Jump to content

Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson

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


Not very clear, at least to me

Maybe it's because I'm a Reform Jew or maybe it's just me, but I still don't get from this article why they thought he was/is the Messiah. Leaving aside my prejudice against the Orthodox and extraordinary dislike of the Kharedim I will not attribute it to the latters' ability to misinterpret anything and everything. So I ask again, why do these people think he is our Messiah? I get that he was influential and all, but I think I am missing something. TheArchaeologist (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

I have re-instated Schneerson's commentary regarding Jewish versus gentile bodies and souls. The comment is well-known and was originally recorded in "Gatherings and Conversations" (a collection of Schneerson's comments and discussions) and reproduced by Shahak and Mezvinsky in their book "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel". A biographic entry must include the good, the bad and the ugly. Please don't delete my addition in an attempt to present a sanitised view of Schneerson and Chabad. 37.130.224.202 (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be something of an edit war going on here... perhaps some measure of page protection should be considered?--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that is the best course of action to take. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is an IP from a certain range of addresses vandalising this and a few other articles. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the page for Category:Racism says clearly: This category ... must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly racist. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the material this IP insists on inserting contains blatant fabrications, e.g "three satanic spheres" - a term that simply does not exist in the supposed 'sources'. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reasonable statement. Have you checked the sources? What Schneerson is referring to -- viz. Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot (“three totally impure Kelipot”) as Debresser correctly identifies -- is from the Zohar and re-iterated in the first chapter of The Tanya. False accusations of "blatant fabrication[s]" only inflame tempers. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among many other violations, this nonsense fails WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Shahak and Mezvinsky were both well-known as extremists and not 'mainstream' in any way at all. Deliberate mistranslation of a well-known kabbalistic term such as 'impure' into 'satanic' would be typical for fringe theorists such as Shahak and Mezvinsky. Pluto press is a fringe vanity press and quotes would need further substantiation from mainstream publishers to be inserted, as per WP:V.--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is obviously referring to the kabbalistic "shalosh klipot hatmeot legamre". Debresser (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
מה זה הזה באנגלית? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The three completely unclean kelipot. Google it. Debresser (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate censorship of well-known racist comments made by Rabbi M. M. Schneerson by his followers

A few people including myself have been trying to add verified sourced citations which show an incredible (and well-known) depth of anti-gentile racism made by Rabbi M. M. Schneerson, such as calling all non-Jews separate inferior biological species.

Wikipedia is a place where the objective truth needs to be stated, thus the militant actions of the above people who are all no-doubt fanatical religious followers of the rabbi who is seen as the Mosiach (Messiah)of Chabad Lubavitch.

Thus I am demanding that these people stop their deliberate censorship of the sourced objective truth, as it is THEM who are committing vandalism on the Wikipedia website, and acting against everything that Wikipedia stands for. This is no place for religious bigotry. The truth and the truth only must be written.

Below I will provide the unedited and sourced citations of the Rabbi M. M. Schneerson:

(i) "..we have a case of 'let us differentiate' between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world..."

(ii) "Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness."

(iii) "Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew."

(iv) "In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity. It is written, "And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews."

SOURCE: Quotes from "Lubovitcher Rebbe," Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson - “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” - Chapter 4: The National Religious Party and the Religious Settlers – By: Dr. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.

Action Taken

I have referred the above controversy for third party resolution.

Censorship is usually deliberate. What considers "well-known" is an arbitrary matter. I removed it today because it was in a section named "Controversy" without any indication of controversy. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dovid, a doctrinal claim that Jews are metaphysically superior to non-Jews and that non-Jews are metaphysically/intrinsically evil is indeed a controversial claim. Such a belief may be uncontroversial amongst Orthodox Jewry but it is inflammatory amongst non-Jews and disputed by liberal Jews. In any event, the claim is well-sourced, so even if it can somehow be deemed lacking in controversy -- and so inappropriate for a sub-section dedicated to controversy -- it represents a legitimate addition to the biographical entry. Would a separate section entitled "Racism and Jewish Supremacism" be more agreeable to you? 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dovid, since your justification for the removal of the sub-section is that there is no controversy regarding Jewish supremacist claims, rather than debate this matter, I have moved it into its own section. The issue of controversy or its absence is now rendered moot. Shalom. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your solution, as it is a good one. But there is one more problem. The quote itself does not use the terms "racism" or "supremacism". These terms are POV. So they would need to be sourced, before you could use them. Debresser (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for trying to meet me half-way as it were. Need the quote explicitly use the terms "racism" or "supremacism" to be deemed racist or supremacist? I think not. Ethnocentrism and Jewish exceptionalism is unequivocally conveyed by the quotation. Actually, I would be happy to replace "Racism and Jewish Supremacism" with "Ethnocentrism and Jewish Exceptionalism". 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dovid, the source for reading Schneerson's commentary as racist and supremacist is of course "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" by Shahak and Mezvinsky. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a book about "Jewish Fundamentalism". Any more than that would have to be sourced. User 114.76.75.113, need I give you an official warning about this? You can not edit war just like that. If you reinstate such statements without sources, you will be met by administrative action in the end. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suddenly remembered [Talk:Maimonides#Israel_Shahak_as_a_source|this discussion]], suggesting that Israel Shahak is not the best of sources about anything related to Judaism. Perhaps you could find the quote in another, less disputable source? Debresser (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dovid, I have sourced the quote including providing the pages from which it came. Click on the superscripted number. Given that I have properly sourced the quote I am re-instating it. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of that section "is characterised as" is well formulated. The quote seems overly extensive to me. The last sentence is a personal opinion (of the authors of that book), and I think that as such it should be removed. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of an authority is citable but I am prepared to tolerate that edit if you are prepared to be fair and reasonable about this entire matter. The quote is extensive because I wanted to avoid being accused of selective editing for rhetorical purposes. You and I know that Schneerson is essentially paraphrasing from the first chapter of "The Tanya" -- a text that is definitive of the Chabad approach to Hasidic mysticism. That he was recorded (in "Gatherings and Conversations") teaching from "The Tanya" is to be expected. Schneerson's commentary is consistent with -- if not drawn from -- the text "Lessons in Tanya" because his elucidations match those of Rabbi Yosef Wineberg (for those interested http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7880/jewish/Chapter-1.htm and in PDF http://hebrewbooks.org/15840). For these reasons I find your demand to source the quote from a "less disputable source" unreasonable, obstructive and disingenuous. I would appreciate that you show me the respect I am showing you. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am showing you all due courtesy. And I agree that the basic doctrine is there. Still, the source is questionable (that is not my personal opinion, but my conclusion from the fact that several discussions here on Wikipedia have raised the issue). I think we have a good compromise here by me not protesting against the quote from that specific source, and you not reverting my deletion of the authors personal opinions. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is NOT a questionable source in relation to this matter -- there is no basis for such a defamatory claim. As you have conceded, the Schneerson quote represents a synopsis of one of the fundamental doctrines of the Chabad conception of Hasidic mysticism. That teaching can be found -- in a more lucid form -- in the first chapter of "Lessons in Tanya" (http://hebrewbooks.org/15840). The previous discussions on this matter, that have (illegitimately) concluded that Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is a "questionable source" -- laced with opprobrium, which reacted to the quote regarding a basic Chabad teaching as if it amounted to a claim that Schneerson ate children -- were totally disingenuous and redolent of bad faith. The previous editors that innocently attempted to include the quote were apparently ignorant of central Chabad texts and allowed themselves to be bullied by a cabal of zealous editors that pretended that there were no such doctrine in Chabad Hasidism and that Shahak and Mezvinsky fabricated that quote in an effort to besmirch the good name of Schneerson. That is a defamation of Shahak and Mezvinsky and it also amounts to an attempt to render an encyclopaedic biographical article into a hagiography that is intended to mislead non-Jews and liberal and secular Jews (that typically have no knowledge of "The Tanya"). 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, can live with the present version. You seem to be very agitated about all of this. I wish you pleasant editing.
If, as you correctly claim, this idea of there being a difference between Jews and non-Jews is present in all of Jewish literature, including kabbalah, chasidism and specifically chabad chasidism, then it might be incorrect to mention it only in this article about one rabbi who came at the end of all of those traditions. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am more disappointed and disillusioned than agitated. I think that my addition of the section and quote has made this article more complete -- if not entirely complete -- hence the action cannot be described as "incorrect". If there is any omission in the Wikipedia Judaica articles then that does not in any conceivable way render my edit "incorrect". Rather, it suggests that the authors of those articles have made an omission either out of ignorance or deliberately. Please do not try to use the deficiencies in other Judaica articles as a pre-text for removing my edit. If this is not what you are positioning to do then please accept my apology. If you are suggesting that other Judaica articles be made complete by including reference to salient passages of Kabbalah and Tanya regarding the matter of Jew v. non-Jew then I agree and would count this article as the first in that effort.114.76.75.113 (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not bother reading WP:RS and WP:V before polluting the page with any more fringe nonsense? Or create your own site 'exposing' chassidic 'racism' (or any of your other conspiracy theories)... Perhaps Shahak and Mezvinsky could be quoted freely there, because they certainly fail the relevant guidelines on Wikipedia.--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is a citable source. How does Shahak and Mezvinsky fail as a source?

Shahak and Mezvinsky are both fringe sources, and as such clearly fail WP:RS. Please read the discussions regarding both of them earlier on this page, before wasting everybody's time with a silly re-hash.--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can provide sources that comply with WP:RS for your edits, you will simply have to cope with your 'disappointment and delusions' on your own. Not to mention the slick misrepresentation of 'Lessons in Tanya' that you tried above, did you really expect to get away with that? (Which would only be a source for the author of Tanya and Rabbi Weinberg, in any event.)--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mis-representing "Lessons in Tanya". The first chapter is entirely consistent with the quote of Schneerson from Shahak and Mezvinsky. You are the one that hadn't even heard of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" until Dovid pointed out that the "three Satanic spheres" that Schneerson refers to are the unclean kelipot and now you are trying to pontificate on "Lessons in Tanya". I have reverted your reversion because you are just spouting a bunch of nonsense. Go away and read the first chapter of "Lessons in Tanya". 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"slick misrepresentation of 'Lessons in Tanya' that you tried above, did you really expect to get away with that?" LOL. Here is the text in HTML and here is the first volume in PDF http://download.hebrewbooks.org/downloadhandler.ashx?req=15840 Show me what I have mis-represented Are you now going to contend that Rabbi Yosef Wineberg's elucidations are "fringe", "extremist", "fanatical" perhaps even "anti-semitic" LOL? Perhaps you will suggest that "Lessons in Tanya" -- even though it appears on chabad.org -- is a "fringe" text? 114.76.75.113 (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that the idea of "fringe theory" (WP:UNDUE) had crossed my mind as well. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the "three Satanic spheres" have returned to the text, even though that clearly is a bad translation. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the translation is a matter of opinion and no grounds for banning a book as a source and defaming its authors. Yes, a strict literal translation would be "three unclean husks" or "three unclean shells" or "three unclean peels" but we don't translate texts by mere literal substitution as that typically fails to communicate the intended meaning. "Lessons in Tanya" tells us that "every Jew possesses two souls...One soul originates in the kelipah and sitra achra..."the other side" - the side of creation that is the antithesis of holiness and purity." (p.43 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840) Further, "From [this nefesh] stem all the evil characteristics, deriving from the four evil elements within it." (p.44 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840) Finally, "in the [case of the] Jew, this soul of kelipah is derived from the kelipah called "nogah", which also contain's good; and the good within this nefesh gives rise to these positive natural traits...The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever" (p.45-6 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840) The second chapter of "Lessons in Tanya" begins "The second, uniquely Jewish, soul is truly "a part of G-d above, " (p.47 (original pagination) http://hebrewbooks.org/15840). This is elucidated as follows: "A part of G-d above" is a quotation from Scripture (lyou 31:2). The Alter Rebbe adds the word "truly" to stress the literal meaning of these words. For, as is known,' some verses employ hyperbolic language. For example, the verse2 describing "great and fottified cities reaching into the heavens" is clearly meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. In order that we should not intrrpret the phrase "a part of G-d above" in a similar manner, the Alter Rebbe adds the word "truly", thus emphasizing that the Jewish soul is quite literally a part of G-d above." (ibid.) By implication, the non-Jewish soul is part of Satan. Hence Shahak and Mezvinsky's translation of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" as "Three Satanic Spheres". (For HTML version of "Lessons in Tanya" see http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7880/jewish/Chapter-1.htm) 114.76.75.113 (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May we assume that the rest of this supposedly academic book is not based on implication?! Debresser (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion of Shahak and Mezvinsky's book is irrelevant. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies on Wiki, policies that you are obviously not willing to comply with, yet they remain. I refer particularly to WP:NOR and WP:RS which your edits clearly fail. I have again removed your WP:OR from the page, and suggest a careful reading of the relevant policies before you attempt to continue edit-warring Here is some of the relevant wording, as you seem to be having some difficulty;

"This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT performing any synthesis or analysis in the edit. The edit is a quote from a reliable published text. Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) are performing the analysis and synthesis and I am merely quoting them. Since I am quoting a text (that I did not write) then ipso facto I am not including original material. All of your objections are without foundation. None of your policy references are relevant either. For these reasons I am re-instating the section in toto. The onus is on you to demonstrate that Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999) is not a legitimate reference. So far you have failed entirely in that task. So for this reason also the section goes back into the article. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Winchester23213, your manoeuverings in connection with this edit and similar edits in the past is both amusing and disturbing to follow and shows you lack all objectivity and should remove yourself from editing this article. You have moved from a reflexive shout of "fabrication!" which suggests you are entirely ignorant of the primary Chabad texts. Your critical faculty appeared to be based on the primitive heuristic that "If it is unflattering it must be the fabrication of anti-semites". To your embarrassment Debresser prompted you to "Google it". Then you dropped the cry of "fabrication!" and accused me of mis-representing "The Tanya" and "Lessons in Tanya" even though they are two texts that you haven't read -- as evidenced by your earlier ignorant claim. So now the heuristic appears to be "If it is in a Jewish text and it is unflattering it must be a mis-representation of that text". I haved since demonstrated that neither I nor Shahak and Mezvinsky are mis-representing any Jewish text (which you hadn't actually read but were still prepared to make the accusation). Now you have raised the entirely specious matter of OR. My edit does not embody any OR, there is no analytical effort or synthensis embodied in my edit. My edit is nothing more than a report, I am merely quoting Shahak and Mezvinsky (1999). The analysis and synthesis that I demonstrated within this talk page is confined to the talk page and was offered to (a) demonstrate that you are merely reflexively crying "fabrication!" and "mis-representation!" without having actually read the texts that your defamatory remarks pertain to; (b) defend that Shahak and Mezvinky in so far as their translation of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" as "Three Satanic Spheres" is actually reasonable; (c) illustrate your total lack of objectivity in this matter. The edit itself is not in any way predicated on my exposition within this talk page. It stands on its own merits. So for these reasons the section is returned to the article. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole screed by Merzvinsky and Shahak is fringe and a fabrication. The supposed 'quote' from Gatherings and Conversations' (whatever that is?!!) fails WP:V and therefore has been removed again. If your goal is to have the page protected again and your IP blocked, I suggest you're going about it the right way. Your screeds do not outweigh previous editorial consensus on this issue.--Winchester2313 (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "screed" your word of the day? It's "Gatherings of Conversations", was published in Israel in 1965 and is a collection of Schneerson's talks on a variety of topics. As I have already stated the concpet of "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" is a fundamental teaching of Hassidic Judaism that can be found in Kabbalah, Tanya and Lessons in Tanya. It matters not one iota whether "Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot" is translated as "Three Satanic Spheres", "Three Unclean Spheres", "Theree Impure Peels" or whatever other variant of the same. The central point -- that is made plain in Tanya -- is that Jews have different, superior souls to non-Jews and this makes Jews metaphysically superior to non-Jews. This is Jewish supremacism plain and simple. Given that this is a central teaching of Orthodox Judaism it is not surprising that Schneerson would be recorded teaching this. Since being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion it qualifies as extreme ethnocentrism and racial supremacism no different from the ethnic supremacism that we find in the pseudo-Islamic UFO cult "Nation of Islam" and in so-called "Christian Identity" churches. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need some mediation here, two resolve this problem. Perhaps we should agree to leave this text out for, let's say, to weeks, in which time we should actively work on reaching a consensus or solution at some other place.
I want to repeat that I see a few serious problem with the text. See the lead of Israel Shahak that he was a chemistry professor who was an anti-establishment political activist and known critic of Judaism.
1. Accusing this revered rabbi and all of Judaism of being racist, is rather fringe.
It is "rather fringe" because in the West since WWII it has become nearly impossible to criticise Jews and Judaism in the public square. Christianity and Islam are often criticised but any critique of Judaism is answered with cries of "anti-semitism", "neo-Nazi" and other such agitprop. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your claim is exaggerated or even totally fiction. Also, if you were to be right, where were racism claim before WWII? Debresser (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Shahak's credentials, both academic (a professor of chemistry) and political (a. controversial and b. anti-everything, anti-establishment and anti-Judaism), shed doubt on his reliability.
Fallacy of poisoning the well. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps this well is poisoned! Most everybody seems to say so, including our own Wikipedia article about him. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. The claim of racism against a revered rabbi and a world-religion (no less!) is a huge claim, and needs to be impeccably sourced.
The Tanya and the Kabbalah are impeccable sources regarding Orthodox Judaism. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Academic and third-party sources... Do I need to cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you? Debresser (talk)
4. Even if this claim were correct, it would be wrong to start adding it to the articles about each and every rabbi and movement in Judaism. Rather it would have to be added to the more general Criticism of Judaism article.
5. Shahak's translation and interpretation of the original texts seem flawed, as has been shown here in one instance.
6. We all see that Jews live in peace with non-Jews (at least from the side of the Jews) the world over. If so, in how far is this theory of supremacy actually "racism" in the usual sense of the word, if it doesn't have any notable manifestations? In more general terms, is every "theory of supremacy" automatically "racism"?
I don't think the Palestinians would agree with you. No, supremacism is not automatically racist but if the privileged status derives from ethnicity then that supremacism is racist. Jewish supremacism is racist because Judaism is an ethno-religion and Jewishness is an ethnicity.114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problems between Jews and Palestinians are political, territorial, not based on religion or ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem between Jews and Palestinians is essentially two ethnic groups (both Semitic) fighting over territory. That is all. Two Semitic tribes fighting over land. The politics comes from the allies of each side intervening, assisting, propagandising, warring, saber rattling, mediating, terrorising, etc. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether you disagree or simply make a statement. In any case I think it is clear that the problem is not about ethnicity but about territory. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That last remark is both a misdirection and simplification Debresser- particularly as the claim to ownership of the disputed territory is based on ancient religious texts and of membership of the religion of the group of occupying claimants. Palestinians have (by Israeli leaders) been called cockroaches, crushed grasshoppers,from another galaxy,beasts,woodcutters and waiters,slaves et cetera. If a figure like Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson as revered for his piety, erudition and love amongst Jews and Gentiles alike has also made remarks in speeches which infer that Gentile bodies are inferior to Jewish ones then that merits at least a section in this lengthy article, including any available reputable interpretation of those remarks whether exculpatory or not .--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed a simplification. But essentially true. Definitely nothing that Schneersohn has to say about chassidic theory relating to the primacy of the Jewish soul would influence the policy of Israeli secular leaders in this primarily territorial conflict. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is more useful to consider whether the consequences in actions (killing or deprivation of human rights ) by those taught that they are a superior form of human arises from teachings in religious manuscripts or by interpreters of those writings or ideas such as this man. I leave the consideration of souls (whatever they are) to others, but if "souls" or bodies of one group are alleged to be more precious than those of another group the corollary can be fatal. This guy never visited Israel but its leaders sure visited him a lot. How about including the two controversial texts about superior bodies and souls within the article in a section titled "Remarks concerning Metaphysical and Physical Superiority of Jews over other Humans  ? When and where did he spout this stuff ? Also no-one has yet offered any reference to interpretations of why this man said these odd things. Some better referenced material on his "territorial compromise" ideas about Israel "toned down" by his followers might be enlightening too. Hagiographic articles are as frustrating as negative agenda driven ones --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 07:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to your question ("How about" etc.), I have stated my opinion already. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "How about" suggestion was addressed to all fellow editors, (not just one !) and particularly to those who might have the means to dig out the dates of utterance etc.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. As a continuation of the previous point, but separate from it. Isn't some theory of supremacy inherent in at least the three major Abrahamic religions? It certainly seems to me that Christianity and Islam believe that being a Christian or a Muslim is the highest state for mankind, and they are, and have historically been, much more explicit about this, including many and bloody manifestations of this doctrine. And if we accept an inherent supremacy as being part of any religion, are we to speak about it in a condemning voice?
I understand that the 7 points above range from simply concerning Wikipedia policies and guidelines to heavy philosophical issues. I remind my fellow editors that they should be viewed independently, each on its own merit. I think that even part of these points are already sufficient reason not to include the controversial text in this article. So keep the discussion simple and to the point, I would recommend and ask that it be centered mainly around the first four points. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Islam nor Christianity differentiate "souls" on the basis of ethnic extraction and furthermore neither designates one type as intrinsically good and the other instrinsically evil. Generalising intrinsic evilness to all non-Jews is no different than generalising intrinsic evil to all Jews -- both are racist except the latter generalisation has a special term, viz. "anti-semitism". The doctrine that non-Jewish souls derive from the three unclean shells -- which has its roots in Kabbalah and carried over into texts such as Tanya -- is thoroughly racist and thoroughly ethnocentric. Neither Islam nor Christianity are ethno-religions, there is no metaphysically priviliged ethnic group within the doctrine of either religion. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They differentiate and very clearly designate as good (and worthy of heaven) or bad (and worthy of hell) based on religion. Which, if not officially, is practically often determined by the fact of being born into a religious family. And has a less intrinsic relation to the person than his ethnicity. And they have killed many people based on this difference. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The differentiation you refer to is entirely based on belief NOT ethnicity. Christianity and Islam are purely religions and hence they are not inherited. Judaism is an ethno-religion and Jewishness is an ethnicity that is -- according to halakhah -- inherited from one's mother. Jewish intellectuals such as Jared Diamond are excited by the idea of identifying a Jewish gene (or genes) to accurately determine who is actually a Jew (see Jared Diamond, "Who Are the Jews?" Natural History, November 1993, p12) to determine who should and shouldn't be given Israeli citizenship. Diamond is especially concerned with the "Falasha" or Ethiopian Beta Israel and suspects they are merely African converts rather than ethnic Jews. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, religion. So it is called "discrimination", not "racism". Does that help, or make even the slightest difference, to the thousands of Jews murdered because of it? Debresser (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no point engaging in useless theological debates with blatant WP:POV editors hiding behind anonymous IP's, (especially when they falsify data and misrepresent sources such as this IP had done with the Tanya). The issue of Shahak and Mezvinsky failing WP:RS has been discussed and resolved on this talk page much eartlier, and the debate need not be reopened every time a banned user chooses to hide behind a new IP. I recommend the IP address be blocked and the page protected if this continues.--Winchester2313 (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page in all innocence, looking to find pro/con perspective on an unrelated Schneerson controversy. None of that other topic is here, but I've learned (from Monsanto edits, first) to check talk pages as controversy is commonly censored. Still nothing here on "Talk", but this thread caught my eye. I am goyim, but nice... this appears to be what my Israeli friend terms "Hasbara", yes? Why is there not the obvious compromise of including the controversial quotes, with alternate translations as needed, and without using loaded and judgemental wording such as "racist"? I need to trust wikipedia. Please put wikipedia ahead of ideology. Thank you. Rad314 (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. It is quite blatant that the censoring about this point is political; the IP’s argumentation in favour of inclusion is convincing. Why does Winchester2313 react so aggressively? What’s more, the terms the IP has proposed (“ethnocentrism” and “Jewish exceptionalism”) are neutral. — SniperMaské (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find my and others' arguments against inclusion a lot more convincing. And as far as "blatant censoring" is concerned, is that what you always say when people disagree with you? Debresser (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Rabbi's Talmudic anti-gentile hatred is well known, the fact that concrete sources are not enough to get it listed shows the deep seated bias in the wiki editing standards.

--Savakk (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want to write an article about Talmudic sages' view of gentiles, go ahead, but that is not in this article. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Why is it never the correct article?

Anytime an editor brings up the issue of anti-gentile hatred in Judaism it's not the correct article.

there isn't even a section in the criticism of Judaism article because of how dedicated you people are at hiding the truth.

--Savakk (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth

Some IP user is adding material that Schneerson would have been born in 1895.

  1. This is a fringe theory, while tons of sources state the well know birthyear 1902.
  2. Schneersons father was born in 1878 and his mother in 1880. And they were married in 1900. Not so likely that a rabbi and a rabbi's daughter would have an illegitimate son for five years. Not to mention bearing child at 15 years.
  3. The date mentioned does not correspond to the Jewish date of 11 Nissan, which Schneerson observed publicly himself as his birthday.
  4. The proof is a picture of an American naturalization application. Either the picture was doctored, or the document was filled out incorrectly, for unknown to me reason.

Debresser (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public addresses

User:Jayjg recently reverted an edit by an anonymous IP user who had corrected an unsourced statement in the article claiming that the LR spoke "with only brief notes...". That these addresses took place without any notes is a matter of public knowledge. There are (at least) several hundred hours of these talks available for viewing in the public domain, and the only text in sight is the same old prayerbook - closed - every time.--Winchester2313 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the edit was undone with the editsummary "material in front of citation changed". Actually, the citation doesn't say anything about this subject at all. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is the reliable secondary sourcing for the claim that he made these addresses without notes? Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the above is not enough for you, that is, if you think that there is reason to contest this statement, which I, for one, would consider an exercise in futility, you are welcome to be your principled self, and add a {{Citation needed}} tag. Sigh... :( Debresser (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a citation for claims isn't an "exercise in futility", it's good practice, and policy. If there aren't any reliable secondary sources that comment on it, one should also consider the possibility that it's simply not notable, whether or not its true. There's been plenty written about Schneerson, so there should be absolutely no difficulty writing an article in which every statement is sourced to reliable secondary sources, and which (in general) complies with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jayjg here - it's the sort of thing that (if true) I'd strongly suspect exists in some source somewhere (damn, why is this page still on my watchlist, it lights up so often...). Debresser, I strongly strongly recommend getting it to GA or something which acts like a "stable version" and can be reverted to (like a rubber band) with ease.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this article to get to GA. But I also like editors not being a pain in the ass. Which is what Jayjg is, with all of sudden being very strict about OR or RS when it suits him. I know him for a long time already... Debresser (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, if it goes to GA and/or FA, it will be subject to broader scrutiny - lots of folks who are pretty neutral, so a broader bunch to get consensus. It works well generally. FA and now GA articles have to be inline referenced to the proverbial eyeballs anyway....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your case I am past WP:AGF. And where such seems justified, the guideline you mention looses its relevance. Note that Winchester2313 also seems to have noticed your tendencies in this regard. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a policy, and it is always relevant. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise - a sentence about the Lubavitcher Rebbe or Chabad that may seem positive, and User:Jayjg manufactures a 'technical' issue....really!! I've found a source that mentions this fact, and will update the article shortly. By the way, are there any sources mentioning that Obama uses a teleprompter.....?!--Winchester2313 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a quote from the source as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The exact words in the quoted source are; "...in precise Yiddish without a text or even any notes". If Jayjg had bothered to actually read the edit summary of my edit of Jan 26th, he/she would have seen that I had "revised wording to precisely quote source". I have now removed the tags Jayjg keeps needlessly attaching to the sentence in question. Please respect the WP:NPOV policy, and refrain from harassing other editors as you have on this article simply, apparently, because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Winchester2313 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're quoting a source, why aren't you using quotation marks in the article text? Please review WP:Plagiarism and WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so that you what have a policy to throw at him... :( Debresser (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need a policy to know that if you are copying text directly from a source, you need to enclose it in quotation marks? Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not bringing it as a direct quote, but have worked it into your text, then no, there is no need to add quotation marks. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Winchester2313 justified his tag removal on the grounds that he had "revised wording to precisely quote source". Please review the discussion above. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much aware of that fact, and have closely followed this discussion, Please do not insult my intelligence or seriousness in editing here.
I am very much getting the impression that your actions on this article and its talkpage are meant to be annoying. And I very much not appreciate that feeling. Forgive me if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you closely followed the discussion, then why did you say If you are not bringing it as a direct quote, but have worked it into your text, then no, there is no need to add quotation marks? How could it possibly be relevant to the discussion that immediately preceded it, regarding something that was explicitly brought as a direct quote? Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elipsis outside quotes

If the text, "were often moderated, particularly by...Krinsky," is a quote, it belongs in quotation marks. If it is not in quotes, it does not require the eliplsis, which outside quotes represents a rhetorical device (give the audience time to guess what accusation you are going to make) that has no place in an encyclopedia. 71.175.134.163 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson&oldid=524882792"