Jump to content

Talk:Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this the man from 'The Tiger In The Well'?

[edit]

'Is this the man from 'The Tiger In The Well'?'i was wondering whether this man was 'Kid Mendel' from Phillip Pullman's the 'Tiger In The Well'. if anyone has any proof or opinions please post the on this page.

No, it isn't. --Kotzker 04:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books Authored

[edit]

I'm wondering why there's no section about the books that he authored. The Rayatz was famous for his writings, which were read by Lubavitchers, mainstram Chasidim, or just anyone interested in the Hasidic way of life and its early period. Anyone have any info on those?

I'm looking specifically for a book called "המאסר והגאולה" (Confinement and Redemption), an autobiographical work by Schneerson about his period of incarceration in Communist Russia? Any info on that would be appreciated. --Kotzker 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Yitzchok

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), the most common name should be used. Among those who knew him, or knew of him (to wit, the Jewsih community), he was known by his Jewish name, not English name. So while his English name may well have been J. Isaac, his more common name was Yosef Yitzchok. -- Avi 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we discuss it, I'd like it unfrozen, so we're on equal terms. But in the meantime, the question isn't how he was known in Hebrew but in English. Please provide contemporary references that called him Yosef Yitzchok. As far as I know you will not find them, because in every contemporary English-language reference he was called Joseph Isaac. And for that matter, that is still how he is generally referred to today, in newspapers, encyclopaedias, etc. In any case, until we sort this out, there is no reason to change the status quo, which is Joseph Isaac. -- Zsero 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read meta:The Wrong Version. It should not be unfrozen until the issues are worked out. -- Avi 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, other than his naturalizaton certificate, wheer is he called JI? Regardless, it is common name that we usually use, and he was much more widely known as YY than JI. See how Moses Feinstein redirects to Moshe Feinstein for an example. -- Avi 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then freeze it as it was, not as Shaul avram decided to change it to. What happened tonight is morally wrong, and it should be corrected before any discussion takes place. In the meantime, consider this: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." In other words, even if we ultimately decide that the page title should be Yosef Yitzchok, the name in the lead paragraph should be his legal name, which was Joseph Isaack, with a K. Zsero 05:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you read up a bit on wiki policy and guidelines. You seem to have somewhat of a misunderstanding how wikipedia works. It was frozen so that discussion can continue, not as to the freezing admin's tacit agreement to what is on the page. If you would have read the essay linked to above, you may have seen that.
Regarding full name,, both Yitzchok Yoseph AND Joseph Isaac are in the lead, so there is no problem with Mos:BIO. -- Avi 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Shaul avram, the person who requested the freeze, has shown no signs of willingness to discuss it. He simply hit and run - made his change and the next minute got it frozen. If you want to freeze something for discussion, freeze it as it was before someone came along and decided to change it. What has happened tonight is morally wrong and I cannot accept it. Why should I discuss anything, when I can just act like Shaul avram and make my changes and get them frozen just by asking? If it wasn't urgent to change this for 3+ years, why is it suddenly so urgent that it must be frozen this way while we discuss it?
Second, Shaul avram should have been penalised for incivility; instead he simply got his way handed to him, and needs to do nothing.
Regarding the full name, it should be as I had it, "Joseph Isaack (Yosef Yitzchok) Schneersohn". His actual English name was Joseph Isaack, with a K. Yosef Yitzchok is an alternative name important enough to be there in brackets. See the example of Bill Clinton. The page title is "Bill Clinton", but the name in the lead paragraph is "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton", not "Bill (William Jefferson) Clinton".
Zsero 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy with Clinton is incorrect, in my opinion. "Bill" is a nickname. "Yosef Yitzchok" is this man's full Jewish name, not a nickname. In Jewish circles, especially Orthodox ones, one is much more well known by one's Jewish name than by ones English name. Further, there are more references to this man, even in the English media/Web, by the name Yosef Yitzchok, not Joseph Isaac. So while I agree Joseph Isaac must be mentioned in the lead, I firmly believe that the main name, and the article title, should remain Yosef Yitzchok. -- Avi 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been at Minyan and Shtieging all morning. I agree w/Avi in that it is better to have everything in the Hebrew Name of said Rebbeim. One of my Rebbeim has a Wiki page, R' Shlomo Porter SHLITA, and note that it is in his Hebrew name (dont ask me for his english name, I dont know it, but I know he has one). That is what he is known as by EVERYONE (Except the Government). Also, this is a note to all the people who spell my name in the Zionist/Sephardic way (I'm not relating the two, they just happen to be similar in this sense) that's not how you spell my name. Its Shaul Avrom. Period end of discussion on that. --Shuli 13:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 Tammuz

[edit]

Is there a good reason to say "3 Tammuz" ("Imprisonment and release") instead of the western date? Especially since "1927" is used. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the books

[edit]

Editors have expressed concern about including sentences on Schneersohn's concern with saving his books. Bryan Mark Rigg's Rescued from the Reich: How One of Hitler's Soldiers Saved the Lubavitcher Rebbe has a lengthy discussion of this, on pages 115, 133-144. Rigg is not unsympathetic to Schneersohn on this topic, but he writes (in part)

The Rebbe, remarkably, seemed concerned most about his library etc. (p. 115)

The Rebbe's obsessive quest on behalf of his library has unsettled many. Historian Ephraim Zuroff, an Orthodox Jew, asks, "How can one justify expending even a small amount of resources and energies to try and save the rebbe's library at a time when the rescue of lives should have taken precedence?" One wonders why no one talked about using the funds and political contacts necessary for retrieving the books to save more Jews, but the Lubavitchers never discussed this matter. (pp. 135-136)

Given that several historians refer to this issue, and, according Rigg, the issue "unsettled many", why would we not mention it in this article? Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berenbaum and Schneersohn

[edit]

This edit seem troubling to some editors here. While the wording definitely needs to be improved, the issue itself appears to be relevant. Michael Berenbaum is indeed critical of Schneersohn's leadership and view of Hitler and God; Bryan Mark Rigg says Scheersohn's "view of Hitler and God is troubling for mostly people, needless to say" (Bryan Mark Rigg, Rescued from the Reich: How One of Hitler's Soldiers Saved the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Yale University Press, 2008, p. 183). Can editors explain their concerns? Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yosef_Yitzchak_Schneersohn&oldid=1205152529"