information

The article gives two different spellings for the name adopted by the rebbe's brother: Mark "Gourary" or "Gurari", and two different years in which Mark died: 1951 or 1952. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship faded

User Zsero keeps removing the following section from the article, claiming it has not been well enough sourced:

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

Can Zsero explain what specifically is wrong with this source? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a report of what one person allegedly told another person, as reported by a third person who's read the second person's book. It's not clear whether Olidort is the source for the "failing scholarship" claim, or only for the fact that the chozrim adored the Rebbe, which would hardly need a source. All we really have is Erlich, who has no first-hand knowledge at all, and for such an explosive claim that's just not enough. Let's not get into the question of BLP or we'll never hear the last of it :-) but even the dead have the right not to be defamed. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to write a hagiography of the man, a la ArtScroll. We are here to present his life and work and contextualize it from sources. A major Chabad scholar is quoting Olidort. The quote that you keep removing is very clear and you a nerve removing it. What you could do is improve the article. An idea would be to find a scholar who disputes Olidort, or argues for example that Erhlich has mischaracterized him. It is not even a critical statement, that old men lose some of their faculties following illness it not at attack on the man, that is just life. We are not here to enforce Chabad POV that Shneerson was a saint, and neither are we here to enforce messianist POV that BLP should apply. Lobojo (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, reporting on something that is hardly defamatory, and, in fact, is not at all unexpected - elderly people in poor health often experience these kinds of issues. Please come up with a better rationale. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Erlich is hardly "a major Chabad scholar"; who ever heard of him before he wrote one book, which has been read by how many? Someone quoted it on WP and suddenly it's the definitive work on the subject? There are some things it can support, at least when it's uncontested, and some things that are just too strong to rest on such a flimsy basis. And this is a very serious allegation regarding the last 15 years of the Rebbe's work, which were in many ways the peak of his productivity. One only needs to look at his actual output during that time to know that he was at full capacity. A second-hand quote like this is just not enough to support such a serious allegation. Remember that OR is not sufficient to put something in, but it is enough to take something out - WP should not contain untruths, even if they are repeated in a so-called "RS". And it should certainly not defame people, living or dead, on such a basis. -- Zsero (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He has writen a number of books and articles on the subject and is an established scholar. You may never have heard of him, but that says nothing about him. This is not an allegation, it the simply a comment, a comment that you may not like given your background. However we are not here to enfrorce Chabad POV we are here to write an encycolpedia. We cannot remove the source based on the OR research of "looking at his actual output", indeed the source does not say that the output went down anyway. It just argues that it was full of errors which were corrected by aides such a Olidort and others before it ever got to the "output" stage. Anyway this is moot, since it is OR anyway. Lobojo (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And OR is only banned as a basis for putting something IN. If we know something is unlikely to be true, we don't need secondary sources before taking it out. I am challenging the truth of this section. It is a lie, and I don't care who Erlich is, or what he claims to have heard from Olidort, if indeed that is how the claim is presented in the book, which I don't know it to be (I don't own it and have no interest in reading it). It's an out-and-out attempt to slander the rebbe, and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the last 15 years of his work, and it doesn't belong here without STRONG sourcing. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip column. -- Zsero (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. He's an established scholar who has written books on the subject; his book is "STRONG sourcing". Not only is it entirely common that elderly people in poor health often experience these kinds of cognitive issues, but we have a reliable source telling us it is so. And, in any event, it's not up to you to decide that a scholar who has written a book on the subject is wrong; per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That section is in bold right at the top of the policy, to deal with exactly this kind of issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got that backwards. Truth is not sufficient, but it is necessary. What it means is that an unsourced truth can be deleted, not that a sourced lie can not. In other words, OR is not enough to put something in, but it is enough to take something out.

In this case, the "scholar" is only as good as his source. He couldn't personally verify what his source told him without having been at the farbrengens and hearing the sichos for himself, and then fact-checking them. The fact that he's published books doesn't make their contents reliable, and certainly "peer review" is irrelevant, because the "peers" who reviewed them know less about the subject than he does. Further, this isn't something that could have been kept secret - anyone who heard the farbrengens would know if this were happening. So for this sort of allegation to stay we can't have one alleged quote from one chozer. (The "peer reviewers" certainly didn't call Olidort to find out exactly what he said, and verify whether he was in a position to know it.) -- Zsero (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>One more point: Is there any other bio of a scholar on WP that mentions such a thing, let alone devotes a whole paragraph to it? You say it's common among older people. So why don't we find a similar point made in Albert Einstein or Paul Dirac or Erwin Schrödinger or Max Planck or Satyendra Nath Bose or Niels Bohr (picked for no good reason - I just started with Einstein and followed links from there)? They all got pretty old, what are the odds that all of them remained on the ball until the last? Better still, how about Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Yehezkel Abramsky, or Friedrich Hayek, all of whom we know suffered serious declines in their mental capacities in later life, but this is not mentioned in their articles (and in the case of Hayek, at least, it would not be hard to find RS for it). So why did someone think to put it here, of all places? Don't you think that was done for a reason? Do you really expect us to believe that it was done without malice, just because the editor happened to believe it belonged in an encyclopaedia article? -- Zsero (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You have it backwards; I'll repeat, WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Not only is this most likely true, but it's verifiable from an impeccable source, a respected academic whose area of expertise is, in fact, the Lubavitch movement. If you have similar verifiable information about other individuals, feel free to add it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are distorting that. Verifiability is necessary in addition to truth. True but unverifiable things may be taken out; so may "verifiable" but untrue things. Erlich cannot possibly know this first-hand, so he's only as good as his source; meanwhile this is something that it would have been impossible to cover up if it were true, since it would be obvious to everyone who listened to the farbrengens, a set that does not include Erlich. In general what makes him an expert on a subject, when the "peers" who review his work know even less about the subject than he does, and the same goes for his intended audience?

Meanwhile, it's widely known that R J.B. Soloveichik and Dayan Abramsky suffered serious declines in their mental capacity in their later years, and nobody dreams of putting that in their articles. No, I don't have "reliable sources" for it, because none of the authors of such "reliable sources" had the chutzpah to include this information. Erlich should have done the same even if he thought his information was true, which it wasn't. As for Hayek, I can certainly bring reliable sources for his decline, but I won't, out of respect. You should have some respect here and keep this out even if for some reason you believe it to be true, which it isn't. This isn't a gossip column. -- Zsero (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe the 'content' (it's one sentence) of My Encounter with the Rebbe should be merged to this page, with a re-direct left in place to bring those who search by the project name here. I say that because there appear to be no sources from which to source the project and I think it would fit well in this overall page. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Chabad article AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House and if you can raise the quality of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing gushing praise

I've no doubt that someone will put it back, but I've removed a perfectly outrageous piece of gushing praise of the Rebbe. "The Rebbe was and is considered one of the greatest scholars and holiest men from this, past, and future generations. his holiness pervaded the entire world. it was unmatched." Saying that it is unsourced is a terrible understatement. The Rebbe was one of the most controversial figures in modern Judaism, and the fact that one of his followers thinks he was the greatest doesn't justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. As I said, someone will put it back, but it's wrong to do so. Consider it my protest. MikeR613 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It should not be put back, since these words - although true - are clearly overdone from an encyclopedical point of view. But you too should differentiate between the objective greatness of the Rebbe, and the controversities arond him. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebbe's picture

The image Image:Rebbe.jpg is not a free-use image, and has been removed by a bot from my userbox Template:User ChabadnikLubavitcher. Isn't there a free-use image of the rebbe? Isn't it possible to get one? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New Additions Regarding "Vacantly Senile Stare"

The following has been repeatedly re-added:

Following the stroke, some of Schneerson's followers interpreted his "vacantly senile stare" as an indication that he had attained enlightenment and was the Messiah.

I think this is rather POV, especially considering the tenor of the link provided. That article was written by a clearly biased anti-observant Jew who obviously has an axe to grind. I see no firm reference basis to support such a claim and see no reason it has a place in this article—at least not without much more to back it up and a bit of rewording. Your thoughts, everyone? RavShimon (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mark A.R. Kleiman is a Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. To dismiss him as a "biased anti-observant Jew" is quite unfair. He tends to prefer a more low-key style of Judaism, but this doesn't make him "anti-observant," just anti-fundamentalist. This article has far too much hagiography, as indicated by previous complaints, and doesn't adequately address the fringe movement surrounding the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Including this relatively mild criticism is a good step forward. *** Crotalus *** 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that samefacts.com is not considered a reliable source, but is considered "self-published" and is thus it is very uncommon to allow it. The exceptions are encapsulated in WP:V as "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I do not think Dr. Kleiman's expertise in public policy makes him an established expert on the Lubavitch movement, or even Hasidic Judaism, so the source should not be accepted. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This article is primarily about the impact of fundamentalist Judaism on public policy, so it is within Dr. Kleiman's field of expertise. Furthermore, a Washington Post article (reproduced here) indicates that the "messianic belief gained speed — and voice — when Schneerson, who had no children and had not appointed a successor, suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." So that's some backing for the statement that Schneerson's less reality-based followers started to consider him the Messiah as a result of injuries sustained in the stroke. *** Crotalus *** 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with both statements. Firstly, Kleiman is not considered an expert on Lubavitch or Hasidic Judaism. I highly doubt he is even considered an expert on "fundamentalist Judaism" as one paper doth not an expert make. Nor is Lubavitch considered classic "fundamentalist Judaism" anyway. Thus, Kleiman's self-published works on Lubavitch are not acceptable. An example of an allowed self-published source would be quoting James Davila, a Professor of Early Jewish Studies and Principal of a college who has published ten or so works in the field of Second Temple Judaism and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, from his blog PaeloJudaica, a blog devoted to "ancient Judaism and its context". That is an example of a recognized expert with multiple quoted works being quoted from a self-published source that is directly related to his or her expertise. Secondly, the fact that there is "some backing" for the statement may or may not be true, but even if it is, that is your synthesis, Crotalus, and thus cannot be used. The most that can be said is "According to Liz Leyden of the Washington Post, the messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." or something to that effect. I've heard that theory a number of times before, so if we can find another source, we can say "A number of opinions…" or something similar, and not need to identify Ms. Leyden. But I still see no acceptable sources for the "vacantly senile stare" quotation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against such wording because 1. many would disagree with that description 2. it is insulting, and as such simply unacceptable here. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"…messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." is a direct quote, and currently, is attributed to Liz Leyden. It's hard to rephrase direct quotes unless we find an acceptable paraphrase. There still no no acceptable source for the "stare" quote and it is out of the article as of now. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

mentalblog.com as a reliable source

Information in the article is being sourced to mentalblog.com, a blog that was apparently closed in January 2009. How can those inserting the link ensure that it meets the requirements of WP:V? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As said before, the source is not the blog, but the document explayed there. And it is available, for all to see. And can be archieved also, if you'd care to. Debresser (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that this material is accurate? Anyone can create a scanned PDF with anything on it they like. How does the source satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The link is indeed archived, and I have added that to the reference. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What difference if it is archived? So, it was on the blog a couple of years ago. How does that make it reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to use {{Verify source}}, although I recognise the signature, and know this document from other sources as well. Why do you try to discredit this information? Debresser (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So we can use User:Debresser in the footnote? Please provide reliable sourcing for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The information is true, and sourced by two sources now. The blog just made a pdf of a few pages from the book. While blogs may not be the best sources available, there is not discrediting information here that needs the best of sources. What I do not understand yet is whether you are just wikilawyering, or do you have any reason to doubt the source? Or do you perhaps have a conflict of interest? Debresser (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is clearly not a WP:RS, and Wikipedia can only source information to reliable sources. What kind of WP:COI could you possibly mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of enough people who are so convinced of the fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still alive, that they would dismiss the possibility of Schneerson contemplating his possible demise as sacrilegious. Debresser (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And how could this possibly be relevant to me or WP:COI? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not for me to know. But the possibility exists. After all, to doubt a paper source you need some strong motives. Which remiinds me that if you will not show your rationale for having reasonable doubts about the sources you tagged with {{Verify credibility}}, the tags will be removed. Debresser (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on article content, not "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". When someone adds as sources, a) a blog, b) an archived version of that blog, and c) a name of a book but cannot provide a page number, then there are more than reasonable doubts about the sources. I'll quote directly from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with you, not me, and you must provide page numbers when citing books. Now, please abide by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. And I have provided the source. But removing a source because it has no page numbers or quotes, desirable as they may be, is unheard of on Wikipedia. So please stop quoting me things I know by heart. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention that there is a differencebetween what is preferrable and what is reason to remove a source. this seems to be your point of confusion. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the paragraph from WP:V above? I'll quote from it again: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a fundamentally wrongheaded argument. The will itself—a primary sources—is being used as a reference. The use of primary sources is fine for certain sorts of information. WP:V is silent on the manner of republication / collection of primary documents. If the authenticity of the document is questioned, that is a separate question entirely. ^Bongo_matic 05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that PDF on the blog is an accurate representation of Schneerson's will? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As explained at RS/N, that is not a question of reliability of sources, but authenticity of documents. ^Bongo_matic 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the position you have advanced at RS/N. So far 7 others commenting there have disagreed with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heshbono shel olam as a reliable source

What makes the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin a reliable source? Also, regarding this edit, could you please provide a page number and relevant quotation? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a published book be a reliable source, pray tell me? Debresser (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting something published in a book does not guarantee it is a reliable source. Please review WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You really seem to have some problem here. Since when do we have to provide quotations? Or page numbers, for that matter. Go look it up yourself. Your request is preposterous within accepted Wikipedia norms. Debresser (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be very explicit in explaining what "problem" I have. Also, since you used the material in your citation, you need to provide the relevant information, including page number. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says on the documentation page of Template:Verify credibility "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question." When have you had the time to do this? I think you had better remove those tags. Or explain why you doubt their credibility. Debresser (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book, and it's not online. I have attempted to verify the credibility of the source, by asking the person who entered it as a citation what page number the material was on, and for a relevant quotation. I think you had better provide them, per WP:V. Have you even seen the source yourself? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. I have read the whole book, a few years ago. And remember this will. And for sure I recognise the signature of the LUbavitcher Rebbe. And your demand still is preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Debresser (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Memories of books read "a few years ago" by anonymous Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources, and page numbers are a requirement for WP:V on books. Your comments are preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Provide the page number or the source goes. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is the book, not my memory. And although it says a page "should be" provided, nowhere does it say that the lack of a page turns the source into unreliable, or warrant removal. Why do you keep on wikilawyering? Debresser (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The source you have provided is your memory, not the book, which you do not have and haven't seen in years. I'll quote directly from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with you, not me, and you must provide page numbers when citing books, and the only person "wikilaywering" here is you. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin satisfied WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason you are saying the same thing twice? Debresser (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The comments aren't identical. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin satisfies WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just to make sure nobody can accuse me of having a conflict of interest. I personally hold points of view which are in some cases oposite to those brought forth by Lipkin. I just positively can't stand it when people try to censor information. Debresser (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I also "positively can't stand it when people try to censor information"; that's why I've quoted the reliable source (Ehrlich) more fully. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned our disagreement as to the reliability of these sources on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson. I asked for input here. Just now I saw that you had posted there as well, without informing me. Debresser (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also added the source mentioned on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

Know what, give me two days to find the pagenumber in Lipkin's book, ok? Debresser (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No need, since you've given no indication as to why Lipkin's book would be a WP:RS, and an actual WP:RS has been found. I've used that instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the sources, pending the outcome of this discussion and the one at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#mentalblog.com. I find your behavior unbefitting. Please wait untill these discussions are closed. Debresser (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You've also removed all the information I've added from Erlich's book. I suggest you revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source because the author has studied the subject of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe extensively and brings numerous external sources. I want to point out that the website only brings a pfd copy from a few pages of the book, which are themselves only a copy of the original documents. So we are not questioning any conclusions drawn by the author of either website or book. So ultimately, unless we want to accuse people of falisification, there is no sources issue here. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Where can we find out more information about Lipkin and his book? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The PDF stands on its own. Who cares where it's hosted? mentalblog is not the source, the will itself is the source. The signature is clearly visible, and instantly recognisable to anyone familiar with it. If you're claiming that this will was somehow forged, then the burden is on you to give some reason why that is at all likely. Simply objecting to the web site that hosts it is not enough.

Also, what makes Ehrlich's book more reliable than Lipkin's? Erlich is just some shnook who got a book published, just like Lipkin; unlike Lipkin he was never a Lubav, wasn't there during the events in question, and his entire "expertise" consists of having hung around Gershon Jacobson for a few months picking his brain. Getting an academic publisher makes it "reliable"?! Who at the publisher was competent to fact-check it? -- Zsero (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about this Avrum Ehrlich? Full professor of Judaic studies at the Centre of Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies at Shandong University, and honorary Professor in the Dept. of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts, at Sydney University, Australia? The one who has published two books on the Lubavitch movement, and was recently Editor-In-Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora? The guy who is already cited 10 times in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that Avrum Ehrlich. What makes him more reliable a source on this subject than Lipkin? A job at Shandong University?! What sort of credential is that? And yet, as you say, he is cited repeatedly in this article as some sort of authority. So where do you get off challenging Lipkin as a source? In any case, even if we had no Lipkin, the will itself stands on its own. You have not yet given any reason to doubt its authenticity, any reason for us to believe that some master forger fabricated it, signature and all. -- Zsero (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:SPS, and then explain again why the blog or Lipkin satisfy WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not the source. You keep evading that point. The will is the source; the blog is simply a convenient site where one can see an image of it. If there was no online image of the will at all, it would remain a valid source. As for Lipkin and SPS, I'm not impressed; Ehrlich's book may be published by a third party, but so what? Do you imagine that the publisher checked his facts? How would it do that? What conceivable knowledge of the subject could the publisher have, beyond just relying on Ehrlich? There is no such thing as peer review on something like this. That makes SPS irrelevant in this field. -- Zsero (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the blog is the source. Are there any other sources with this same text? As for Ehrlich, he more than complies with the requirements for WP:V and WP:RS, which is what Wikipedia uses to make sourcing decisions, and WP:SPS is never "irrelevant". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How long are you going to keep evading the fact that the blog is not the source, the will is the source. The blog is simply a place where people can look it up. The will would be exactly as good a source if it weren't hosted anywhere at all, and one had to go to the office of public records or somewhere to look it up. Giving a link to the PDF scan makes it more convenient for the reader; challenging it on the grounds that it's a blog by a mentally unstable person is nothing but wikilawyering and gamesmanship.

And yes, SPS is irrelevant and useless. I am not impressed by your arguments from authority; this is not a sport, in which the point is to abide by arbitrary rules. Every rule, guideline, and even policy is only as good as its premise; if the premise makes no sense in some particular context, then it's stupid to follow it. The whole point of guidelines like the ones you're citing is that sources that fit the preferred description are fact-checked, peer-reviewed, and are therefore more likely to be true. Despite what WP:V says, the goal here is truth; the point of this whole enterprise is to build a better encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia that tells the truth is obviously better than one that tells lies. When "reliable sources" are in fact no more reliable than "unreliable" ones, because they are not fact-checked or reviewed by people who know anything about the subject, then they're no better on WP than they are in real life. I know who Ehrlich is and what his "research" consisted of, and that is why I regard him as no more reliable than anyone else, and the fact that KTAV published his book, or that some university in China gave him a professorship, doesn't change anything. -- Zsero (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that the blog is not the source does not make it so. In fact, the blog is the only source provided for the text of the will. Please review the many comments from Fifelfoo, Itsmejudith, Slp1, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Nathan, and me at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com as to why it's not a reliable source. As for WP:V, that's what Wikipedia relies on, despite personal feelings otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the text by Jayjg completely. Then I added the blog as a second source (which seems reasonable to me, even though it is "only" a blog, because it says precisely the same things). Then I added the sentence "He made up two wills" and added a link to the pdf file and the book as places where these document can be found online or inprint, but not as sources of information. I hope this is satifactory for all involved. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For some information about Binyamin Lipkin. I saw an article written with him. It has a picture and calls him the editor of the weekly haredi journal "Bakehila". Debresser (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And that makes him a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It certainly makes him more likely than Ehrlich to know what he's talking about. -- Zsero (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about his reliabiliy as a source as understood in Wikipedia. You asked who the guy is, so I told you what I could find about him. Have you read his book? If you had, you would have know that it is a serious book, involving a lot of research. More about facts, than about interpretations. Anyway, excuse me, but what the hell do you mean with "Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention." If we were to show this to your English teacher, you no doubt would be severely scolded. Could you start speaking normally, please? Debresser (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Zsero, not to you. All claims about the reliability of sources must be stated in terms of Wikipedia's policies. The relevant ones are WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who you were responding to. This is a public talkpage. And you have not rephrased your question in normal English. I am afraid nobody here (and elsewhere, because I asked you the same thing on the noticeboard) understands what your problem is, and what it is you want to hear. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I personally have no preference on how this article is written, but perhaps I can assist with how the dispute is being handled? As a start, might I suggest that everyone please focus on discussing just the content of the article, and not other contributors? For example, try to write posts without using the words "you" and "your". Simply phrasing things in the third person, can often have a remarkable effect at de-escalating disputes.  :) There is also a great deal of useful information at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Those on the WP:RS/N noticeboard have no trouble understanding the concerns regarding Lipkin's work. See, for example, Fifelfoo's comment 1, Fifelfoo's comment 2, Itsmejudiths' comment, and Nathan's comment. WP:SOURCES says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Which of these is Lipkin's book? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I suspect it is neither of these. So it is not among "the most reliable sources". So it will be "just a reliable source". Debresser (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way does it qualify as a "reliable source"? By "reliable source", I mean a source that conforms with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources. For example, what we know about the author (Lipkin) is that at one time he was apparently the editor of a weekly haredi newspaper. Is there anything we know about the publisher of his book? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, since you're adamant on not using blogs and self published material on WP, I assume you would also have no problem deleting other material of that sort from WP, like content from Gil Student [1]. Right? Shlomke (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Of what relevance is this question to this article and me? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without agreeing with the indiscriminate removal of all such sources, I would like to point out that in certain cases that is precisely what needs to be done. And eh, Shlomke, I do hope you are not trying to have somebody else make a pointy edit for you with this link. :) Debresser (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SZero. I've read much of Lipkin's book, and it's clearly well-researched. Just because he doesn't have lots of professorships next to his name, that doesn't mean it should be disqualified. Conversely, may I point out, we've seen plenty of idiotic and ignorant information on this topic coming forth from people with lots of titles. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide whether or not sources are reliable based on whether or not Wikipedia editors vouch for them. It instead relies on the requirements of its verifiability policy and related reliable sources guideline. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Because Jayjg has forgotten to mention it, he has posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blogs_used_as_references. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)