Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

links

This seems like an excessive amount of links. -- Zoe

Zoe,In order to appreciate the scope and reach of the subject's life's work the links offer an on-going overview.. User:IZAK

Where is the evidence that the majority of Chabad considered him the messiah during his lifetime? If there is no proof, this statement should be eliminated. Incorrect

Family information

Danny, does the brother-in-law info need to be included here, or in a separate article on the Lubavitchers? -- Zoe

Guys, the previous rebbe, Yosef Yitzchok , only had 3 daughters. [One was killed by the nazis with her husband, she was killed on 09/13/1942 (see Days of Chabad, Kehot).] The other married the rebbe Menachem Mendel, the 3rd married Rabbi Gurarie who headed the Lubavitch yeshivas, he pre-deceased Menachme Mendel quietly. He was a quiet person and never a rival. He did have a son tho, Barry, who dropped out of Lubavitch completely, who was very critical of the movement and had no interest whatsoever in being their leader. The guy with the "strimel" is not even a relative I believe, he is just someone who wrote some books about the movement and arbitrarily decided to make himself a successor.Needless to say, no-one either inside or outside the movement took him seriously. There is NO successor, period. User:IZAK

I don't know what you mean about the "guy with the strimel," but I'll assume you mean the "Liozner," who isn't really taken all that seriously. You are wrong, however, about the Rashag. When the previous Rebbe passed away, both the Rebbe and the Rashag (R' SHmaryahu Gourari) declared themselves Rebbe (The Rebbe waited a year to do so officially). Many of the old guard Chassidim openly though that the nasius would pass to the Rashag rather than the Rov who was at that point known as the "Ramash." It was mostly the younger Chassidim who eventually made it clear that the Rebbe was going to be the successor rather than the Rashag. To say he was never a rival is untrue. However, when the nasius was decided, he quickly became a follower of the Rebbe, and was publicly very close with the Rebbe. --Meshulam 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to sure about, I live in Sydney and we have a sliach called Rabbi Michoel Gurarie (somewhere in his 40s) and I think he is the son or grandson of Rabbi Gurarie which married the Rebbe Rayatz's daughter... I'll ask him or one of his sons to comment on this, the next time I see one of them (probably be after Shabbos, as its already Thursday night in Sydney) 220.233.48.200 11:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The brother-in-law became, a year or two after Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok's passing, a devoted follower of Rabbi Menachem Mendel - going as far as separating from his wife when she moved out of their apartment in "770" to live with, and support, her son.

Rabbi Michoel Gurary is probably related but he is certainly not a son or grandson of Rabbi Shmaryahu Gurary (the Rashag). The Rashag only had one child, Barry, and he recently passed away - childless.

Let's not make this a hagiography

Could certainly be included here. Essentially, what I was trying to say to IZAK is that this is a hagiography, not an article, and that the subject is still at the center of a virulent controversy. Danny

Danny and Zoe:

"hagiography means dealing with saints", which is not the case here. What we have is an exceptionally gifted spiritual leader who was able to "come from behind" and build a huge movement. This is a feat of leadership and organizational ablities, not sainthood.
That he was able to "think outside of the box" and was able to inspire a large cadre of loyal devotess to do his bidding, and influence presidents and prime ministers to boot, requires some insight into how the hasidic system actually works.
That he was controversial and misunderstood comes with the occupational hazard of being nothing less than a religious revolutionary with a burning zeal for Lubavitch Judaism.That's simply who he was, before the hunt for warts begins.
This wikipedia piece tries to make sense of the human dynamics of a highly charged spiritual leader, perhaps to his followers he is a saint, but even so, they are very down-to -earth people, and can be dealt with as such.
WE are not dealing with dry atoms, or impersonal cells under a microscope. Religious and spiritual subjects deserve the respect of a skeptical reader.
Forget Judaism for a moment.How could one explain the workings of Hinduism and Gurus, without trying to understand a spiritaual system that has more than a Billion devotees, without trying to get some sense of what it is that makes a guru a guru, and what does it mean to have extra-ordinary spiritual powers supposedly to levitate, believe in cows as holy, and fight demons, and be vegetarian for religious reasons as well.
Similarly, how to understand that about TWO Billion people on Earth are believers in a personal saviour and a dead super saintJesus who they claim to be a son of god,no less, and that there are religious leaders involved encouraging these beliefs?Or should two billion Christians, and a billion Hindus, as well as another billion Moslems be dismissed with the wave of a cyber-hand and simply stay away from this web-site simply because people are uncomfortable with looking at things in different dimensions? Not everyone on Earth is an atheist or agnostic, in fact very few people are, and they always make the mistake of thinking that it's the "other guy" who is "narrow-minded".
Does one have to have a cloud of "political correctness" descend upon deeper analysis, or should one take into account the inner dynamics of belief in Jesus as the Messiah, holy Hindu animals, and sacred Islamic worship of the kaba in Mecca, when dealing with religious subjects? It cannot be done in purely "clinical" terms. Similarly with Orthodox Judaism which is neither a passive state of affairs nor does it have a passive mind-set.After all, the Talmudical method sharpens the mind and makes one think, deeper, analytically, and more profoundly.
One needs to get a sense of what the system is like, taking into account BOTH the understandings of those on the inside looking out with those who suppose they are on the "outside looking in". There has to be a lot of synthesis and merging of perspectives to arrive at a semblance of ACCURACY if not TRUTH.
The ultimate question is do we want to look through windows and look far beyond out our own limited pre-conceived ideas about religion or the spiritual domain, or do we want to look into mirrors that reflect only what we see of ourselves a few inches ahead of our noses. The intelligent and objective scholar always looks for a window of opportunity rather that the stultification of "Political Corrections" which is just plain old boring.

Anyhow, this is an on-going discussion, thanks for the feed-back. User:IZAK

Danny,first must come a description of Rabbi Schneerson and his accomplishments, which are really of major and global proportions. I am not a devotee of Lubavitch, but I do believe that objectively speaking its accomplishments are so massive, that whatever crticisms may be levelled at it pale in scale to what the movement does, and this is due to Rabbi Schneerson's work. Who has even heard of the brother-in-law problem, and what does a family dispute that is long gone have to do with so vast a success as the world-wide Chabad movement? Berger's book has come after the Rebbe's death, and is directed at a minority clique. To me it seems more a case of sour grapes ex post facto of the life of Rabbi Schneerson. If you hate Lubavitch you will love Berger's book. But Berger is just a minor writer/lecturer and pales in the shadow of Lubavitch's work. As for the messianic urge within Hasidism, it has always been a part of the over-all movement and from time to time it spills over, but life still goes on as normal (even for a meshichist) as proof that the Messianic age has still not dawned on earth. User:IZAK

For someone who claims not be a devotee, your words both on the original page and here belie that. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a list of saints. -- Zoe

Zoe, See my remarks above. Some people think that President Kennedy was a "saint". Why? Did he do anything during hid life to earn him that title? Probably not. Are all Orthodox Jews "sinners", as some feel and imply, and it is only the more liberal branches that are "saints" by dint of them merely not being orthodox in the first place? Obviously not. Especially since Judaism does not believe in Saints at all. A Tzadik is not a "saint". It takes a lot of hard work to be successful at the top, and it's that hard work of our subject that needs to be appreciated in order to gain some meaningful insght into a very complex personality and his legacy.User:IZAK

IZAK, this article is reverting back to hagiography. "all strata"? -- Zoe

It's only a complicated history when you try to present a combination of fact and fiction as fact. Danny

Photo is too large

The current photograph of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is too big. Can we replace it with a more compressed version? RK

After your comment I in fact reduced to a smaller size/fit. IZAK

Matters of dispute

PhatJew wrote "The following discussion is largely based on controversial opinions of various sources. The reader would do well to check all assertions. There is a bitter and continuing battle within Orthodox Judaism being fought over the Legacy of the Rebbe. The following facts, figures and generalizations are all matters of dispute."

I removed this for now, because your comments are vague and thus unproductive. Could be more specific? Are you disputing the statement that most Chabad Lubavitch Jews are now messianic? Or are you disputing something else? Please feel free to contribute, but contribute something a bit more concrete. (BTW, the only studies I have seen on this subject have been by Orthodox Jews, and all agree that Chabad Jews are now messianic. This also corresponds to my personal experience, as most Chabad Jews I have met are now messianic.) RK 01:57 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to take out all the Bergerisms and actually replace them with real facts. I hope you will excuse the framing of the controversy as a Hasidic versus Litvak thing...but that is basically a fact. If anybody denies that the cleavage is along the exact same lines as the Vilna Gaon and Baal Shem Tov, we can have a discussion about it and hammer out something acceptable. I really would have preferred to move the whole discussion to a page about the Hasidism and its opponents...but I only have so much time. PhatJew

The link to Labor is ambiguous. Can someone who knows the context please fix it? Thanks. Rossami 05:17, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Charge that the Rebbe was a racist

Unfortunately the debate on accuracy is missing the viewpoint of non-Jews from it. From a non-Jewish viewpiont the Rebbe was a racist supremacist Jew who sought to impose Talmudic law on all peoples (the Talmud itself for Jews, the Noahide laws ("One World Religion") on non-Jews). Indeed the US Congress, from Reagan on through Clinton, honored the Rebbe and the Noahide laws every year as part of Education Day (I hope that the Congressmen and Presidents who supported those measures are simply unaware of what the Noahide laws are and mean . . . ). Why are the supremacist and highly objectionable elements of the Rebbe's teachings not found in his Wikipedia page, which instead is consumed with some form of idolatry? Are the page authors in agreement with the supremacist viewpoints and the deep hatred toward Christianity, Islam and other religions reflected in them, and hence unwilling to highlight them to to the rest of the world? You cannot really understand the scope and depth of the Rebbe's supremacism without reading some of his most hateful writings, and I would suggest the site http://www.noahide.com/index2.htm to start with (not because it is his website but it conveniently sets forth many of his views). At http://www.noahide.com/son.htm, for example, we hear the supremacist view that "the Jewish people" are the first-born "special" children of God - "all of them", even though none of the current Jews was alive at the time of Exodus -, and nobody else is such a special child of God, based on a totally biased, false and dishonest interpretation of the Exodus passage 4:22-23. We also hear about a plan to impose rabbinical courts and Noahide laws on all the "Gentiles" who would then become "Hasidic Gentiles". See e.g. http://www.noahide.com/7laws.htm . I really hope Wikipedia will be more than just another propaganda / worship / idolatry vehicle but remains objective and presents issues from more than the side of the supremacist's supporters ! Sage

The fello writing the above remarks most be a lost soul, to state that the fact that jews claim that they are the first born is untrue witout bringing any proof is ludacris, and "hasidic courts"? the comandment clearly states courts of law, as in a justice system like what we have in this country as opossed to other places where it is courupt and where u can bribe judges.

Click the "Edit this page" link at the bottom of the article, and you can edit the article. Just be aware of our policy of neutrality (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). --snoyes 16:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am certainly no supporter of Rabbi Schneerson, but Sage's comments are out of line. Rabbi Schneerson has not written hateful things about gentiles. He has no secret plan to force his will through rabbinic courts on gentiles, or even on other Jews (Sage's "One World Religion). Sounds like a conspiracy theory! Sage's comments represent a naive reading, of Schneerson's beliefs. In regards to the specific points that Sage makes, the truth is that Scheneerson is probably no more "hateful" or "bigoted" than most Christian clergy. Doesn't nearly all of Christianity say that all people must become Christian, and follow Christian dogma? (Yes.) A lesser position is being held here. Hasidic Orthodox Jews do not believe that all gentiles must convert to Judaism; they only believe that, someday, they should all follow the seven Noahide laws. And a big point is that Sage doesn't even understand what these laws are; both Christianity and Islam already accept and teach these same laws! RK

Not exactly, our sages tell us if a Goy (non-Jew), wants to convert we should tell him off (e.g. screem at him) as he shouldn't make his life harder for him self, because now he has 7 laws, but if he becomes a Jew he has 613 laws. It is totally forbiden to promote the Goy - even in the smallest way - and we are commanded convince him its a bad idea. If we fail convincing and wants he to convert then he must learn the laws before he is able to convert, and we are allowed to promote him, as soon as he started learning the laws and not before this, to be able to convert. (For the non-hebrew speaks: In Hebrew the male word normally includes the female word, so when I say he I also am including she.)

And in the topic on what you said about, "He has no secret plan to force his will through rabbinic courts on gentiles." The Rebbe has stated his opinion on how certain systems are doing certain not in the best way, such as, how to educate a child why he should learn while he still is a child. The Rebbe said we should not educate the child, the reason to "why he should learn now?" (instead of playing), is that he is able to make a living in the future. The Rebbe beleived that the child does not fully understand what it means to make a living, as they are supported by their parents (so saddly this may not apply to third world places). The Rebbe proposed a better way, we should educate the child why it benefits the child now to learn now. This is one of the many things the Rebbe wrote about that is slowly being accepted by the world, but no means is the Rebbe forcing anyone but some reason the world is accepting his logic. If your interested for more of the Rebbe's opinions for some of your own real research, you can find them with in the collection of the letters from the Rebbe, which is printed by Kehot Publication Society and with the english letters being printed by Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch. 220.233.48.200 09:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What are the Noahide laws? The Talmud contains a list of seven commandments that Jews believe God required of the children of Noah, i.e. all humanity. These laws are: (1) to establish laws, and to refrain from (2) idolatry, (3) blasphemy, (4) sexual immorality, (5) bloodshed, murder, (6) theft, and (7) the tearing of a limb from a living animal for food. Jewish theology holds that gentiles need follow only these laws to be considered moral. There is no demand for gentiles to convert to Judaism; they implicitly allow non-Jews to have their own religions. Many Orthodox rabbis teach that the second law implicitly is a positive commandment to believe in God, but some argue that this is not the original meaning of the verse. The rabbis spent more time defining and prohibiting idolatry than they did describing God and demanding belief in a specific theology. In a surprisingly liberal and pluralistic view for the third century, one sage in the Talmud states "Whoever denies idolatry is called a Yehudi (Jew)." (Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, 13a). Even earlier, in the second century the Tosefta declared "the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come." (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13) So how is this racist?! It isn't.

In the end, both fundamentalist Christians and Jews see the world as following the precepts of their faith. The Christians see the world converting to Christianity. The Jews see the world following the Noahide laws. You can agree or disagree with either view, but neither of these are hatespeech, racism or bigotry. RK 13:35, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if there is any hate speech out there it is that of the Christains and Muslims, both group claim that unless one belongs to their religion that person is doomed to hell; the Jewish view, correctly stated above, is that all good people of whatever religion get to heaven. So which religions out there propogate hate?Incorrect 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is one significant charge of racism that could be brought against Rabbi Schneerson, and against Chabad Lubavitch Jews in general. In addition to following the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish oral law, and the classical rabbinic literature, they also accept the teachings of a relatively recent Hasidic mystical work, the Tanya. Some sections of this work do contain racist statements. This issue is discussed in the article on the idea of the chosen people. However, note that just because we find words in a book doesn't mean that everyone who reads that book believes everything in it literally. All Christians accept the New Testament, but today many Christians now reject its teaching that the the Jews are the children of the Devil. (Many Christians, sadly, do still have this belief. The point is that many others do not.) I personally believe that it is irresponsible to use any of the Tanya, ever, without first discussing the ethically troublesome parts, and repudating the specific sections which contain bigoted teachings. Most Chabad rabbis, including Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, unfortunately do not do this. They preach an uncritical acceptance of the Tanya, and often seem to ignore the ethically troublesome parts by cognative dissonace. As such, Chabad Lubavitch Jews have come under heavy criticism from within the Jewish community for this. RK 13:43, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

The above written by someone who doesn't understand Tanya. Jews have never interpreted their sacred text in a literal manner, that's what all that rabbinical discourse is all about. Study Tanya with a Jewish scholar (and that doesn't include the Kabal Center) and you will understand.

---

This Criticism is obviously not unauthorized probably, sees also the "Rabbinerbriefe" Cui Bono 17:37, Jan 16, 2004

Edit war notice

There is an edit war going on between myself and the devout, if un-Wikipedic, 68.237.36.204, who accuses me of abuse thereby. Any moderator who sees this before I report it, please look into the page history.

Fire Star 14:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

to Fire Star

why aren't you taking any notice of the evidential facts? Wikipedia user --68.237.36.204 17:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Please know that I am in no way prejudiced against the Rebbe or Hasidism, and am interested in having a good informative page on them. It is just that the neutrality requirements of a public forum such as Wikipedia require that statements be made in a way that allows people to gather information in a safe, credible atmosphere. Scholars are reasonable people, and in this scholarly environment reason will attract more interest than blanket statements which appear "preachy." What do you think?

Regards,

Fire Star 17:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Hi all, Interesting debate as I have not been around a while. Question: Who locked this page up and when will it become open? It needs some edits.

One observation I have is that you CANNOT expect "people of faith" (or "true believers" or whatever you want to call them) to see things as would secular, "non-religious", (who are perhaps even atheists and agnostics) devoted to a "scientific" point of view! You also cannot expect Jewish Orthodox (Haredi) rabbis to shed their Judaism steeped in Torah, Talmud, and even Jewish mysticism, as for example taught in Tanya, to suddenly "sound" like "born-again" Reform or Humanist rabbis whose world view tends to incorporate elements of Western-style Humanism and Liberalism. Secular scientific persons who are not favorable and partial towards religion cannot claim to have "objectivity". People who are opposed or confused about Orthodox Judaism CANNOT shout that passages of religious texts need to be "repudiated" when not in harmony with the reader's more liberal world view. This can be taken to absurd extremes, such as in Communist Russia which edited out all mention of God in any publication because of their "scientific Marxism-Leninism".

So it's best to have in mind that there is a genuine divide between the way religious Jews see things and those who are not, and between the way people faith who are believers in God see things and those who thin k that they may be crazy. After all, Freud believed that belief in God was a psychological "reaction formation" and that religion is suspect. So are we then to put all religion and and its leaders into a proverbial Freudian "straight-jacket" too? Just some thoughts. --IZAK 11:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IZAK: Freud... Tanya... I wish you'd get to the point. The page was locked because User:Chabad was dumping stuff here that had not been written with any form of POV in mind. He was pushing Psak Din.net and uploaded two big scans of the "psak din" to substantiate his agenda. He also changed everything into the present tense - it's very POV to claim that someone isn't dead while he is.

Orthodox Jews do not have to change their agenda, and are equally not required to falsify history. I think there's a problem linking this article messiah ten times and providing "psak din" links whenever possible.

I personally think the page can be unlocked. User:Chabad has gone away, having made his last edit in April. Perhaps I'll unprotect it myself in a few days, when I'm convinced this article will not again turn into a hagiography that has no pertinence to a non-Jewish secular encyclopedia-reader.

JFW | T@lk 13:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfd: I was NOT talking about the issues you mention at all. The "Messianists" are nuts for thinking that they can get away with their drivel. I was referring to a more general challenge of reconciling the way "people of faith" view issues vs. the secular outlook of those who may be athiests, in the world of Wikipedia. Often-times secular minded persons will fire off comments that a statement is "POV" because it presents a "Believer's" outlook, and the problem then becomes that does one have to be "anti-religion" (or whatever the criterion is for espousing "NPOV") in order to comment "objectively" on religious subjects? This is just a general dilemma that exists. Obviously, Wikipedia is not the place to "preach" any doctrines, but often-times it becomes very difficult to fully convey what that doctrine really is in a clinical and true fashion when "under the gun" of "Doctrinaire NPOV" (how's that for a new concept). In the context of Lubavitch, one cannot grasp what their whole system is without really seeing it "from within", so to speak. IZAK 01:35, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I disagree. The easiest way to introduce this information is by saying: "xxx's followers maintain that their leader could fly". This is factual, NPOV and keeps everybody happy: the atheist outsiders, who believe that flying is for birds and bats, and the followers, who see their POV reflected in the article's content. See my Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler for an attempt at writing a POV-neutral article on an influential orthodox leader. JFW | T@lk 09:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Jfd my good man: What you have just said sounds like an over-simplification if ever there was one. It would be like attempting to compress and explain complex abstract poetry by concretizing and literalizing the poet's words into things he never said or even meant to say in any way. This method will never work to convey the captivating magic and beauty of poetry, let alone something as complex and spiritual as Judaism. Methinks, you are thinking too much like the scientist, and not enough as the man of the spirit, when in fact a blending of the two could only lead to a true balanced NPOV, don't you think? IZAK 06:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, of course this is an oversimplication, but Wikipedia is not meant for captivating religious fervor. It documents historical and influential "memes" (yes, it's a Richard Dawkins word and therefore tainted) in human knowledge. I would argue that words by definition fall short in captivating religious experience, but this is especially so when the audience does not share your terminology. JFW | T@lk 08:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Continued on IZAK's talk page

Protection removed

I have removed protection for now, but User:192.115.106.236 is discouraged from introducing links to the King Messiah site, except in the (external links) section, and then no more than two.
This article should be on the person of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and his biography, his ideas and their influence. Let us limit references to his acts as a miracle worker and the fact that many followers ascribe messianic qualities to him. A brief mention should do for this encyclopedia, which is mainly read by people who do not need to be convinced as to his statue - they just want to know what he was about.
Please consult with an administrator before making extensive changes; this will decrease the likelihood of this article getting blocked in the future. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I am concerned about the proliferation of links about Chabad, as well as the sudden disappearance of the paragraph on Prof. Berger. You might not like professor Berger, but his thoughts on the way Chabad deals with The Rebbe's memory are definitely encyclopedic. I you don't like the style of the paragraph, try to make it sound more neutral, but don't vandalize by simply removing it.

Concerning the Chabad links: please only include links to sites dealing directly with the person of The Rebbe, and not with sites outlining Chabad thought, however enmeshed the two might be. The reader will go to Chabad if they want that kind of material. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?

The article still displays an {{NPOV}}, and I was wondering if this still applies. The edit warring over this article has ceased after a period of protection, and nothing much has changed (apart from the occasional link vandal) since I unprotected it.
Shall we remove the NPOV tag? After all, the page is not much more hagiographic than pages on some other 20th century rabbis. JFW | T@lk 08:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have done a rather basic rewrite, and structured some stuff. There is still a fair bit of NPOVing to do. Some things that are presently under "biography" can probably go under other headers. Also, some sections may benefit from trimming. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One more instance of unilateral deletions and/or linkspamming, and I will reprotect this article. User:Chabad and User:24.46.133.125 have been warned. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, User:EPTes provided the final straw. His comments are awaited below. Failing that, this article will be protected until 2 September. Sensible editors may contribute changed paragraphs below, which will be inserted into the article by an administrator. JFW | T@lk 15:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Biopgrahy section

The "Biopgrahy" title should be "Biography". Jayjg 15:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Corrected JFW | T@lk

Unprotected again- let the Berger deletions begin!

The page has been unprotected; anyone want to take any bets on how long it is before the Berger paragraph is deleted? Jayjg 18:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After Shabbos. They'll still not be mechalel shabbos to glorify the Rebbe's memory. JFW | T@lk 18:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ha! It took them 5 days. Jayjg 02:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Atzmus: God enclothed in a human body

User:Truthaboutchabad is entitled to inserting apologetics, but the explanation about Godly essence in a Rebbe is confusing. If it refers to the Godly soul in everyone, why is a Rebbe singled out? I will remove a further re-insertion if no clarification is given. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Rebbe is singled out, just like every other Tzaddik and person that dedicates his life to serving G-d, in which case, he doesn't have anything covering over his soul, (The soul in itself is pure and part of G-d, when we do something against G-d the sould is concealed and gets covered over, [see Tanya]) because he only does what G-d wants, therefore his soul is revealed, as opposed to you and me that we have done things wrong in our lives, therefore our souls aren't in a revealed states as by the Rebbe or anyother Tzaddik.--Truthaboutchabad 23:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In truth that whole part should be taken out, there is no need to discuss every difficult concept that has explanations. Just like under Judaism it doesn't go into detaide philosophys and beliefs of every strange Jewish custom, and in the Replublican section it doesn't go into long discusssions of every hard to understand Republican concept and so on.......--Truthaboutchabad 23:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TAC, you have reinserted a paragraph that makes absolutely no sense. You cannot expect your audience to be literate in Likutei Amarim, uh? JFW | T@lk 00:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then leave out that whole paragraph, if you are going to make an accusation then you must let a response, if you don't understand the response then you don't understand the accusation.--Truthaboutchabad 00:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what the NPOV warning is for. What is the problem? I'd like to discuss, rather than battle your insertions.

The statement about atzmus is confusing. Initially the paragraph states that only a Rebbe has "Godly features", yet later you claim that every Jew has an immortal soul etc. If you rephrase it so everybody understands the paragraph is certainly not a problem. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is unfair to make an accusation without hearing an explanation, since this page is describing Menachem Mendel Schneerson, therefore the Chabad Lubavitch viewpoint should be on the same page. This term refers to the G-dly soul, which is found in everyone, (and by a Tzaddik who does whatever G-d wants, his soul [which is part of G-d]is revealed in the body.) (See Tanya chapter 2, and a sefer called "Al HaTzadikim, writteb by R' Avraham Pavzener and published by Kfar Chabad.) The Rebbe is singled out, just like every other Tzaddik and person that dedicates his life to serving G-d, in which case, he doesn't have anything covering over his soul, (The soul in itself is pure and part of G-d, when we do something against G-d the sould is concealed and gets covered over, [see Tanya]) because he only does what G-d wants, therefore his soul is revealed, as opposed to you and me that we have done things wrong in our lives, therefore our souls aren't in a revealed states as by the Rebbe or anyother Tzaddik. If the Chabad Lubavitch explanation is too hard for one to understand, this is because complicated concepts can't be written in one paragraph, if somone feels that because they don't understand the concept and don't have the time to properly understand it they will remove the explanation, then they should also remove the opposition section as well.--Truthaboutchabad 02:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TAC, please stop. I have absolutely no patience for your repeated insertion of exactly the same paragraph that I previously identified as unintelligble. The sentences are circuitous, and you have made no effort to rewrite it (you make the same mistake, writteb, in all articles where you insert it). JFW | T@lk 10:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beliefs such as atzmus may have begotten Christianity - suppose Jesus was a tzaddik and someone blew the fact out of proportion? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rickyrab, I don't know why you posted this here, you may want to read the tzaddik article, and the Jewish view of Jesus article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

First off, I want to commend JFW on keeping this article impartial.

If I can suggest some changes to the article. Toward the beggining of the article, I think that "Their last names differed: The new Rebbe spelled his name "Schneerson", without the "h" of his predecessors' "Schneersohn"." isn’t really necessary and takes away from the "cleanness" of the article. What's the point, both the Rebbe and previous Rebbe spelled their names the same way in Hebrew (with a "hey") - as they were relatives, except when they came to America one accepted the english spelling with and "h" and one without. I think the “(with an “h”)” in the beginning should suffice.

In the "Vision" section, third paragraph, regarding "mitzvah campaigns" this is lacking some information. The Rebbe initiated a mitzvah campaign of ten Mitzvot and Nohide laws for gentiles.

Citing Maimonides, the Rebbe repeated time and again: a single person performing a single mitzvah, could be the deed that tips the scales and brings redemption to the entire world and all of creation.

So the Rebbe initiated a "Mitzvah campaign" a call to every Jew: Even if you are not fully committed to a Torah life, to do a Mitzvah. The Rebbe suggested ten possible "beginner's" mitzvot - precepts which, because of their centrality to the Torah's guide to life, are ideally suited for a first experience of the mitzvah connection.

1. Light Shabbat candles, 2. Tefillin, 3. Mezuzah,.4.. Torah Study, 5. Tzedakah (charity), 6. A home filled with holy books, 7. Kashrut (Jewish dietary laws), 8. "Love your fellow as youself," 9. Education, and 10. Observe Family Purity (laws pertaining to menstruation and ritual immersion afterwards in a pool of water known as a Mikvah). (belief in moshiach was not one these ten, rather perhaps the goal of the campaign as a whole).

Honorifics

Please provide Lubavitch sources which put the usual honorifics for the dead (e.g. a"h, z"l, z"tl) after Schneerson's name. Examples from official Lubavitch websites would be appreciated as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that th recent disput over the stone in front of 770, shows where most of Lubavitchers feel as seen that almost everybody supported the one with those words of z"tl and a"h--Truthaboutchabad 05:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See this letter (2 pages) for the official and popular viewpoint. Media:letter1.jpg Media:letter2.jpg --Truthaboutchabad 05:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The letter doesn't make it clear which version of the plaque had which words. Can you be clearer? Can you also list the publications or websites which use these honorifics? By the way, in your view is Schneerson dead? Just a "yes" or "no" response, please, nothing longer. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look at any book or publication published from the third of Tammuz 1994 and on, by Kehot, which is the official publishing house of chabad, and they use those titles. The letter was written in response to the removal of those terms from the front of 770 by a small group of people not affiliated with the people in charge of 770.--Truthaboutchabad 05:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about you scan something, ok? And could you find a link to an official website that uses them as well please? Otherwise I think we're going to have to go back to "most", rather than "many". Oh, and by the way, in your view is Schneerson dead? Just a "yes" or "no" response, please, nothing longer. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will try to scan something later, however you can go to a bookstore and take a look yourself as well. I will be switching my username from Truthaboutchabad to PinchasC.--Truthaboutchabad 06:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you don't think he's dead then. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into a discussion about this because an encyclopedia is about facts not personal opinions, however since you keep bringing this up I will try to explain. I am uncomfortable with the word "dead" because it implies that the person that is here is no longer there at all. However I feel that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still leading and guiding us just like before, similiar to Shimshon that he led the Jewish people for twenty years after his passing (discussed in Yershalmi Sota Chapter 1 Halacha 8). So in response to your question is he "dead", in 1994 he passed away, However the passing of a Tzaddik is different than the passing of an average person as explain in Tanya Iggeret Hakodesh letter 27 and other places Therefore his passing doesn't stop him from continusaly leading us.--PinchasC 06:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pinchas, will you concede that this is a bit counterintuitive? To be led by a spiritual entity, one would need some form of revelation. Apart from the endless jokes about the fax machines in the Ohel, how does the Rebbe provide guidance to his flock? Also: who has decided that the Chazal in Yerushalmi Sotah and the Iggeres ha-Kodesh #27 apply to him? JFW | T@lk 11:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So do you think there are other Jewish leaders who have "passed" but are not quite "dead"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell on those jps it refers to him as "Admor", which would indicate that he is still alive. Is there something in the fine print I'm not seeing. Also, do you think there are other Jewish leaders who have "passed" but are not quite "dead"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

admor stands for our teacher, and in chabad all Rebeimim are refered to by that name. What is explained in Tanya Iggeret Hakodesh letter 27 seems to appy to all Tzadikim.--PinchasC 06:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, admor stands for "out master, our teacher, our Rabbi", and, as far as I have seen is applied exclusively to the living; do you have examples of it being applied to other dead people? Second, was there anything in those pictures that indicated he had died? I couldn't see it but the type was small. Third, can you name another tzadik who as "passed" but not "died"? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, see this http://store.kehotonline.com/images/har-sm66.1.jpg which can be found at http://store.kehotonline.com/index.php?stocknumber=HAR-SM66.1&deptid=3240&parentid=62&page=1&itemsperpage=10 which is about the Alter Rebbe.

Second, see the line either right after his name or below that, it may help to download the picture onto your computer and to zoom in.

Third, name any person that is a Tzadik, and it seems like Tanya Iggeret Hakodesh letter 27 is applying to him as well.

OK, now how about something that says Schneerson is dead; is the font just too small on those other pictures for me to make it out? Also, what I was asking is if you knew of any "tzadikim" who have "passed" but not "died". Are there any "tzadikim" who Lubavitch thinks have "passed" but not "died", aside from Schneerson? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the picture isn't a high quality one and on the original book it is very clear. I would suggest saving the picture onto your computer (right click and click save) and zooming in. Lubavitchers follow the Tanya, and in Tanya it states that every Tzaddik is in that status. I think your queestion is more like does Lubavitch think that there are any other Tzadikim besides Lubavitch. In response I quote from the first chapter in Tanya quoting a Gemara in Yoma 38b, "The Almighty saw that the righteous were few, so He arose and planted them in every generation" It seems from here that there are some in every generation. Obviously those that are on a lower level of a tzadik for example what is refered to as a "beinoni of Tanya" never did anything wronk as explained at length in the first 15 chapters in Tanya that I will NOT explain here the diffrences between a tzaddik and a Beinoni. --PinchasC 07:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here should be a clearer picture http://store.kehotonline.com/samples/images/ere-torastxt1.gif--PinchasC 07:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Pinchas, I'm very unhappy that this page is turning into a Tanya class. The questions are now: (1) Do all Chabad members believe that the Rebbe has passed without dying? (2) If not, how do the other interpret Iggeres ha-Kodesh chapter 27? (3) Which authorities have decided that the Yerushalmi applies to the Rebbe (or any other Tzaddik, for that matter)? JFW | T@lk 10:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to turn it into a Tanya class, however to answer certain questions that I have been asked over and over I answered them. In responce to one, All chabad members believe this in regards to every Tzaddik including the Rebbe. Regarding two, I have never heard of any other interpatations of Iggeres ha-Kodesh chapter 27. In regards to the Yerushalmi, I believe that this is based on a feeling of chassidim and statements of the Rebbe regarding the previous Rebbe that if had led us until now he will surely continue leading us later as well.--PinchasC 00:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shame on you Jayjg for harping on about Pinchas's personal beliefs (and JFW for mentioning it too). The issue at hand is not whether Pinchas believes the Lubavitcher Rebbe to be alive, but rather whether the honorific traditionally used for the dead is widely used in Lubavitch. What makes you even think you can interrogate him about his personal beliefs?!? Pinchas, please do not deign to answer such ridiculously irrelevant questions (and perhaps look into reporting abuse if they persist). And JFW why are you blaming Pinchas for "turning it into a Tanya class"? Have you not been following the thread??

About the actual topic: there is nothing wrong with believing that a tzaddik has passed away (as I believe the Rebbe has) yet believing that they still are present in this world in a spiritual sense (more than a regular person - who also "leaves behind" a certain residual influence). The Tanya quoted above deals with this but the source for that particular statement is the Zohar (and it is written there as referring to all tzaddikim).

Having clicked on the link myself it is perfectly clear that the honorific zy"a is written there, and even you Jayjg could have read it if you had but wanted to - it is exactly the same size as the admor part (which you apparently had no trouble reading!). Stop being obdurate and concede the point.

The title admor does not in any way mean that the person is alive, insisting that it does merely illustrates one's ignorance. Were I to have the time I would bring you countless examples from a vast range of sources where admor is used referring to someone who has already passed away (albeit with the, halachically mandated, honorifics following the name).Leibel 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Pinchas, you seem to object to the latest edits to this article and Chabad Lubavitch; what specifically bothered you about them? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

unsourced pov, irrelevant links, and statements that need explanation and clarification (for example the igrot thing, which actually stems from the vilna gaon, who used to open up a chumash in the same way) Anything in particular that you were wonsering about?--PinchasC 04:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it just seems that there is this strong Messianic group within Lubavitch about which you seem to want to suppress any knowledge or mention; you don't allow a discussion of their beliefs in the articles, or any links to their sites. Why is that? They information they provided seemed to be well sourced with plenty of links. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is already in the articles about chabad and Menachem Mendel Schneerson, However if you have more information, put it in in a sourced and non POV way, that is what wikipedia is about. (In regards to the links, See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson&diff=11705646&oldid=11694708--PinchasC 15:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) See as well

Additionaly at the chabad article see

Also interesting is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=4285274&oldid=4187361 --PinchasC 16:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the links themselves, but the changes to the article; what specifically did you object to? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the chabad article the changes made by the anonymous user was adding a long list of links. In this article the changes made by the anonymous user was mostly adding links, and two paragraphs regarding other things, the first paragraph was about those that have the custom to open a book of letters from the Rebbe as a way to receive answers to their questions, however this paragraph was not written with the correct expanation of what it is all about and without the historical context. The second paragraph was a POV, and not factually true, a website doesn't qualify as "paralel fundraising and educational institutions". --PinchasC 02:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Literally contacting the rebbe through reading his books

It is an important theological phenomenon that many - probably most - Chabadniks believe that they can still communicate with rabbi Schneerson. I have seen this done myself (although I doubt that the "answer" actually came from R. Schneerson.) The point is that many Chabadniks do this, while most other Orthodox Jews would never do such a thing. It is thus a distinguishing characteristic between Chabad and non-Chabad Jews. RK 02:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the historical practice of opening holy books at random to freceive guidance, See the Birkei Yosef in Yoreh Dei'ah, siman 179, se'if 8 says in the name of the Maharikash: "It is permissible to open the Torah to see what pasuk appears, since it is our life, and just as we see with Yoshiya, who did something because he found a Sefer Torah rolled up to a particular pasuk and so it is common practice. (end quote of the Maharikash)

"And it says in the Yalkut Mishlei, siman 219, if you want to take an eitza from the Torah, take it. As we find that Dovid says, "b'fikudecha asicha" (end of the Yalkut). Apparently, taking an eitza from the Torah is possible and in this is included opening the Torah to see what pasuk appears. And I found in a kuntres, a manuscript from Rabbi Eliyahu Cohen z'l (the author of Shevet Musar) who wrote as follows: I received from my teachers, that when they wanted to do something, and were uncertain whether to do it or not, they would take a chumash or nach and would open it, and look at the top of the page to see what pasuk was there, and based on the pasuk they would take action. And so it comes out, that they consulted the Torah to know what to do in all their inyanim, and this itself is alluded to in the statement of our sages z'l, litol eitza min ha'Torah that it rules it permissible to do so, and this is not at all in the category of 'utilizing the Torah'(end of quote). And it's also possible that our sages z'l ruled on this that despite the fact that it says in Sifri that one does not ask through lots for it says, "tamim tihiyeh," however, in such a way, it is permitted v'dok heitev.(end quote of Birkei Yosef)--PinchasC 03:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) thank you eliezer!

Ariel

And along comes Ariel. I had to revert all your stuff on Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Firstly, to insert {{TotallyDisputed}} without a talk page antecedent is ridiculous. Secondly, you put whole sections in nowiki tags - pointless and a formatting problem. Thirdly, you put many external links in the text body. This is not normally done. Finally, there were way too many external links at the end.

Please be aware that there are various editors on Wikipedia who are basically positive about Chabad and its work, but will not tolerate the use of the Rebbe and Chabad articles as biased outlets of Chabad info. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV editing

By the grace of G-d
Greetings and blessings. I have edited the links section to add few Mashichist sites to give a greater range of Chabad views on the issue of identity of Moshiach and the proccess of redemption. While I realize Wikipedia is not a link list I feel that all those sites should be included. I have also moved the "Breif history of Chabad Messianism" to the historical sites section from it's original location in the Chabad Messianic sites section since it's not a Mashichist propaganda, but the author of the article simply presents an overview of the development of the Moshiach identification campaign within Chabad and further states elsewhere on his site that he doesn't believe the Rebbe is Moshiach therefore it obviously doesn't belong in the Chabad Messianic sites section. I have also added the http://www.YudelKrinsky.com as satire is just another way to convey information and studying it creates a clearer picture about the issue in the mind of a serious Wikipedia reader. With respect and blessing. Ariel Sokolovsky 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC) PS.Please see my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ariel_Sokolovsky for copies of the emails between me and Pinchas to understand why he is so determined to keep these links deleted.

Rebbe as Moshiach section historicly innacurate

"During these appearances his followers would chant, what would come to be a very controversial "mantra" among the Lubavitchers : Yechi Adonenu Moreinu v'Rabbeinu Melech Hamoshiach l'olam voed! - "Long live our Master our Teacher and our Rabbi King Messiah forever and ever!" When sung before him in has last months, Schneerson evidently vigorously encouraged the singing by swaying to and fro and swinging his hand, as he had done at the numerous farbrengens over the years. From this and his previous public statements his followers "extrapolated" that he acceded to their wish that he be the "Messiah". But that moment never arrived, as he died unable to verbalize and say anything to confirm his followers' longed-for dream that he be the actual long-promised Jewish Messiah. " 1)The Rebbe encouraged public singing of Yechi Adonenu Moreinu v'Rabbeinu Melech Hamoshiach l'olam voed! - "Long live our Master our Teacher and our Rabbi King Messiah forever and ever!" as early as 15th of Yiar 5751 (29th of April 1991) almost a year before his 1st stroke see this video clip for example: hxxp://video.moshiach.ru/events/first-yechi.rm in it you can clearly see Chassidim singing Yechi and the Rebbe encouraging them in Yidish to sing it once more. beyond that look at this clip again before the Rebbe's stroke Mrs Chavah Cohen is giving the Rebbe tambourine with "Yechi" writen on it the Rebbe gives her a blessing http://video.moshiach.ru/events/yechi-tambourine.rm The Rebbe also allowed the title "Melech haMoshiach" to be added to Kehot publications see: http://www.rabbiyess.com/settingrecordstraight.html Also see http://www.beismoshiach.org/Moshiach/Moshiach280/moshiach280.htm the historical overview of the 5751 Psak Din stating that the Rebbe is Moshiach and his acceptance of it. To be continued. I'd like to reiterate once again that Wikipedia is a place designed to present honest historical record and not be another version of Chabad.org or TheRebbe.org which attempt to rewrite history and censor the Rebbe's words to present the issues involved in light most favorable for fundraising/kiruv in view of he authors of those sites.

Please do not post biased drivel here. The Lubavitcher Rebbe strenuosly objected to the singing of "Yechi" in 1991. He addressed the issue in a public talk that very Shabbos. 1st of all sign your name 2nd leave it up to the other editors to decide what is or isn't biased drivel remember to remain NPOV and Presume Good Faith on my part. Ariel Sokolovsky

Basic info

Did he have children? Grandchildren? ...

Read the article. JFW | T@lk 07:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks JFW. Actually read it before posting above statement, duh. Just read it again, have you? Still see no mention of children. It's a long article and if I am blind and it is buried in there somewhere, it should be more clear - such as in the "Later Life" or "Succession" sections or perhaps after one of the mentions of his wife. Following link to his wife's article I see there that it is clearly stated that SHE had no children (and a nice quote is there too). Shouldn't this be just as clearly stated in this article too?

{{Sofixit}} JFW | T@lk 21:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

He never had Children, therefore no grandchildren, ETC, etc. --Shaul avrom 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is leaning dangerously towards an unduly sympathetic POV again. I can see no reference to criticisms, and the paragraphs about leaders flocking to his side seem rather suspicious. Is it only me? Where did the Berger paragraphs go? Taragüí @ 16:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Based upon consensus reached on the talk page here and on the talk page on chabad all the controversies relating to chabad were moved to the chabad page and link to from this page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Responsa by Schneerson" section is written in a very fan-boy manner. It's absolutely gushing to the point of emberassing. It should be rewritten with more responsible tone. 65.171.232.28 18:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. It was quite nauseating. JFW | T@lk 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Succesion

Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky is not even on the board of directors of Machne Israel, let alone heading it. Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky is the Chairman of both Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. and Machne Israel, Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky is a board member of Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. Scholom 05:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 05:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits by Jucifer

1. Time of engagement. He writes it was 2 years. http://www.lchaimweekly.com/lchaim/5761/656 says 5 years. This needs to be looked looked up someplace. 2.About his receiving degrees, the old version is more npov. In the smae document from mentalblog, he writes "Laufer (citing one of the rabbis who heard it from Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad rabbi who heard it from associates of Soloveichik) says that even though Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than Soloveichik's. Moreover, "the rebbe was known to have received several advanced degrees in Berlin, and then later in Paris." 3. Jucifer edited the document to say that the degrees were announced in 1928, and then debunks this by saying that in 1935-1938 he was someplace else, not saying what happened until 1928. This needs to be clarified. 4. What difference does it make whether his brother-in-law passed or failed his exams? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read up on this matter. Please recall that this is not a hagiography - documents have shown all the point I added in. They are sourced in the research of Menachem Freidman who found and published documents to the extend of the points made.
1. According to the records he was engaged in 1926 and married in 1928. If this is diputed you should add that point in.
2. No the old version claimed that it was ambiguous and was misleading implying that he received degrees in Berlin when hid had not done so. You can add in any evidence you like stating that they were friends, but the son's denial still stands. Seeing as the second part of the quote is "even though Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than Soloveichik's" (Neutral person Hahaha); it is highly dubious since we know that they were not studying together in any classes.
3. Yes "the degrees" were announced in 1928, this is attested by an edition of a Warsaw newspaper. I think I then made it clear that there were no such degrees then by ALL accounts - this was a false announcement! What is "debunked" is the myth that the rebbe studied "nautical engineering" at the Sorbonne; this was described as being unclear. No, it is very clear what he was doing in Paris - his records have been found, along with pictures results, address, dates. There is no doubt whatever about this - unless you would like to suggest those documents were forged?
4. It makes no real difference - but if you say that they studied on the same course together then if he didn't complete the course this needs to be clarified, otherwise people will make a false assumption.

The facts I added are undisputed outside chabad hagiography. If you would like to add the chabad account of his life in Paris and Berlin they you can - but you must make it clear that it is a Chabad account, and that it conflicts with scholarly research and verified documents. I have no idea why you reverted all the edits that I put time and thought into based on these four niggling points (1, 2, and 4 being entirely devoid of substance. If you want to add in a better version of the chabed chronology go ahead but what I added was sourced and NPOV. I'm quite upset by this gratuitous reversion and I kindly request an apology. jucifer 03:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Which records state that he was engaged in 1926? I am not saying that it is disputed but references would be nice.

2. Regarding the degrees, All Friedman found was a lack of evidence that he had received those degrees, but at the same time Friedman writes ". Laufer (citing one of the rabbis who heard it from Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad rabbi who heard it from associates of Soloveichik) says that even though Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than Soloveichik's. Moreover, "the rebbe was known to have received several advanced degrees in Berlin, and then later in Paris." " Which would prove the being friends. If his son denied it, that could be because he was not aware of it but Friedman is quoting people at the time of this happening saying that they did know each other.

3. About the degrees, see #2 Friedman also states "When Friedman reached Berlin, he found that some of the archives had been destroyed when the Allies bombed the city during World War II. "From my perspective, the research is incomplete," he says, " which would explain a lack of evidence of any degrees.

4. You were the one that inserted the part about Horenstein. The whole thing doesn't need to be there. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

About an apology. I apologize if you take any of this personal, but you should know that none of this is personal. t's about accuracy and NPOV. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please behave

You have reverted all my careful and IMHO NPOV edits twice now in 15 minutes. Your points can only be adressed if you stop this. I am working on the article at present as you are well aware.

You have provided no justification for reverting all my edits in this extremely rude manner. Only four minor quibbles which we can discuss if you will be normal. jucifer 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have raised reasonable objectons to your edits, and in my opinion your edits were not NPOV edits. I only needed to revert it because you reverted it yourself without addressing my valid points. And I have provided much justification and objections for reverting your points. The 4 objections cover all your edits. and I will be happy to discuss it with you here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I only needed to revert it because you reverted it yourself without addressing my valid points, (HAHAHA) why did you revert it the first time? I addressed your points, and you are well aware that your reversion of my edits based on those points is unjustified and is blatantly against wiki policy.

If you will calm down, and stop behaving in this bizarre sociopathic fashion we can address your concerns. If you carry on like this, you will just end up being banned and sanctioned. jucifer 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it the first time because of the objections which I wrote above. I take your calling my edits "behaving in this bizarre sociopathic fashion" as a personal attack and if it continues will take appropiate action. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You have now completly reverted my edits three times on the grounds that you find the content somehow objectionable. This is despite the fact the content is sourced and you can only site niggling problems (which you could have altered easiely without reverting). That is three complete reversions now. I have had to revert your reversions twice. I will now do it a third and final time. If you then revert again (even in part, or anyone else does) you will likely be banned. I suggest you now engage in this discussion in a civil fashion and stop this chilul hashem. jucifer 04:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I find the content objectionable for accuracy and NPOV reasons as I clearly stated again and again. Your content is wither not sourced like the engagement part, or not relevant like the Horenstein part, or leaving out the 2cd haldf of the source like the degrees part. Altering your edits would mean reverting since all your edits had either accuracy or NPOV problems. Instead of discussion you have just reverted. As you are aware due to the 3rr rule I cannot revert, however I still do not agree with your edits. (BTW calling my edits "behaving in this bizarre sociopathic fashion" is not civil on your part.) --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is correct, anyone who reverts that again in the next 23 hours, will likely be banned, allongside you if anyone else does it. I apologise for calling your behaviour bizzare and sociopathic. How would you describe reverting someones edits three times in 40 minutes for resaons not sanctioned ny wiki policy - while they were working on it to try and make you happier? The engagement is sourced in the same article by Friedman. (If you have a conflicting date, mention that there is a dispute.) THIS IS NOT A NPOV ISSUE. What is wrong with the Horenstein part? He was his brother in law, and they lived together in paris for 6 years, they studied together in college on the same course. This shouldn't be mentioned? Why not? THIS IS NOT A NPOV ISSUE EITHER, NOR FACTUALLY WRONG Are these the reason you deleted my edits? Instead of discussion I have just reverted - are you kidding me Pinchas? jucifer 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your apology is noted, I hope in the future you will not resort to name calling and personal attacks. The engagement thing is not in the Friedman document. All it says is that they were married 2 years after Menachem Mendel Schneerson moved to Berlin, saying that he left his betrothed with her father implying that they were engaged even before then. I have brought a source saying that they were engaged for 5 years. The Horenstein part about his not passing university is not relavant to the article here. and in my opinion the fact that he attended the same university as him is also not relevant. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you shout read the policy on the 3 revert rule, because it is about one person reverting it, not multiple people. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I await your apology sir. jucifer 05:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Original research

I'm having difficulty deciding who's more wrong here. Juicifer inserts unsourced material, the only source being Friedman's debunking. Pinchas reverts the whole lot. Frankly, in a potentially controversial article, every tidbit, even the most blatantly obvious, needs to be sourced. Which Chabad publication states that he had degrees from basically the whole of Western Europe? Where was the Warsaw newspaper announcement reprinted? Etc etc. The reverting should stop. The three-revert rule is in force. JFW | T@lk 04:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is all sourced in Freidman. Appart from the 1926 engagement, which I misunderstood and which I will change posthaste. All the rest is in Freedman (All of it) - he based his work on primary sources. I am not sure where to put the link to say it is from Friedman though.

JFW, I would like yo ask you to make corrections to the article based upon your understanding of it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as it is made clear that this is all derived from Friedman (using footnotes really helps here) there is no reason why this material should not be there. If Pinchas can adduce dissenting proofs that is fine. JFW | T@lk 05:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In Friedman's work he states the following "According to Laufer, Rabbi Joseph'Dov Halevi Soloveichik of Boston was also studying at the university in Berlin at the time, and he lived nearby. Whenever he had a question about an academic or religious text, he would stop over at Schneerson's house and consult with him. Laufer (citing one of the rabbis who heard it from Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad rabbi who heard it from associates of Soloveichik) says that even though Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than Soloveichik's. Moreover, "the rebbe was known to have received several advanced degrees in Berlin, and then later in Paris." " In the articl it is also stated "When Friedman reached Berlin, he found that some of the archives had been destroyed when the Allies bombed the city during World War II. "From my perspective, the research is incomplete," he says, " --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The allied bombing of Berlin did not destroy the relevant records. In fact they found his name of the list of students who "attended some classes" but were not enrolled, as it says in the paper.

The lubavitch position "that soloveitchik was a good friend" is noted in the article, alongside the opinion of the son - who disputed this. This is how it should be. What is the problem? You want to name the source? Go ahead. But you must make note of the fact that his testimony is contradictory since he also states that: the rebbe was known to have received several advanced degrees in Berlin, and then later in Paris. A point that is untrue. Since he is clearly mistaken about what the rebbe was actually doing in Berlin, Laufer's credibility on the "best-buddies" issue is somewhat compromised. (To put it mildly.) But go ahead and put his name in if you want.

Your selective quoting is out of order here. Here is the full quote: "From my perspective, the research is incomplete," he says, "although there is always the possibility that documents showing when exactly he arrived and where he was coming from will still materialize. No doubt is expressed about the points you try to cast doubt on by selectively quoting the first line only. jucifer 06:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I am beggining to understand your issues with this article. From what you write above it appears that you are somewhat confused about many details of Schnnersons life. Is he dead Pinchas? jucifer 07:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

current version

I have made some changes, added in Laufer's research and eyewitness reports wuoted in the document that jucifer quotes in the article. I have left in the article Friedman's inability to find any documentation to Laufer's findings and eyewitness reports. I have also found an article printed in the Beis Moshiach magazine (http://beismoshiach.org/_pdf/460.pdf pg 38-40) which quotes someone as saying that the Rebbe was in his class in Sorbonne, which could just mean that he sat in on classes. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am quite happy with the end of the edit war. I am still waiting to hear from RK which authorities have taken issue with the atzmus issue. The previous version (in which Chabad and outside views were contrasted) was not bad, but only makes sense if the outside sources are cited. I would not object to deleting the offending paragraph in the meantime. JFW | T@lk 10:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please:

- - a) give the corerct lubavitch view as published.
  - b) why do you keep deleting the average grades? Is in Not factual or POV or what?
  - c) I ask you a final time: Please remove the lengthy copyvio you recently added. Summarise it and attribute it to hagiographic sources or I will have to do it.

jucifer 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding th correct lubavitch view, see these 3 links http://www.chabad.org/global/about/article.asp?AID=244372 http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/timeline.asp?AID=62153 http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=147856 from chabad publications all say studied none say graduated.

Regarding the average grades, I did not see any mention of it in the document that you provided, if you have a source, please provide it and I won't remove it.

I have already written that Laufer was hagiographic, and put his remarks in quotain marks, which should be sufficent. However if your writing skills are better than mine, feel free to reword it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

However regarding graduating from Sorbonne, I have a source not as a claim from chabad but from a story which someone that worked with the Rebbe in Brooklyn Navy yard described him as a graduate from there see http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=141185

"So I turn to the guy next to me, I said who is that? He says, "He's a rabbi, and he is also an electrical engineer, a graduate of the Sorbonne." I looked over there, and I said to myself, boy I've got to give this guy credit. If I were sitting among all three hundred, I couldn't wear earlocks and a beard, and feel comfortable. He sat there serene as if he was sitting amongst his chevra, and that really struck me.

So, I went over and introduced myself. He told me his name is Schneerson. But he didn't tell me he was the son-in-law of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and I didn't ask him. Nobody knew, as far as I knew." --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes if you note your note your "non-chabad" non-natable source is on the chabbad.com website. If the source was in itself either verifiable or notable that would be one thing. Since he is neither (and may well not exist) that counts as a chabbad source, and that must be noted.

I have seen a number of Lubatich "biographies" that claim that he graduated with a first class degree in nautical engineering from the Sorbonne. That some chabad websites have stopped quoting this is progredd, but it is the quoted view.

If you insist on putting in the chabad account without noting the problems with it, I will have to put in quotations from the new peer-reviewed book about the rebbe by a certain Cambridge scholar Bryan Mark Rig: [1].

The document noted his average grades: It described them as "not too good but not terrible" or something similar. It's there, read it through. jucifer 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

chabad.org is the official internet presence of chabad. Other publications may not be the official view. Which other publications did you see this in?

About putting in the chabad view, I left in Friedman which noted problems, so I don't understand where the issue is. The book by Bryan Mark Rigg, is about the previous Rebbe not the current one. I have not read the book, but since you are implying that you have, can you tell me where in the book it discussess the current rebbe's years in berlin and paris, I am very interested in it.

about his grades, I just found it now "Grades: Not outstanding, but not bad. " about his years in ESTP, "Not outstanding, but not bad" doesn't imply average. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that facts aren't being presented fairly, if you agree we can ask someone like JFW, who is an expierenced admin here, and I will follow what he says. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not just about the PREVIOUS (you mean PREVIOUS PREVIOUS don't you?) rebbe. It is in google books. And yes the document (haaretz article) does refer to his grades by the way.

Yes it does "not great, not bad" - what does that leave on the spectrum of achivment? Do you think they meant "Incredible" or "extremely bad" (which tecnically could fit)? No, they meant AVERAGE!!

How would you put it? jucifer 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have stated I have not read the book, I was reading from the description, where the autor uses the same terms as I do. "Not outstanding, but not bad" seems to be Friedman's observation, I don't believe that schools graded their students using those terms. How would I put it? I wouldn't since it's so ambiguos.

However as I stated above I am more than happy to have a third party that I trust in their decisions like JFW to take a look and say what he believes. Are you willing to agree to this? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also see this google book search http://books.google.com/books?lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=sorbonne+schneerson&btnG=Search According to The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jewish Spirituality & Mysticism by Michael Levin pg. 139, the Rebbe completed 2 doctorates at Sorbonne. However I was unable to find the Riggs book in Google book search can you tell me what search terms you used? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hahahahaha!! Happy Chanuka Pinchas!! "According to the Complete Idiot's guide..." Hahahaha!!! Oy vey!! jucifer 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/RabbiMenachemMendelSchneerson.htm This one looks like spam, with all the ads. And it trys to sound like it is the offical Gold Medal site when it isn't. Let the VfD of the link begin. 220.233.48.200

Delete 220.233.48.200 18:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have a better link feel free to replace it, but for now this is the only link that I have found that discusses this at length and has quotes from the presidents. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Just because it has a couple of ads on top of the page is no reason to delete it. Actually, I would recommend bringing some of the information from that page into the main article. Now, let's talk about you. Don't you think it's about Friggin' time you registered? Hama'aseh Hu Ha'ikar. It only takes thirty seconds. Daykart 07:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Education and Sharing Day article

I am an IP so I can't make it, but does anyone want to and link it here. I am surprised such an article be missing. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you have a good excuse to register. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it. Ems2 20:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chabad links

Shouldn't they just be in the Chabad article? Ems2 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As no one opposes, I am removing them. Ems2 14:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

timeline

The date part is really confusing. I know it refers to the years M.M. was leader but it doesn't make that clear at all. eeemess 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It say's on top "Rebbe of Lubavitch", which would mean the time period he was Rebbe. Although all Lubavitchers still consider him the Rebbe and that he is still leading them. Shlomke 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Shouldn't the "time-line" go on the Chabad-Lubavitch page? 2) What is the use of a "time-line" with two data points? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruber76 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Revert

I reverted here: [2] because it is mostly opinion and orignal research/disputed research. I know many Chabadniks that have been there from the old times that say there should be a new shepherd for the animal house. IMO the related articles should make clear in between modern chabadnik and the old timers. eeemess 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit before you was actualy a revert of blanking. It was there for a while. Also could you be more specific about what is disputed? I never heard or read of any Chabadnick that feels there should be a new Rebbe. Shlomke 10:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Will

The Rebbe's will made R' Krinsky and R' Shemtov executors over those organizations. Did it actually name them as chairmen? (The effect is the same at the end of the day. But I'm curious about the proper language.)--Meshulam 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a copy of the will's someplace on the internet, I'l try to find it. Also we might as well note that their control of the organizations was held illigle by the Beth Din of crown heights and many others in Lubavich.

That's not quite true. Their control was brought to Beis Din, and the Beis Din summoned them to appear. They ignored the summons (hazama) and dealt with the will through the American legal system's probabte process. That means that they have ignored the Beis Din that the Rebbe said governs affairs betweens his Chassidim. Therefore, some do not hold of them (especially since it is technically assur to be involved with them until they appear before the Beis Din). Others think that the ends justify the means (like some people on this page who edit things that are true but that they wish were not true), and ignore the halachic issues involved with them. --Meshulam 06:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You might actualy be more correct. Anyway see this page for copy's of the will('s). In answer to your question, the will that (I think) is being quoted does not say anything about chairmen or the organizations. The truth is perhaps this should not be mentioned in the article (or at least very breifly) since this is about the rebbe and not the politics of the organizations. Koll tuv, Shlomke 08:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned it for an important reason. According to the law in many states, one who has no children must devise his property (real or otherwise) to someone who acts as executor, or risk the state seizing the property. Therefore, there is a very practical reason to assign an executor. That does not mean that the executor becomes chairman of the organization. An executor is very different from an owner. An executor has no property interest in the property of the devisor. Krinsky essentially abused the legal power granted to him by the will in order to take legal control of the organizations the Rebbe enrusted him to protect (not possess). (Perhaps the Rebbe saw where this will was going, and this is what caused him to write the second will that mysteriously disappeared. We'll never know the answer to this one. There's only one person who had the opportunity to "lose" the second will, and that's Krinsky himself, who refused to appear before a Beis Din and testify about it.) As per this discussion, the reference to the Rebbe "giving Krinsky" the position of Chairman, etc. will be erased. (Though I will not refer to any of my own conspiracy theories.)--Meshulam 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Meshulam, the will that is beig refered to here which makes R. Krinsky executer, only makes him executer of the Rebbes personal property, nothing to do with the organizations. This was as you say a legal document for the Rebbes personal property. Shlomke 18:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Somehow he got from there to being chairman of the organizations. I don't know exactly how that happened, other than to say that he was not instructed to make himself chairman. I'll do some more investigation. --Meshulam 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Even More Accurate...

Thank you, Sholom. I believe that your edit is more acccurate than mine, or what was there previously. The only problem I have is with the words "But that moment never arrived." This does not bring any new information. Deleting these words would not change the meaning of the sentence in the least. Finally, since it is a major contention amongst many Lubavitchers that nothing has changed between 1992 and now in terms of the Rebbe being Moshiach, that phrase clearly takes a side in the debate. It would be enough to say that he died without verbalizing anything to confirm his followers dream that he be Messiah. Many of those followers, however, still believe that he is Messiah. --Meshulam 15:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You also make a good point: I agree "that moment never arrived" doesn't add anything and probably ought to be deleted. The main thing that I wanted to make more clear is that the number of "meshichisten" is truly unknown. Some think that most L's are, some think that just the fringe are, but it's all anecdotal and difficult to tell. -- Sholom 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I see in Lubavitch, everyone beleives that the Rebbe is Moshiach, the question is just if it should be publicised or kept secret. The definition of a Meshichist is if he beleives in publicizing this belief. Try to find a lubavitcher that will tell you he believes the Rebbe is not Moshiach - very unlikely. If they are not Meshichist they will usualy say they don't want to speak about it, or something else without telling you the Rebbe is not Moshiach. Shlomke 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

From what you see, can not be included, rather it needs to be sourced.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do editors keep posting ludicrous statements e.g. everyone believes the Rebbe is Moshiach? Any reading of the news stories out there indicates that there is a faction of the Lubavitchers who believe he is, and a probably larger group who thinks he isn't. And as one Chabadnich said to me, whatever any of us believe, the issue will certainly be resolved in the next few years. At the risk of being reedited, I'm going to slightly edit the article to reflect this.Incorrect 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See for example A Brief History of Lubavitch Messianism, where the above contention is very clear. From reading the news stories it's pretty abovius that the meshichistem are a very large group. The question here is how many Meshichitem are there? my commets are about the differences between The meshichitem and ant-Meshichistem, not how many meshichistem there are. Also you should be aware that during the lifetime of the Rebbe, nearly all Lubavitchers were open about the Rebbe being Moshiach. It was after the Rebbe passed away that there became a much greater split (with many believing that the Rebbe is still alive). --Shlomke 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia, so I hope this is right place for my request. When I visited this page while ago, here was not widely known picture of the Rebbe in his younger years, I think without hat, just in the yarmolke. It is not there now. Can I get it somehow? Why was it removed? Thanks. 218.215.130.180 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is a criticism section taboo?

Every major figure/movement/whatever who has sparked any controversy at all - and the Rebbe quite certainly has - has a "criticism" or "controversy" section in his or her article, why not the Rebbe? I added a very modest one and it was almost instantly reverted by User:PinchasC. I'm aware that there is already such a section in the Chabad article, of course, but it is not necessarily the same as controversy over the Rebbe himself. Most controversy over Chabad - such as the Berger issue - concerns claims that he was the Messiah, rather than of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's actual teachings. Nevertheless, his person and teachings were criticised by notable persons as well - Shahak, whatever one's opinion of him, is definitely notable, and so is rabbi Shach - and it deserves a separate mention in his biographical article, while the Chabad article concerns itself with the actual organisation. Guildenstern42 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, given especially how some originally sought to narrowly portray Rav Shach in his bio. Its like truth became a partisan thing. DavidCharlesII 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed a long time ago that instead of having two critiscm sections one here and one in chabad both saying the same stuff to have one in chabad and link it to there from here. If you go to the chabad article you will see a very long critiscm section takling up most of the article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ohel information

I added the Ohel information, and hope that it is relevant and helpful. Thank you. Ira (Eliyahu) 09.06.06 4:20pm EST

Heart Attack?

The article says he had a heart attack in 1977 but refused to go to the hospital. And then he had a miraculous recovery. How is it established that he ever had a heart attack at all?

Suggested improvements

Ok, other things that need to be added: Schneerson was a staunch Young Earth Creationist early in life but later in life seemed to be more accepting of people who accepted evolution. When I have time I'll try to source and add this but I wouldn't mind if someone else would do it in the meantime. JoshuaZ 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepting of "people" who accepted evolution, does not contradict being a staunch Young Earth Creationist, no? --Shlomke 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, rephrase from my WP:OR-laden impression I gather that early on his attitude was something like "anyone who accepts evolution is a kofer" and later it became "I don't believe in evolution but others do and they might be ok" JoshuaZ 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rebbe never changed his position against evolution, or weakened it whatsoever. If you want to make such a claim, the onus of proof lies on you. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting facts straight

TrachtGut changes "When sung before him in his last months, Rabbi Schneerson vigorously encouraged the singing by swaying to and fro and swinging his hand, as he had done during the singing of other songs at the numerous farbrengens over the years." to "When sung before him in his last months, Rabbi Schneerson's hand motions were thought by some to be encouraging the singing, although these motions were far less than what he had done during the singing of other songs at the numerous farbrengens over the years." The Rebbe encouraged the singing many times vigorously, that's on video for anyone to see. Denying that it occured is simply dishonest. But then to say that the "motions were far less"?! This is disingenuous. Of course they were less--half of the Rebbe's body was affected by a stroke! But considering his physical condition, the hand movements were very vigorous encouragement. That was clear to one and all and not just something that was "thought by some". That's a lie. So I'm changing it back. NPOV doesn't mean distorting facts available on video for all to see. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Shlomke 15:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)