Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Archive 1 (2002-2006)

Append This Photo Please

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

Thank you.

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

User:David Spart's changes

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

Birth place

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

This article should be history, not mythology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

successors

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

Statements needing sources

Succession

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

NPOV - Rashi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skullcap in Berlin

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

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

Not Cool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholarship

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

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

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

Proper article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No source for this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy

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

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

"The Rebbe"

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

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

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

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