Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Education Day USA

The introduction made much of a congressional proclamation of Scheerson's Bday as Education Day, USA, then went on to say it honored his establishment of the department of education as a cabinet level department. First of all, Congress did pass a proclamation urging then president Jimmy Carter to establish the upcoming birthday of Scheerson as "Education Day USA", and President Carter did proclaim such a day, but did not mention Scheerson. Neither mentions any contribution to establishing a cabinet level department. Since that day, yearly proclamations are made by presidents of "Education and Sharing Day" with attention to Scheerson and the Lubavitch movement. I would not have put much importance on this however, since there are national proclamations of this day as also National Tater day, National Bunsen Burner day, and National Clam on a half-shell day. ([1]). I have altered the text to reflect the letter of the proclamations and events. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The proclamation did not mention his contribution to the cabinet level position, but the proclamation and subsequent making of Education Day USA in his honor each year was a result of that. Nor did the intro say that the proclamation said in it. TM (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence as written:

"In 1978, the U.S. Congress designated Scheerson's birthday as the national Education Day U.S.A.,[18] honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department.[19][20]"

certainly seems to link the designation of the national Education Day with the latter statement. If you want to make this a separate idea, then state: Some (preferably they would be named) honor him for his role ..." The proclamation states nothing to the fact. In fact, as I stated, the presidential proclamation does not mention Scheerson, however, your would be correct in saying that "Education and Sharing Day" as proclaimed by apparently all presidents since, do mention Scheerson. Please do not revert. If you wish, you can, as purportedly your sources assert, state that some believe or thank Scheerson for his role in establishing the Department of Education...

Having said that, I do not find substantiation of that claim in other sources: [[2]]. He may have supported this, but I find it unlikely that Scheerson played a major role in this. Again I do not have access to your sources. Is it possible that they could be biased?

By the guidelines of Wikipedia, your "finding it unlikely" does not qualify you to remove properly sourced information. Your claims about the proclamations and it's intent is likewise original research which is incompatible with Wikipedia. If there is some sourced information that you do not like, please look for a qualifying source that is by Wikipedia's strong enough to dispute it. Also, in the future, please make sure to sign your post. With best wishes. TM (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not remove properly sourced information. I removed information that was not sourced. That contradicted the material. The sentence above states that: "In 1978...Congress designated Scheerson's birthday as the blah-blah day,[18] honoring his role in XYZ." My point is that Congress in designating the blah-blah day, DID NOT honor his role in XYZ. It makes no such statement. That phrase is wrong. It is not true. There is no substantiation for it in the Congressional statement, nor in the following presidential proclamation. NONE makes any mention of his role in XYZ. NONE. Your statement is false. You are not addressing the issue and are reverting my comments. I recommend that this be taken to arbitration. The issue in question is simple: Did Congress in designating Scheerson's birthday as the national Education Day U.S.A., honor his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department." Yes or No. If so cite me anything in the Congressional proclamation, or in the followup presidential proclamation by Carter of Education Day U.S.A. that supports that. If you can not, then your statement is false. It is not substantiated by fact, and should be modified. The answer to this question is that Congress did no such thing. Others may think that this was one of their motivations, among others, but in designating the Education Day, Congress did NOT honor Scheerson for his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department. I will also tag the article as having disputed neutrality. This is an article that may need administrator supervision, since it deals with a person from recent history, who has been associated with individuals with Messianic beliefs specifically about this person.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No need to shout. Everything was sourced to two published books. No one claimed that the proclamation stated that Congress did such and such because of xyz. You are building and knocking down a straw man. Congress proclaimed the day as Education Day to honor Rabbi Schneerson: "Whereas world Jewry marked in 1977 the seventy-fifth birthday of the revered and renowned Jewish leader... Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson... the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating April 18, 1978, as "Education Day, U.S.A."." As the sources state, Congress chose to do so to honor him for his involvement and role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department. Is something still not clear? TM (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The statement that

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

An agreement was made on the claim "honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department" towards the end of the RFC and so this RFC does not need formal closure. If any of the participants think it does please leave a message on my talk page. Since this is listed at WP:ANRFC I am boxing it up. As a side note, WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:ONUS while not mentioned here, their logic was followed and would be mentioned in any required close. AlbinoFerret 21:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The following statement is false: "In 1978, the U.S. Congress designated Scheerson's birthday as the national Education Day U.S.A.,honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department". Congress in their proclamation (designation) made no mention of any such role. They did not honor that role in the designation.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Rococo1700 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for evidence on whether there is a link with Education Day USA and a role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department. Does the honor derive from the latter fact? My answer is that all the evidence marshals against the fact. It is not true. Please read the following presidential proclamations:

• Education and Sharing Day 2000 by President William J. Clinton
• Proclamation of Education and Sharing Day 2002 by President George W. Bush
• President Barack Obama
• "The White House - Press Office - Presidential Proclamation Marking Education And Sharing Day". Archived from the original on September 26, 2009.
• To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

Please spare me the platitudes of claiming a voice of reason. This encyclopedia is a matter of facts. You can reasonably discuss false statements, and that does not make them true. It is not right to quote only Lubavitch literature to claim the Education Day honored Scheerson for helping establish a cabinet level department. If such a momentous feat had been achieved by Scheerson, then I would expect it would be highlighted in the proclamations by congress or by over four presidents. None of them does this, despite having proclamations that honor Scheerson. I agree Scheerson is honored by Education Day. He is not honored for helping establish a cabinet level department. That is false. If you continue to revert this fact then we need to seek outside mediation. You are not discussing the evidence. That is not reasonable.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. That is original research. There are two sources linked in the article which state explicitly that the reason Congress did so was a to honor of Rabbi Schneerson's involvement in the creation of the cabinet level position. Original research, on the other hand, is not acceptable. TM (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. This is not original research. Documents from Congress explicitly state the reason why Congress honored Schneerson. Your sources are biased. Mine are not. I recommend again that the tag questioning the article's neutrality be place on the article. Again answer the facts. Congress and the presidential proclamations regarding Education Day make no mention of your claim, none, zero. It is false.

Rococo1700 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made a referral of the problem to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Please do not revert my neutrality tag until you have addressed the present problem.

TzviMichelsohn and Debresser assert that Schneerson was honored with Education day, USA, and subsequently Education and Sharing day, honoring of his role in establishing the Department of Education as a cabinet level department. Yet neither the first proclamation by Congress or President Jimmy Carter, and none of the proclamations by either congress or at least 4 presidents, ever mention this fact. If he was honored for such a major contribution to our governance, why wouldn't it not be mentioned. The proclamations honor Schneerson, but they do not honor him for this role. Facts are the facts. My sources are the proclamations themselves, they are listed above.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In reading the comments above, I find that TzviMichelsohn is perservering in a obfuscation that I encountered in editing prior entries in Wikipedia. Let me use an example: TM would claim that if he has two sources that say that the Declaration of Independence was written because Jefferson wanted to sell his house, then that would have more validity than the reasons stated within the Declaration itself. He would consider that quoting the Declaration is "original research", and that only his third party source is valid.

Again this is a fallacy often used by editors trying to replace common sense facts with biased observations. I would refer TM to Wikipedia:No original research, Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Again there are two ways to use the proclamations in this case, one could use a secondary source, and follow their claim, COMPLETELY ABSENT from the primary source, that interprets the proclamation as honoring Schneerson for something that is not even mentioned in the proclamation. That begs belief.

TM goes on to state that the sentence in question does not state that the proclamation honors Schneerson for the disputed role. That is not true. The sentence as it stands, links the proclamation with the honoring for the role in establishing the Education Department as a cabinet level position. And again, there is no evidence for that in any of the proclamation(s).

Is it possible Schneerson called somebody in Congress or the White House and expressed his preference for the Education Department as part of the cabinet? Maybe, I don't know. Did this have a role? Maybe, I don't know. I doubt it, but if TM wants to claim that so an so source say so, go ahead. However, I find it incompatible with reality, incredible, that the Congress and President would emit these proclamation and honor Schneerson with such laudatory praise (1991) such as: Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;/Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;/ Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;/ Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;/Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;/Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws but then fail to take note here, or in any subsequent proclamation by presidents or the congress, that these proclamations have anything to do with his role in a major Government restructuring. It strains credulity. I requires one to believe that the secondary sources that TM cites find some honor in this text that is not there. This is not original research, this is making a point that the cited studies cannot find justification for their claims in these proclamations. They do not honor him for any role in the Department of Education being raised to cabinet level. Period.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the three new sections made by Rococo1700.

I think that opening an Rfc was a premature step, in view of the fact that the issue has hardly been discussed here. In addition, it would have been proper to first ask other editors at WT:JUDAISM to step in and give their opinion, and see if that would solve this issue.

I have removed the POV tag again. This is a minor issue, relating to one sentence in one section, and tagging the whole article is overkill. In addition, I think that POV is not the issue here. It is more a matter of synchronizing the article with its sources.

Although Rococo1700 mentioned my name as though I am a party to the issue, I see myself more as an outside observer to this issue, and as such would like to appeal to all sides and especially to Rococo1700 to take it easy. Opening 3 sections on the talkpage, tagging the whole article, opening an Rfc and a DR is overkill. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, I urge you to read prior archives of this Talk page and recognize that neutrality in this subject this has been a long-standing problem, and some of the controversies in the past included you. I find that it is easy to have editors like TM and you just revert well-substantiated edits and not address the issues. You have not addressed the issues here (again). Rather than just stating you are an "outside observer", and complaining about other editors, address the facts. I have pointedly done so a number of times. I appeal to you to do so rather than complaining about the process.

Again, can you find me any evidence in the proclamations honoring Schneerson, that he was "honored for elevating the Department of Education to a cabinet position." Simple question.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rococo1700, I did address part of the issue in this edit. I don't think you are likely to complain about that edit, are you? But your tagging this article with a POV template is overkill, and I will address your hotheaded edit behavior, since it is detrimental to this article and the general atmosphere here. So I urge you to talk this over before making any more edits, and use the right perspective on what really is a minor issue. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Education Day is not the same as founding a cabinet level department. That is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to the extreme and chabad POV pushing. Not everything in this world is due to Lubavitch and the entire US educational system is not because of the Rebbe. If it is, you need to bring reliable sources, such as a congressional record of the formation of the US Department of Education. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Link to DOE Founding Act The Department of Education act was enacted in 1979. https://federaleducationpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/department-of-education-organization-act-1979/ I took a quick look at the act and nowhere is the Rebbe mentioned. I think we can close this RFC. Here's a link to the Wiki page: Department_of_Education_Organization_Act nowhere is the Rebbe mentioned. I think Education Day and Department of Education might have been confused but the founding of the Department was in no way due to the Rebbe. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sir Joseph. But are you honestly disregarding two separate published sources? And as a side note, I would suggest your comment "Not everything in this world is due to Lubavitch and the entire US educational system is not because of the Rebbe." is extreme POV and displays a total lack of neutrality. Also, did anyone here even make such grand a claim? TM (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A published book (possibly being a biased book) can't overturn an act of Congress. If you're claiming that Congress enacted the DOE because of the Rebbe, then in the "millions" of "whereas" there should be a Rebbe statement, but there isn't. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not claiming that DOE was enacted only because of the Rebbe, nor did the article (or the two sources provided) ever say that. There were likely many factors in it's founding but you seem to be engaging in typical straw man building and knocking. What I am saying, and what is undeniably published, is that the Rebbe was involved and played a role in DOEs establishment, hence Congress decision to honor him. I am sorry if the facts are painful. Are you now also suggesting that these two books are biased but not denying your own bias I exposed above? TM (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If the Rebbe had a hand in the DOE establishment, it would have been in the Congressional Record, it's not. Your claim that the Rebbe had a hand in the DOE founding needs to be sourced. You need to show where the Rebbe had a hand. Just saying in a book, is not good enough. And not that it matters, but the Telushkin book is a biased book, not saying it's bad, but it is biased so that it can't be used especially when it goes against the US Congress. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you would be familiar with the how Government keeps records you would know that is not the case. For example (and I am not comparing the two, but just giving a recent example) the JCPOA agreement makes absolutely no mention of John Kerry. And just to go back to the original act of 1979 and Congressional record that you posted above the with comment "I took a quick look at the act and nowhere is the Rebbe mentioned. I think we can close this RFCT" if you would look at it a bit better, you would perhaps notice that it dosnt mention anyone else at all either. Now, the claim that you are looking to remove is clearly sourced to two separate books, written by reputable authors, and published by mainstream printing houses. Also, the books don't just make a statement. They provide background and longer explanation as to where the Rebbe had a hand. If deemed necessary and relevant by unbiased editors, I'm sure that additional information can be added later in the page. Have you read what is written in the books? TM (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't assume and don't keep POV pushing. If you look at the Act here: https://federaleducationpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/department-of-education-organization-act-1979/ you will see what I told you originally, there is no mention of the Rebbe at all. I don't know why the JCPOA would mention John Kerry, it's not his act, your claiming the DOE was due to the Rebbe so it would be in the Act, yet it's not. If you claim that the DOE is due to the rebbe, show me where. Which page in the book details where the DOE act is because of the rebbe. If it's clear as day, it should be clear and simple to find sources and your Telushkin book is not good enough, you need reliable unbiased sources. It should be simple to find newspaper articles and other press releases and congressional clippings that details the Department of Education was founded because of the Rebbe. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, you seem to not like the truth. No one claimed it was "due to the Rebbe" or "founded because of the Rebbe." The undeniable, published fact, however, is that the Rebbe played a role in its establishment and was therefor honored. Again, the link you provide mentions no one at all so I am not sure what original research you are trying to use it for. Perhaps it also somehow proves that no one was involved and it all happened on its own.. As I said, you are obviously unfamiliar with how Government keeps records. Now, once again, and I hope finally, the claim that you are looking to remove is clearly sourced to two separate books, written by reputable authors, and published by mainstream printing houses. They provide background and longer explanation as to where the Rebbe had a hand. Have a look at them before displaying a bias and insisting on deleting sourced information. TM (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told you before, don't assume, and two, show me the proof. What book, what page number. Your claim that the rebbe had a hand in the founding of the DOE needs super proof, and merely saying "it's in a book" is not good enough. You continuously mix up Education Day and the DOE. He was honored with Education Day, as you in the above section even mentioned. It does not say he had a hand in the founding of the DOE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no one assuming here besides for yourself. You are assuming its not true. Nor is there any confusion. He was honored with ED as a result of his role in the establishment of DOE. This is documented in two separate books. Titles, publishing information and exact page numbers are all linked as sources on the main article page. Have a look at the sources before just blindly deleting info you are not comfortable with. You seem to have displayed a major bias here but I'll leave that for others to decide. TM (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one in the world that is aware of that evidence. Please tell me which page number it can be found that documents that the rebbe had a hand in founding the US Department of Education. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Debresser keeps telling me to "calm down", that this is a minor point, but then TM argues vociferously against the evidence. Please be reasonable here. I would accept that it is possible, and would have no objections to saying that some authors state that Schneerson lobbied, favored, argued for, or supported the creation of a Department of Education as a cabinet level position. He may have even played a role in changing the mind of someone influential in this regard. How influential? I tend to agree with Sir Joseph, that a major role would be independently verifiable in a review of the history of the agency. But that is not my point. Again, let us be clear, there is no evidence in the proclamations honoring Schneerson that he was honored by Congress, or the President(s), with "Education and Sharing Day" for the stated role. It is not credible that such an role would have escaped the praise of those formulating the proclamations. You need to separate the two ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs)

• Comment - Just follow the (appropriate) cites - cites do not support the language as presented and the language as stated seems factually incorrect.

* Cites source - "In 1978, the U.S. Congress designated" needs cites from 1978 and Congress, or about Congress in 1978. Cites in different decades from Clinton, Bush, and Obama are not so RS for congressional opinion in 1978. And for these particular items - the Clinton does not speak to the birthday, and the Obama links are dead to me. Bush only makes a minor remark of it being the same day, not a causal satement or about Congress.

* Different day - the 1978 designation seems to be for a different day and shows no such association, see GPO.

* Different event - the article language conveys that "Education and Sharing Day" was begun in 1978, but the 1978 item designation is a different event title, the proclamation is "Education Day, U.S.A.".

I think you could validly start the event in 1982 and remark about a previous Education Day USA, but to say that 1978 was this event or to say that 1978 was his birthday are both factually incorrect. cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Markbassett (talk). I may be misunderstanding you. But the document from 1978 makes explicit mention: "Whereas world Jewry marked in 1977 the seventy-fifth birthday of the revered and renowned Jewish leader... Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who proclaimed on that occasion a "Year of Education" and... the seventy-sixth birthday of this celebrated spiritual leader will occur on April 19, 1978... Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating April 18, 1978, as "Education Day, U.S.A."."

With regard to his role in the establishment and advocacy for the DOE, there are two separate sources from published books. If there is something that I misunderstood in your comment, please let me know. Thanks. TM (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What page number? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The page numbers are stated explicitly in the sources on the page. Have you looked? TM (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have the page numbers. If you had the page numbers, you would tell me since I'm repeatedly asking for them. It's up to you to tell me; I don't have to go digging through the page to find them. You are asserting an incredulous claim, you need to find the source. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you should look at the sources provided before deleting material. TM (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I just did a keyword search of the book and it doesn't mention anywhere the DOE or Department of Education, so unless my search was faulty you need to pinpoint the exact location where the rebbe helped found the US DOE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Your search obviously was faulty as the admin themselves have just told you the words Department of Education are in the book. Now continue reading the book and you will see the background and all the relevant information. I am wondering, is your search faulty, or you just don't want to believe whats written? TM (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I will search again, but like I said earlier, it's irrelevant, those two sources would not be WP:RS for this claim. You would need a newspaper or the Congressional Record or a reliable source, not a biased source that claims that the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US DOE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You may not like what it says, but they are both valid sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines. You can not make a special set of rules for this topic just because you don't like the proven, documented and published information. Now that we have finally cleared this, I think we are safe to put it back. Shalom! TM (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We didn't clear anything up, and they are not reliable sources. And indeed, we do have rules for topics. You can indeed have rules for a biography that claims something. This is a biased source that supposedly claims something so outlandish. If the rebbe had a hand in founding the US DOE it would have many more sources. You cant add it until you have more verifiable sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, just because you don't like the Rebbe, and just because you don't like what he did and what the books say about him, does not mean they are not valid sources. They are. They are also both completely valid in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies. You clearly have an ax to grind. [Just to sum up: first you claim it didn't happen, then you claim it's not documented, then you claim its not in the book, then you claim the page does not exists, then you claim that the source are not valid. C'mon!]TM (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I just read page 161 and you are mis-reading it. He had a campaign, just like we all campaign to do stuff, does not mean he had a hand in founding the DOE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph Please note that insistence on being provided with what you can look up for yourself, is not an argument against the validity of the information. At most it can be proof of you being lazy or belligerent. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did look it up, it says no such thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Good for you. Now that is a serious claim. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why I said show me other proof. Congressional Records always have fluff stuff like this. Do you actually believe the rebbe had a hand in founding the US DOE? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that TM is ignoring a glaring problem with his position. The statement he puts forth and says is supported by "his sources" is that by the proclamation of the "Educ.." day, Schneerson was honored for helping establish the Dept of Education as a cabinet level department. Yet none, I repeat none, of more than half-a-dozen of the official proclamations, including the original ones, none of them mention this, despite profuse praises of Schneerson. Are you saying they forgot? Are you saying they didn't think this major role was important? You continue to ignore the point. Again if so and so says in a book that the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed because Jefferson did not like pumpernickel bread. I would remove that statement from Wikipedia, because the Declaration of Independence makes no mention of pumpernickel bread. The proclamations of "Educ." day make no mention, none, of raising the "Educational Department to cabinet level". Therefore they could not be established to honor Schneerson for that role. They honor him for other reasons as stated in the proclamations. Rococo1700 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Since as Debresser (talk) pointed out Sir Joseph is being lazy, I have quoted a section of the relevant information here: "Shemtov was sent back to D.C. in 1970... by the late 1970s he was pushing the Rebbe's first Washington campaign - the creation of a department of education, separate from the existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Shemtov was later appointed to an intergovernmental advisory committee on education -the only religious figure on the committee - and spent hectic months lobbying for Congressional support for a cabinet-level department of education. Carter supported the idea and Schneerson wrote to him to express his hopes that other nations follow the U.S. lead. In 1978 Carter declared the first Education Day USA in Schneerson honor... U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley thanks Schneerson for his early and concerted support of the department's creation. "His voice, so respected and beloved, helped to make it happen. So I owe my job to him." Riley said." This is from just one of the sources and I think this is crystal clear. As to Rococo1700 (talk), you are engaging in original research. TM (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Riley was the Secretary of Education in 1993. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

TM, I still find your source unconvincing. I refer you to a Chabad website discussing this specific point [3]. This website includes the original proclamations from Congress, and President Carter regarding Education Day. None of them mentions or honors Schneerson for any role in the department of Education. On April 18, 1978, Schneerson himself gave a speech, but did not mention any role in the formulation of the Education department as a cabinet level department. On September 18, 1978, President Carter in a letter congratulated Schneerson for Education Day U.S.A (it is strange that his presidential proclamation did not mention Schneerson).

There are in this webpage, two letters by Schneerson in which he voices support for moving the Dept of Ed to a cabinet level position. The first, dated February 9, 1979 (and sent to the President) and the other February 26, l979 (sent to Vice-President Mondale). Note this is nearly a year after they had first proclaimed "Education Day USA". Schneerson tells the President:

In light of your gracious letter of September 18, l978, with reference to the resolution passed by Congress designating April l8, "Education Day - U.S.A." which you signed into law, it will come as no surprise to you, Mr. President, that your proposal to establish a Cabinet-level Department of Education has received my fullest endorsement and acclaim.

Again I read this letter that Schneerson fully supported this change, but it does not support your contention that he was honored for this role with the holiday. In his letter to the Vice President, Schneerson voices similar endorsement. None of this data confirms the text your inserted. In addition, the commentary of Schneerson after the proclamation of the day appears to contradict that he was honored for that role, described in the letter as President Carter's ("your proposal" in his letter). There is a difference between Schneerson supporting the change, and being honored for playing a role in the change being made. Are we clear?Rococo1700 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

TM also, your quote above has a glaring problem:

In 1978 Carter declared the first Education Day USA in Schneerson honor -yada, yada, yada - U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley thanks Schneerson for his early and concerted support of the department's creation.

Well to paraphrase George Costanza, you can't yada yada from first Education Day to honoring him with the day for his support.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So we have consensus that the present version, which as this diff shows is without the contended sentences is acceptable to all? Alternatively, can we get a promise from all editors that there will be no edits till there is consensus? That way we can unprotect the article. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Rococo1700?

The version now which does NOT link the Education day to a role in establishing the Dept of Education as a cabinet level department is acceptable. I have concerns that the influence of Schneerson is overstated:

During his life, Schneerson had great influence on numerous political leaders from across the aisle, many of whom would seek his advice. He was visited by Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, Senators, Congressmen and Mayors. Notable among them are John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Jacob Javits, Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, David Dinkins and Joe Lieberman.[67][126]

I believe this can be toned down. I see no evidence that he had a great influence on Franklin D Roosevelt or Jimmy Carter. Then again these are different sentences. Maybe just "influence" would suffice. Is there a need to list Presidents, governors, senators etc. when the following sentence has Presidents, governors, etc. But ultimately I can live with such hagiographic fluff at the edges, when at least the introductory paragraph has the prior nonsense removed. I agree with the present version.Rococo1700 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Rococo1700 Contrary to what you write, this paragraph does not imply that the presidents were influenced by him. It says: 1. he influenced numerous political leaders. In a separate sentence: 2. he was visited by presidents. I feel as though you are looking for things that aren't there. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph?

TM?

I would continue to follow the published sources and refrain from engaging in original research. And yes, it seems like Rococo1700 and Sir Joseph have exposed themselves to being extremely biased. TM (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to AGF. This is an encyclopedia, not a biography or hagiography you buy in Eichlers or Hecht's. And one reason politicians visit rebbes, like him or the Satmar or Bobov is for votes, so saying that they visited him because they were influenced by him might not be correct either. Which is I think what you were implying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's an encyclopedia, with specific rules and guidelines that editors must adhere to. And that means there may be information about an individual who you despise that is still true. I initially AGF with you. But your petty arguments have exposed yourself to having a preconceived bias. What can we do, there is always that one rotten apple. TM (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

TM, I agree with present text; even though I find other minor disagreements with text, I am not going to edit those. The present text does NOT claim a relationship of education day with a role in the elevation of the Department of Education to cabinet level. It seems your answer is that you disagree. Yes or no, please? Rococo1700 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood you. Was it his role in the establishment of DOE as a cabinet level that bothered you, or the text that claimed a relationship of education day with that role? TM (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I certainly had problems with the sentence that said "congress established Education day, honoring him for the role". There is no evidence in any of the proclamations for this. Zilch. Second, he appears to have agreed with the push to raise the Department to a cabinet level; but I would not describe it as saying he played a significant role in the process. Again there are two letters by Schneerson quoted in Chabad article, but they seem to show Schneerson supported an effort underway by the administration, not that he was playing a major role: Schneerson spoke to Carter saying it was "you proposal" and that "the Administration is making an all-out effort" for this change. I have no problem in saying Schneerson supported the change, however, I see no evidence Schneerson played a major or significant "honored" role, I would like to see some Dept of Ed history or historian cite those efforts or role. Certainly I see none. Again, I think the question before us, is whether the facts relating to this question, as it stands, is ok. I say yes. What say you? Yes or no? You are avoid answering the question. Rococo1700 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lede

There has been consensus on the lede of this page for some time. Recently an anonymous editor has added and edited without providing a single source to back up these claims. Then another editor has been constantly defending and that anonymous editor (Sock puppet?). Having many "sources" that go to pages with info about the chabad movement, doesn't mean it says what a particular editor claims it does. Open the sources and have a look. TM (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just know that you can be blocked for calling someone a sockpuppet. Wikipedia is not a hagiography, we don't censor. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

oif der ganev brent dem hittel as they say in yiddish. Interesting that you out of all people are getting defensive that I was referring to you. If we don't censor, explain why you removed/change a sourced statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century.". Is it because you don't like it? TM (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not in the source. My edit is properly sourced. If you keep reverting, I will report you. You need to follow WP:CITE and WP:RS, etc. The source does not say He is considered one of the most infuential..... Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What in the lede now do you specifically object to? Everything in there is properly sourced and following WP:DUE, so any changes should be discussed here since you already reverted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You keep reverting even when the sources are in there. I will report you if you don't stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single source there that says "many followers believe he is the messiah." Please provide at least one then we can discuss. At most you have some sources from a decade ago that claim some followers "believed" he was the messiah. Just dumping a load of "sources" that don't back your claim won;t make the claim true. Also, you casually removed the only sourced statement here that said "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century." You are obliviously bias and should be barred from this page. TM (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys, since I know you both for quite some time here on Wikipedia, please allow me to ask both of you to cool down. There is no doubt in my mind that both of you are good editors, and there is no reason to bar any of you from this or any other article.

Let's just stick to sources. The statement that many followers consider him to be the redeemer is correct. All that is left to do is check if the sources say that, or something else.

I checked one source, after I saw that TM removed it for the second time, and he is correct: the article by Susan doesn't make the claim that it was supposed to support. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Debresser for double checking. Indeed, when such a source is provided we can have a different discussion. Also, I am curios as to why SirJoseph removed the statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century" which was sourced? TM (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, read the Tablet article again, it says that many people believed him to be the messiah. And it does not say that "he was the most influential" That is not in the article. The Tablet article has a few cites similar to this: "Some of his followers tried to proclaim him the Messiah, " Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. "Some of his followers tried to proclaim him the Messiah" is not "many followers believe he is the messiah." There is a difference there. The other statement is from the NYT. No need to hide behind the Tablet. TM (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That is just one source within the article. And why did you remove the Bar Hayim cite? You can't just remove cites you disagree with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So now when two editors read the article and show you that the claim you are making is not there you say "that's just one article"?? I have read all of them, and none of them make the claim you are making. On the other hand, the claim "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century" is indeed properly sourced to more than one source. As you just wrote "You can't just remove cites you disagree with." TM (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to get it, what is wrong with the lede now? Your claim is in the lede, it's sourced. What more do you want? Moshe Rabbeinu saying the Rebbe is the greatest? Your bias is clearly showing. As I keep asking you, tell me what you want changed in the lede and we can discuss it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Bar Hayim cite? You have some nerve to keep editing after you were warned. You are edit warring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you should put back the statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century." That was properly sourced until you changed it. It seems you bias won't let you do that however. TM (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Bar Haim does not make that claim!! TM (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• This "...and arguably one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the second half of the 20th century" has been in the lede for weeks. You need to self revert or you risk being blocked. I can't believe you edit war after being warned and being brought to AN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For weeks?? Until yesterday it said "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century." I realize it's hard for you to swallow but anyone can look at the history. TM (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Have the hagiography. I am removing this page from my watchlist so you can destroy it. And that is what arguable means. He wasn't the most influential, he was arguably the most influential. I'm nagain, not sure why you're fighing about that term. But make the lede UNDUE, see if I care. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, since you are "removing this page from" your watchlist, does that mean that you will not revert my deletion of the word "controversial"? Also, for what reason did you undo my edit? Kamel Tebaast (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I agreed with Kamel Tebaast's removal of the word "controversial" for the reasons he indicated in his edit summary. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you pinged me, I will just echo what Editor2020 said. You removed the word controversial as if it was put there by an editor, but it wasn't. The word controversial is part of the quote. Indeed, here is the first sentence from the NYT article. Debresser, I'm not sure why you agree with the removal. The lead is quoting a source and the source says as such.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a Russian-born, Sorbonne-educated scholar who took an insular Hasidic group that almost came to an end with the Holocaust and turned it into one of the most influential and controversial forces in world Jewry.

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph is right. Since the sentence is represented as a quote, we should not remove it. If it weren't represented as a quote, but as information based on a certain source, then I agree with Kamel Tebaast that the word "controversial" is better removed. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld has some great lines about "With all due respect." As long as you begin your sentence, "With all due respect," you can virtually say anything after that. With all due respect, you're an idiot! It seems to be the same with quotes. As long as something is in quotes, anything can be placed on Wikipedia. In retrospect, I did not see the quotes, so, yes, that makes a difference. However, for previously stated reasons, the word "controversial" should not be in the lede. Therefore, I suggest that we remove the quotation marks, remove the word, and keep the citation. Kamel Tebaast (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC) To add one other element, the voice of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in particular is not in quotations. Quotes are generally reserved for someone of note (and a reason for) making the quotes: "Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time," said Magic Johnson. The meaning is obvious when stated by Magic, not an anonymous quote. Hence, the quote placed in the lede should not be a quote. It wasn't made by a president, or anyone of note, but simply by a NY Times journalist with his biased POV. The quote should not be in the lede with the word controversial. Kamel Tebaast (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There seems to have been a lot going on over the past few days, mainly by anonymous users. I suggest going forward we discuss on this page first. TM (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Birthdate

If the Old Style/New Style issue crops up from time to time, perhaps it would be a good thing for the editors who keep an eye on this article to put together a "recurring themes" (like the one at Talk:George Washington) or "Frequently asked questions" section (like at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting). Shearonink (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We used to have a link to Old Style and New Style dates on the page. Is it gone? Debresser (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the Wikilinkage is still there. I just thought it might nice to let readers know that this issue has cropped up before. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You might all wish to be advised that, after a lot of discussion at talk:Old Style and New Style dates and talk:Adoption of the Gregorian calendar, the two articles have been reshuffled. The former is now primarily about the OS/NS changes in Great Britain and its colonies and it is the latter that takes a worldwide perspective. So I've changed the OS and NS wlinks in this article to Adoption of the Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Eastern Europe because that covers Russia in detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks also for this explanation here. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

praise/criticism balance

There were discussions previously on these talk pages of including details of MMS utterances that were racist concerning the superiority of jews over others. There is also the incident in which his cortege of vehicles broke a red light and killed one guyanese child and severely injured another in NYC . In what appears to be a saintly life these incidents stand in sharp contrast. The city of new york paid out 400,000 dollars to the victims of the motorcade driver. Was this because the police escort had led the entire motorcade through a red light ?

I hope that this article is not yet another example of where a group of editors sharing a particular bond and an enthusiasm for the subject have staked it out to include only positive information.

Is there any record that any other editor is aware of, of Schneerson even once apologising on behalf of his young driver riding shotgun who killed and injured two children ? If not, it would be consistent with the ugly attributed racist remarks --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see in the archives of this talkpage, that this was discussed previously. By the way, there is no doubt that the rabbi himself was not involved in that accident. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tumadoireacht: There is nothing from stoping you to be BOLD. You can also be reveted for WP:UNDUE or other such policy violations. KamelTebaast 22:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast Actually there is; this was discussed and rejected previously. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser, as I wrote, there is nothing stopping Tumadoireacht from being BOLD; however, as I also wrote, they may be reverted (as you stated). KamelTebaast 20:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser- I had already pointed out that the subjects WERE previously mentioned, but they were not rejected as you state. Also there are two items - the alleged racist statements of Schneerson, and the significance of Schneerson's motor cortege having killed and maimed children. Do you maintain that there should be no mention of, or link to either from this article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tumadoireacht: for the record, "Schneerson's motor cortege" did not kill or maim anyone. A driver did, of which there was a Grand Jury hearing. KamelTebaast 03:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record: the record does not concur with your opinion stated here Debresser. See reference in discussion below and NYT articles at both the time and anniversaries since also. The fatal car was there because of Schneerson. Why do you have difficulty acknowledging that undisputed fact ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not a connection that makes this noteworthy for an article about the rabbi. I repeat, this was discussed before, and rejected. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The death of Gavin Cato and the Crown Heights Riot are linked to Schneerson

I have not commented on this hagiographic article for months; it still remains so. In the past I focused on singular issues which have substantive backing. Now looking at this point, I have no idea why there is zero mention of the Schneerson in relation to one of the largest, most influential riots in recent New York City. Again, Schneerson is not directly to blame for Gavin Cato's death. But he was in the second car of a three car caravan returning from the visiting his wife's grave, under police escort when the car following him, so as not to depart from the entourage, accidentally jumped the curb and hit two young children. A riot followed and two men were killed, many arrested, looting and civil disturbances ensued. I think this was an important day in the life of the city and of Schneerson, even if to say he was not driving or in the car involved in the accident or involved in any of the decisions afterward. But linked to the event? For certain. No doubt. Article after article from journals in the city mention his name when talking about the incident. Again, none says he caused the events, but he is linked. I tried to look back through the archives to see how any decision was made that there is no room in the article to mention this link.

For example, the Crown Heights riot article states:

The riots began on August 19, 1991, after two children of Guyanese immigrants were unintentionally struck by an automobile in the motorcade of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of a Jewish religious movement... This event was said to cause tensions between Jewish and black residents to erupt.

I argue that at least this same sentence should be included, in this article. To exclude it is to remove one of the most consequential days in the life of Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700, I agree that it can be noted in the article. However, as you'll notice in the main article, Menachem Mendel Schneerson is mentioned only twice, in both case, only stating that it was his motorcade. Meaning, he was ancillary to the entire situation. So, yes, I agree that it can be mentioned, however, I suggest with caution, and only as it was written in the main article, as no more than a footnote that it was his motorcade in which a driver was involved in the incidents that ignited the riots. KamelTebaast 04:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps the greater relevance has to do with the context of the perception of the Lubavitch by the African American community of the neighborhood, but as a leader, one might find some way to integrate Schneerson into that milieu of interactions. The Gavin Cato incident was a spark for a deeper problem between two groups that either don't interact though they share some of the "same roads". Again not central to Schneerson's life, but worth some notice.

Again, if I recall there have been incidents where a presidential motorcade has caused an accident. For example, a policeman tragically died escorting a Obama's presidential motorcade in Florida a few years ago. I don't think that merits an entry in Obama's biography. But in the case of Gavin Cato, it was not only the death from the motorcade, it was the larger echo of the riots, the subsequent killings, the later trial, and I would hopes someone would enter one sentence about what Schneerson thought of the events.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The "perception of the Lubavitch by the African American community of the neighborhood" is a different article as is the "case of Gavin Cato." If there are RSs regarding the Rebbe and those events, it can certainly make the article. KamelTebaast 06:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This book may form one pillar of reference for an informed debate on what details of the incident should be included in this article. The jewish leader's criticisms of Schneerson's silence and obscurity after are also worthy of note. https://books.google.ie/books?id=StQXz-ClGuUC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=schneerson+apology+for+crown+heights+death&source=bl&ots=yRlgEGCuWu&sig=--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are after on this Talk page. As you know, you are free to edit the article based on RSs. If you are reverted, then the discussion will come to the Talk page. That said, much of what I read in your linked book is opinion, interpretation, and ultimately could be WP:SYNTH. KamelTebaast 04:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

i am attempting to generate debate with a view to reaching consensus. One need not always be bold. Much of I read in the linked book was reportage on statements of Jewish and African American leaders and other authorities on Schneerson's involvement and silence. It is not Synth to mention such well sourced statements from the players. I am surprised that any editor could confuse the two.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The Talk page is not a place for you to purposely "generate debate", rather debate can grow organically from edits or suggested edits. Be my guest, write about what others speculated on why or why not they think the Rebbe did or did not do something. KamelTebaast 05:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Why was the entry on the Crown Heights Riot deleted. Kamel Tebaast has deleted information that was well sourced and relevant to Schneerson. Some time ago, I complained about the fact that this article included information that was non-factual. Now it seems to be excluding factual information. You can state that the Schneerson was not in the car that crashed. You can not however argue that the event has no relationship to him. One could comment that the controversy, and it is a controversy is that the event revealed existing tensions between Jewish and Black residents in the community. As a leader in that community, his actions had an impact, albeit a complex one, leading to that day and the time around it. To not mention this day in his life, when people died, and millions of dollars of costs were involved, is wrong. Others can argue how to interpret his actions or inactions. I only stress, that the link of Schneerson to the event can not be denied. It was his motorcade. Again, if there is blanket deletion of this, I recommend the neutrality of this article be questioned and we have a debate about whether some authors are protecting the article to favor a biased depiction of Schneerson's biography, not to reflect his life. Again, if Kamel Tebaast had a different section to add this to, he is welcome. The question of a proofread, could be valid, but it is a responsibility for him. The citation was provided. Proofread it first, then modify if you wish. Rococo1700 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think material extraneous to a biography of Menachem Mendel Schneerson should be included in this article. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was not driving the vehicle that struck Gavin Cato nor was he even in that vehicle. That was an unfortunate accident but no one ever blamed Menachem Mendel Schneerson for that accident. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not extraneous to his biography. My text did not blame Schneerson. You are wrong in implying that it did.

The obituary for Schneerson in the major newspaper of New York City states in paragraph 4 and 5 Rabbi Schneerson Led A Small Hasidic Sect To World Prominence by Ari Goldman, June 13, 1994:

Rabbi Schneerson had been ailing in recent years and more reclusive than ever -- he had a heart attack in the 1970's and a stroke at his father-in-law's grave in March 1992. But his followers were at the center of events that shaped New York City in the 1990's.

The Crown Heights disturbances in the summer of 1991, which became a central issue in last year's mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. And four Hasidic youths who were shot on the Brooklyn Bridge in early March were returning from a visit to the Manhattan hospital where the Rebbe was recuperating from a cataract operation. A 16-year-old Hasidic student die, and a Lebanese national was charged.

Again please find show me evidence from reliable, nonprimary sources, that do not include this event as part of his life. Even so, you have a difficult time stating what you do, when a summation of the man's biography in the major newspaper of his town includes the above information. If you wish, we can paraphrase from the paragraph above(starting with The Crown Heights disturbances. You can place this in the text in different sections of the article. Rococo1700 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed before, at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F. I stand by my opinion from then, that there is no connection to the rabbi. In reply to a comment above, the fact that the car was in the rabbi's entourage, or even just a follower who drove behind him, is only an incidental connection. He wasn't charged, summoned or anything.

Now, if someone were to write a short paragraph about the accident leading to riots and how the rabbi related to those riots, that might be something noteworthy. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Debresser's conclusion. There was NO CONSENSUS in the archive quoted by Debresser to exclude this from Schneerson's biography. If anything, the sense of the discussion was that it should be included. It has been repeatedly excised by persons with a bias. As I stated above, Debresser, if you have a reliable source which indicates that this was not important in Schneerson's life, I would like to see it. I have quoted the obituary from the most prominent newspaper in the city in which Schneerson lived, and it does feel that the incident was relevant to mention, with more than a sentence, and this is a summary of his life that is shorter than our Wikepedia article. This alone is a strong, powerful, independent, verifiable indication that it should be included. Your opinion, while welcome, does not suffice to delete my entry without some verifiable reasoning why it should not be linked to his life. People died because his motorcade suffered an accident. The event is an example, as I stated in the paragraph, that there were tensions between the Black Community and the Lubavitch Community. Schneerson was a leader of the latter community. If not the accident, then the riots also have a bearing on him. Both do. I am standing my ground. I have facts and a reliable source to back this up. You do not. Do not delete this, or we will have to start again larger debates on this article. This article has a long history of this problem. You can start a request for editorial input.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have elected to restore the deletion to the controversy section, given how controversy is still engenders. Again, there is no controversy that this is part of his biography.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the archived discussion and others, I am convinced that discussions in this regard become to easily intractable, and devolve into racism versus anti-Semitism debates. I have posted this in the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not discussing a new issue, but one which in the past appeared to coalesce over the inclusion of the facts as a sentence in the article, however, that seems to be opposed by one party, despite evidence of its link to Schneerson's biography. Having others add to the discussion or arbitrate would be useful.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Rioting does not create a connection to Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The traffic accident can serve as a pretext for rioting. But Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not the cause of this accident, and no one ever blamed Menachem Mendel Schneerson for this accident. Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Schneerson has only accidental and rather remote relation to the event, therefore a separate section in his bio is undue. At best, it may be listed in the "See also" section. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Staszek: Rioting does not create a connection to Schneerson. However rioting makes it important. What makes a connection to Schneerson is that the biography of Schneerson and the reporting about the incidents of the day by all the major newspapers link the event to the motorcade of Schneerson. If you wish to start a Wikipedia biography page for Motorcade of Schneerson and claim it is linked to that and not his motorcade. In New York City there are many pedestrian accidents, every day. Only once every few decades does such an event lead to a riot. I never said or wrote that schneerson caused the accident. That is your straw man argument. Nor did I say he was blamed for the accident. I only said he was forever linked to the event. To say his presence was remote in relation to the event is far-fetched. It was a car length away. It was a car trying to catch up with him. The other question that arises is why the persons at that corner responded the way they did, and there is no doubt that the perception of a motorcade led by policeman to ferry this man seemed to fit in with some preconceived tensions between the two communities. Schneerson was the leader of one of the communities. Again, nobody blames anyone by saying his motorcade came by, a pedestrian was killed by one of the cars of his motorcade. Riots ensued and two others died, and a large amount of damage was done to persons and properties. You can't detach Schneerson from the events, regardless of who you blame. But ultimately, again, a major biography of the man by the major paper of his city lists this event as part of his obituary, do you have an equivalent non-biased assessment of his life that does so? Please do not say that I said Schneerson caused this (I did not) or that no one blamed him (I did not) or that he was remote (when it was paragraph four in his obituary in his obituary and in all the reviews of the event I have read.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also I invite anyone to tell me how in the world, the discussion at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F decided that this was not going to be included. It did not. I agree that one could word this in many ways, but the words have to include the statement "a car in the motorcade of Schneerson" and "Crown Height Riots" in the same sentence. And it has to a sentence within his biography, not a see also. You can elaborate as much as you want about how he was not in the exact car, never part of the investigation, did not incite the riot, etc. However the fact is a pedestrian accident led to one of the most influential riots in the City of New York. However it was not just any pedestrian accident, but a car in a caravan for Schneerson. That, tragically was clearly part of the event, and thus links him to it. This was not an event only linked to the driver of that car. You can not convince me that is not part of Schneerson's biography, because the historical sources see it as part of his biography. Schneerson is and will always be linked to that history (others can argue blame, I do not). Schneerson's biography, by authoritative sources, is recounted with this event as part of his life. Again, this does not assign cause, blame, opinion, but it acknowledges these very important world or city events were linked to him.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am glad that we are at least calmly considering these questions. I have referenced above already the strong media and public figure reaction at the time to Schneerson's silence after the road accident and death, and similar comments on the anniversaries of the accident and deaths. I have not yet found any reference explaining why the city of new york paid out 400,000 dollars compensation to the child's family rather than it being the driver who paid or his employer Schneerson and his organisation, but it is likely to have been explained in the nyc newspapers at the time of the award.

Is there an interested editor with time and access to check this ? The references to obscure recorded comments that Schneerson made shortly afterward, that some are reported as believing were oblique or esoteric expressions of regret or apology for the motorcade causing the accident are worthy of mention. The question of inclusion of mention of Schneerson's espousal of jewish scriptural assertions of jewish superiority over other humans might also be worth a sentence or two in the controversy section. I have not yet found any references linking the superiority assertions with the silence but mention of both is completely missing from this biographical article which is distinctly odd. Editor Debresser may be unfamiliar with the talk page guidelines where it states at the start of the Central Points section ( under Maintaining WP Policy) that "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation" I hope that all interested editors can work amicably together here, (without accusations of agenda or laziness !) in a manner fully informed by a fresh close reading of talk page policy in an effort to try to improve this somewhat selective article from its present neglected state.After all is this not the purpose of the talk page? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you say "a major biography of the man by the major paper of his city lists this event as part of his obituary". Yes, all it does is "list" it. It barely mentions it. It doesn't draw a cause and effect relation between the two, and for good reason. The car in which Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a passenger was in front of the car that had the accident. I support the suggestion by Staszek Lem that a link to Crown Heights riot be found in the "See also" section. If there is the misunderstanding that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was somehow connected to the Crown Heights riot, as is being argued here, then the link to that article could serve an educational purpose. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: When I say that biography includes this incident, we are talking about a full paragraph of his obituary; perhaps out of maybe 20 paragraphs about his entire life. If we were to translate that into this article, then 5% of the article should be about Crown Heights. This is not just a passing remark in his obituary. Please look at the sources before you make comments like this. The article, nor does my entry, imply a cause and effect. However, the events stemming from that incident were consequential for the city and his life. Again, you can not detach the event from the fact that a car in the motorcade with a police escort for Schneerson had an accident. That initial event triggered riots and was associated with at least three deaths. Again the events were complex, but they relate to that trigger. I do not want to write a large section about the long tribulation that was the affair. I think one analogy here is Rodney King and the The 1992 Los Angeles riots; King did not cause the riots, he did not participate in them, he does not appear to have wanted them: but events/reactions emerging from actions related to him, triggered these riots. Events/reactions emerging from a crash by a car in Schneerson's motorcade led to riots in New York. Major, consequential riots. People died. No blame. No simple causation. But certainly linked and important. No, a See also section makes this peripheral to his life. I strongly disagree with that treatment. That is not how the event was treated in the New York Times. The evaluation by biographies is that it was not peripheral. It was not a footnote in his life or the life of New York City. If you wish to add to the Crown Heights articles, what Schneerson did or thought or others thought of his reaction, feel free.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700, your analogy comparing Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Rodney King is so absurd that it does not deserve a response. Regarding your RS, the ONLY thing you can pull from it is that "a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child." That's it, obviously undeserving of an entire section. You keep trying to broaden this about the riots while your RSs don't support it. KamelTebaast 04:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast: just because you say so does not mean it is right. Again I asked specifically for you to counter the obituary for Schneerson in the New York Time. It dedicates a full paragraph to the events. You continue to revert with no justification except your own feelings. I recommend all other editors to attend to [[4]]

Editing in this biography becomes very difficult because one deals with editors like Kamel who do not see m to care about facts; I have no idea where he gets the only thing you can pull from it. What is it? The New York Times Obituary for Schneerson? The New York Daily News retrospective on the Riots? Neither of those sources does that. That simply is not true. Debresser makes false claims that it was agreed not to include this. Bus Stop says that the Crown Height Riot is only listed in his biographical obituary. Again, he did not read the source. That is not true. It is 5-10% of the space dedicated to his life.

Again the New York Times obituary summarizing his biography, dedicates at least 3-4 paragraphs to the events related to the Crown Heights riot in an article of some 30 paragraphs. The entry in Wikipedia says nothing about this. This is absurd. My recommendation is that the dispute resolution arbitrate this and perhaps ban some of the editors above from this article if they continue to revert well-sourced relevant and important information. I also think the article should have a neutrality disputed heading until this is resolved. Again in other situations, I would take more time for this, but looking at prior discussions on this talk page, I recognize this is not an article where some editors have an open mind. They will delete, and spout information that has no basis in fact. I am sorry if this is harsh. But been there, done that, for this article in the past. My recommendation is that far more editors need to get involved. When the Crown Heights entry is placed in, the article should be protected against reversion. Rococo1700 (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700, my last reply to you was not about "feelings", but hard facts. This conversation has run its course. KamelTebaast 05:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Show me why an authoritative, nonbiased biographical entry (his obituary) on Schneerson, in the major newspaper in the City where he lives, can dedicate paragraphs to Crown Heights Riots, but you delete any mention of it. Show me why retrospective histories of the riot mention Schneerson and his motorcade, but this article does not. Again, just reverting well-sourced entries does not make you right. I have strongly recommended that an NPOV banner be placed on the article. It would not be the firts time. The debate is just beginning. There is a dispute process afoot. I recommend that you keep an open mind to recommendations.

I have asked workgroups interested in this area the following:

Continued

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson

I have had many problems in past with this article, but the most recent problem is that the article fails to mention the Crown Heights riots, even if but to mention that Schneerson's motorcade was involved. Again my source, and my justification, for adding this to Schneerson's article is that the New York Times obituary [5], and every retrospective article I found on the riots, mentions Schneerson. When I add any mention there is a team of editors that raises extraneous and false claims. I would urge authors interested in this area to help edit some entry in this article that does justice to the link.

My entry, which I thought was the least controversial, although entered in the controversy section (should it have its own section or his legacy?) stated:

• Crown Heights Riot

The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991, which became a central issue in a New York City mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. A grand jury found no reason bring charges against anyone in the motorcade.

I could live with a shorter version. My quibble is that an article on Schneerson should include the words: motorcade of ... Schneerson and Crown Heights riot in the same paragraph. I could use help from editors providing some reasonable framework with how to proceed.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

References

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING THREAD. THE CONVERSATION SHOULD CONTINUE THERE. KamelTebaast 05:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Now merged into one section and this a subsection. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I proposed something like this paragraph above,[6] so I basically support this. I would demand a source for "which became a central issue in a New York City mayoral race" or even leave that out as too unrelated. However, under no circumstance do I view this as a "controversy", and admit that I have no clear proposal where to put this in the article. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I write pargaraphs, based on the citations, and both Debresser and Kamel Tebaast delete and either voice false conclusions, with no facts, or they look to a straw man argument. I ask for biography or a history of the times by a neutral source that excludes this event. They cannot provide one. This is part of the controversy regarding the event identified in the New York Times in the final summation of his life:

Rabbi Schneerson was criticized by some black and some Jewish leaders for not publicly commenting on the violence or expressing his sympathies to the family of the dead child (Gavin Cato). His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue.

Again others then state it wasn't his car... it was an accident... someone else was driving... all these points, correct in fact, miss the historical context. There are pedestrian accidents, some fatal, all over New York City every day. But to extract Schneerson from a time and place in history, is to fail to answer that most central of questions why is this accident different from all other accidents? To historians and journalists of the event there appeared to be a perception among local Blacks in Crown Heights that the Lubavitch, did not see black people. That the driver did not see the children, that the ambulances did not see the children, etc. And there was a perception among those journalists, that the Lubavitch saw Blacks as a dangerous force, requiring police motorcades, a separate ambulance system, a separate protection force... Clearly this a complex event, and that can be left to an article about Crown Heights. What is not complex, what is not controversial, what is incontrovertibly cited in authoritative reviews of the life of Schneerson and of New York City during these days, is that the events were linked to Schneerson, that they cannot be understood, nor can his place in the world be known without making reference to such major historical events, of which he was a part of, however indirectly at the moment of the accident. How someone can say an event like this, which leads to riots is not a controversy in Schneerson's life, begs belief. Both the major sources above would support the event as a controversy, in which different people had different understanding of the events. Some would see it as a legacy, but not a positive one. In this article the legacy section focuses on his positive contributions.

Write a paragraph that is acceptable to others; if not, allow a paragraph to be entered into the article and reach a consensus on the talk page on how to modify it. Again, if there is no movement towards this information in the article, then I recommend arbiters step in, insert some notice of the controversy, and block editing on the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—we should write a straightforward article about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. There isn't a pointed relationship between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop: the obituary on Schnnerson in The New York Times is a straightforward article about the man's life. 4-5 of the paragraphs out of 30 deal with Crown Heights riot. This is not about your view of Schneerson, it is about how he is viewed by reliable, unbiased, third party sources. Again, I know you are upset about this, you are saying we should not talk about this, and yet the major newspaper in the City he lived in, dedicated a long obituary to this influential man. A substantial portion of that obituary discussed this issue. After describing that an accidenct by a car in his motorcade was the trigger to the events they stated:

Rabbi Schneerson was criticized by some black and some Jewish leaders for not publicly commenting on the violence or expressing his sympathies to the family of the dead child (nb:Gavin Cato). His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue.

@talk:Rococo1700, the problem I have with this is that although it is his obit in the NYT, that statement demands a second RS and at least some more specificity. Which Jewish and black leaders criticized him? As it stands, it is WP:UNDUE. KamelTebaast 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel that somehow you parallel that latter defense. Not only did he not comment on it, but you claim that we therefore should not comment on it also. But we (editors of Wikipedia) are not him. We are not his defenders, we are historians, who share the events of his life and influence and legacy. The Crown Heights riots are linked to his life, influence, and legacy; what that influence and legacy is, is for future debate, and likely in an arena that is not Wikipedia. The link and the history is for Wikipedia to discuss. Again, write a paragraph on how this is linked to Schneerson. If you want to try, here is an example: a car in his police-led motorcade was passing an intersection when it was forced by another car into the sidewalk, accidentally killing a pedestrian Black boy. Events spiraled from there into riots, leading to the death of a Lubavitch man and a man driving through Crown Heights, and highlighting the tensions between his followers and the local Black community. Schneerson never commented on the events. Again, you complain, but do not address a prominent chapter of his history as acknowledged by authoritative third party sources summarizing the legacy of his life. Address that. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast again answer the question. You keep ducking the question, how do we add a section to the entry on Schneerson that states:

• Crown Heights Riot

The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. Schneerson had no public comment on the death of the child or the riots.

References

Again, you keep switching around topics. Address the question: the paragraph above is well sourced. It is an important part of his biography. How do you include in the article?

My point for dispute resolution, is that you delete well sourced and important information, and offer no solutions to what is obviously a problem. As I have stated, and you have repeatedly either failed to acknowledge, the obituary for Schneerson in the major newspaper of the city in which he lived includes a substantial mention of the link of Schneerson to the Crown Heights Riot. The Wikipedia article does not. It avoids it. To be a truthful, historic account of the important events of Schneerson's life, it has to. If it continues to avoid this, then it is a biased piece of propaganda. It should have a banner stating that it is not a neutral point of view, or the article should be completely rewritten by outside editors. Now answer the question, how do you insert the significant, well sourced material, or information reflecting the link of Schneerson to the Crown Heights Riots, into this article. Stop raising straw arguments.

I raised the well-sourced statements that Schneerson failed to address the events occurring around him during and after the riots, because that is similar to what you are doing. "Schneerson's motorcade had a accident. The accident killed a small Black boy. This led to a major riot in one of the largest cities in the United States. He had no comment on the events." Include that in the article. It is history. It is fact. It is substantiated by authoritative third party sources. Address the issue. If you say again that it does not belong in the article, then provide me well-substantiated, well sourced reasoning why you think it was wrong for the obituary of an article on the life of this man to include this information as a major event in his life. Rococo1700 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that whatever is written in a NYT obit should automatically be placed into a Wikipedia article. The NYT also deals with NY issues, so they may expand on topics that have been written extensively in the paper. That said, you seem to want an entire expose when only two items were written directly about Menachem Mendel Schneerson: (1) that it was his motorcade of which one car struck, etc. and (2) the author surmised, without any specifics, that Menachem Mendel Schneerson received criticism from Jews and blacks for not saying anything. To reiterate, for the last time, the first part can be added, but going into detail about the riots is well beyond the scope of the article (as suggested above). The second part should have secondary sources to back this and, more specifically, details about who the Jews and blacks are that said it. It is neither my responsibility nor desire to do your research to find this. KamelTebaast 22:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast: you are wrong. 1) You are wrong. The New York Times obituary, as obituaries always do, talked about a former person, a specific one: Schneerson. 2) You are wrong because an article titled: Rabbi Schneerson Led A Small Hasidic Sect To World Prominence as dealing with only New York issues: Again, I urge you to read the sources, not just type random thoughts.

Let me understand your last deletion, are you deleting this statement because it is controversial or because you think it is not controversial, but should not be a controversy. I have also stated: find another place for it. I insist.

Again I am going to urge editors to freeze this article. And block all editing and start some type of arbitration process. Cause you do not accept reality.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Again I urge administrators to freeze this article. And block all editing and start some type of arbitration process. Cause you do not accept reality. The recent edit from Bus Stop is bad faith. It is a lie. Yes the riot started after the accident. There is not denying that. All the material in the paragraph was sourced and true. Schneerson was in the motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident. A boy died. Later two men died. Schneerson said nothing. All these are true. The events of the riot, before during and after, are very complex. But that does not. I underline DOES NOT extract Schneerson from history. I promise your that this will not go away. You do not have a consensus to exclude it. You will never have my agreement for that. As I stated, I have major authoritative third party source material performing an overview, a biography of Schneerson and they dedicate significant attention to this episode. You can argue about why the community of Crown Heights responded in this way to the accident occurring with a car in Schneerson's mortorcade. But it would not have been a motorcade without Schneerson. It would not have had a police escort without Schneerson. However for a person to come to this article and not see any reference to the historical event. In which millions of dollars of property were lost. In which at least three people lost their lives. This is a "great lie", propaganda, hagiography, whitewashing of a life. My recommendation for administrators is that the article be frozen and that arbitration impose a solution. The editors Bus Stop, Debresser, and Kamel Tebaast are not interested in a Wikipedia entry that reflects history. The article is propaganda.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—are you sure that you are interested in using the Talk page to resolve this? You are editing the article against the present consensus. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—there are disconnects between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a passenger in another car than the one involved in the accident. Accidents are resolved in a court of law. If some said the rioting was because of an accident involving Menachem Mendel Schneerson that would be a pretext for rioting. It wouldn't be the cause for rioting. And the source you've provided doesn't say that the accident is the cause of the rioting. Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not under any obligation to speak on the events unfolding in the wake of the accident and the death of Gavin Cato and the deaths of two other men and the destruction of property over the next few days. We don't have to report every criticism voiced against Menachem Mendel Schneerson. It is his prerogative not to speak on events that were out of control. Menachem Mendel Schneerson didn't cause the mayhem and he was under no obligation to try to say something to curtail it. Some said he should have spoken up to try to quell the Crown Heights riots. That is minor. It doesn't have to be mentioned in this article. The disconnects between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot matter. We can include a "See also" section linking to Crown Heights riot. Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop that is not true. Over and over again you state falsehoods and straw man arguments. Examples:

Bus Stop: Schneerson was a passenger in another car than the one involved in the accident. Me: I never said that period.

Bus Stop: And the source you've provided doesn't say that the accident is the cause of the rioting. Me: Not true. That is a lie: the New York Daily News article states: Twenty-five years after the tragic car accident that sparked the Crown Heights riots Now will you admit that you are wrong with respect to this fact.

Bus Stop: We don't have to report every criticism voiced against Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Me: But you can not fail to report on a what neutral historians consider a major event linked to his life. I am not interested in reporting criticism. Just bare bone facts. Not as a see also, but as a major event related to his life. You have too much bias to edit this article. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rococo1700—you are taking liberty with the word "sparked". One thing followed the other. But that one thing did not cause the other. It matters that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was not in the car involved in the crash. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was not even the driver of the car that he was in. He was a passenger. If a group of people has an inclination to riot and they cite Menachem Mendel Schneerson as a cause for that rioting we do not have to dutifully report that falsehood. And if fault is found by some that Menachem Mendel Schneerson failed to address the rioters in the midst of widespread mayhem we do not have to dutifully report that some felt he should have spoken up. Falsehoods were being spread and he chose not to enter the fray, which is his prerogative. It may not have been politically correct but it was his prerogative. The Crown Heights riot is not part of the legacy of Menachem Mendel Schneerson. It was used as a pretext for unlawful behavior and it was based on falsehoods such as the notion that somehow Menachem Mendel Schneerson caused the death of the seven year old boy Gavin Cato. To correct those errors in perception we should provide in the See also section a link to Crown Heights riot. The inclusion of what you are advocating is merely optional. I feel it is misleading and should be left out. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: the word "cause" is yours I have not used "cause". Again you are arguing a straw man argument. You do this all the time. You argue against something I did not state. My sentence said: The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots.[New York daily news]

I think the word "set off" for the disturbances is correct. "a riot then erupted". I think that this accurately reflects the sources. The sources accurately reflect history. Again, the fact that Schneerson was in the motorcade is relevant. It would not have been a police led motorcade but for him. The car behind him would not have tried to catch up but for him. No blame, but you can't extract those facts from the event, and they may have been misinterpreted afterward, but only because they were facts. If it had been a random car, and there had been a false rumor that Schneerson was driving erratically or speeding, and he had never been in a police motorcade, I would agree that it would not merit entry. But it was his motorcade, and that appears to have changed the dynamic and interpretation of the event. Again, a pedestrian accident in New York City sparks or sets off one of the largest, if not the largest riot, in the largest city of the richest country in the world. Why was this accident different than other accidents. Not only that, how is it perceived by history and the neutral sources, who perceive it as a major event in his life. The fact that he did not comment on it is also one reason why the sources think he can not detach himself from this history. My statement does not apply blame, that is all you. You are misleading in that regard. You cannot just put a see also section without explaining why Schneerson is linked to the incident. That makes no sense. You can debate and discuss blame or not in the entry for Crown Heights riot. I am not interested in that debate. What is important is to realize that Schneerson's biography is linked to this historical event, and that reliable sources support this. This controversy in Schneerson's life belongs in his biography. If not controversy, then why are we arguing. Why are you raising all those issues about blame. I think your persistent deletion of this is due to bias.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The death of a seven year old boy served as a pretext for the deliberate killing of two men and the deliberate destruction of property, but the death of the seven year old was only an accident as opposed to a deliberate act. This article should not imply that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was at fault in any way for the two deliberate deaths and the deliberate destruction of property. The Crown Heights riot article presumably describes the sequence of events. There need not be a "See also" entry for Crown Heights riot and there should not be the edit that you wish to make. This article doesn't have to describe everything said about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. We should exercise judgement and place material in its proper article. Despite your protestations to the contrary I think you feel that Menachem Mendel Schneerson bears some responsibility for the riot. A traffic accident is not addressed by a riot, not even one in which a seven year old boy dies. A traffic accident is addressed in a court of law. A momentary flareup is understandable—perhaps a fist gets thrown—but a sustained riot is a different thing—involving multiple participants and lasting days and including the clearly deliberate killings of two men and the destruction of property. Just saying that the Menachem Mendel Schneerson motorcade traffic accident triggered the riot doesn't make it so. The riot had an impetus other than this and we should not imply otherwise, hence I for one vote against the edit that you wish to make. Bus stop (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop.

1. 1) All your "deliberate" statements and "guilt" proclamations are absent from my entry which does not assign blame. You are obsessed with this, take it up in a Crown Heights riot article. Again it is your straw man argument. My entry says they occurred and were linked. period. You cannot continue to argue against what is not there and use that to justify blocking well sourced events linked to Schneerson's life. I am not interested in recounting the complexities of the riot in this entry. Only that an accident by the motorcade of this man set off the events, and he did not comment on the events. period.
2. 2) You say: " Just saying that the Menachem Mendel Schneerson motorcade traffic accident triggered the riot doesn't make it so."

Your statement in untrue. It is a falsehood. As I have stated to you. Well sourced, neutral historians in the event make this link. period. You can rant against history. I am not placing my opinion in the article; it is not me "just saying." The sources say this. It is my opinion that true history should be reflected in the article. All your rant has nothing to do with this. You are the one who thinks that your vote is the reasoning that we should use to decide what enters into the encyclopedia. Guess what, I have said, with evidence, that your vote is biased. You need to read Wikipedia:Core content policies: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.

It also must have a neutral point of view. I have done that. You use your biased point of view and nonverifiable sources (mainly yourself) to delete. I have sourced two newspapers in the city in which the events occured. One article is a biography of the man's life; the other a retrospective of the events on the day. Address this. I have stated this over and over again. You need to step away from the article and examine your biases. The entry must be allowed until a consensus can agree to delete it, not the other way around. I urge administrators to engage in this article. Rococo1700 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem unconcerned with the distinction between something that occurred accidentally and something that was done intentionally. The language you suggest is "The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child." To my ear this is unacceptable because it focusses narrowly on two sequential occurrences. Were the riots really set off by the referred-to accident? In a very narrow sense, yes. But do we have to give the impression that this sequence of two events explains what the reader needs to know about that which transpired concerning a riot which included two deliberate killings? It is misleading. Was the riot caused by the motor vehicle accident? Your suggested edit continues as "In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots." Does this belong in a biography of Menachem Mendel Schneerson? Neither he nor his religious followers participated in that riot except perhaps in self-defense. The biography of Menachem Mendel Schneerson doesn't have to address misconceptions about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Related articles can and should set the record straight on the subject matter that you are arguing should be in this article. We have for instance Crown Heights riot and Lemrick Nelson. My argument is that you should not add material to this article that merely addresses misconceptions about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I prefer an approach in which appropriate articles set the record straight on such misconceptions. The reader would be misled by the inclusion of the material that you suggest. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

BuStop: You continue to miss the point of how Wikipedia works. If you want to make your own website, feel free. Wikipedia bases itself on "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have done so. All your statements above, including "to my ear" "in a very narrow sense", all that is your original research. It does not belong in Wikipedia. Again, the biography of Schneerson in the New York Times Obituary, a summation of his life DOES ADDRESS this subject, and in far more detail than I do. You are wrong. You are welcome to try and edit related articles. But they are related. This is part of his biography, and it is not my ear, or may narrow interpretation, it is material in a reliable, published source. That has greater bearing on the entry than all your complaints. I have stated before, that you and the other editors are biased, non-neutral, and should be banned from editing this entry since you continue to delete material from reliable, published sources. I will continue to insert this in on a daily basis. You can challenge it on the talk page using the criteria for an entry to Wikipedia, not because you don't like it. Nor do I want to hear any of your legal mumbo-jumbo. This is not a court trial. The information is not meant to assess guilt or innocence. All the sources I find, every single one, dates the start of the riots to the accident. There is zero misconception here. Zero. You are not being truthful when you say that it is a misconception. Second, he did not comment on the event. If you can find a source that said, he didn't comment on the event because he did not have to, or if you wish you can use the quoted reason in the New York Times article, that said His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue. Again, I do not give my opinion. I only include something which in his obituary takes 5-10% of the space; while in this article it is banned from even being mentioned. That is wrong. That is a sign of bias. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. You are welcome to argue his innocence, his rightfulness, anything you want. I don't care. You are not welcome, and should never be, to whitewash a major historical events in the world linked to him. That is not welcome in an encyclopedia. I will continue to insert this into the article. I recommend that administrators, arbitrate a solution, there will be no consensus. A "see also" link is not enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs)

You say "Bus stop: You continue to miss the point ..." You continue to miss some points too. For instance the point that the vehicle in which Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a passenger had no part in the accident that unfortunately killed Gavin Cato. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that this deserves a mention in the article, based on what's in the RS. But you're going to have a hard time attracting outside opinions to this wall of text. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Kendall-K1. I know what I am up against. No matter, I am too stubborn by half when it comes to facts. I can and will keep this up. The facts are too obvious and stubborn to shake off. I have no anti-Schneerson agenda. I only support the positive aims of an encyclopedia.

Bus Stop: you continue to miss the point. A well sourced authoritative biography of the man makes substantial mention of this event. Your opinion has no bearing on the link to Schneerson. It is not a matter of assigning blame. It is a matter of linkage and relevance. You ignore history. I am not interested in adjudicating blame, only the facts. Again, his biography is linked to this important historical event. You may not like it, but Wikipedia is not here to minister to your opinions. It is here to document neutral, relevant, important, well-sourced facts. How can you read his New York Times obituary and say that one of these has been violated. If you wish, I can also get you over a dozen other retrospectives histories or biographies that give equal amount of weight to this link. You continue to evade reality and come up with straw man arguments. You have no courage to look at the truth. You are biased and should step away from editing this article. I recommend that administrators take control of editing of this page. I am willing to hear of how you can add sentences to the text that report that events in the life of Schneerson are related to the riot of Crown Heights, at the start and some mention of his response be included. None of this should try to work all that innocence or guilt that you are concerned with in any detail. That can be discussed in the Crown Heights riot entry. I recommend you go there and add well-sourced citations to that entry. I do not object to stating that Schneerson was not in the car of motorcade that killed the child, but I do think it is relevant to him and the event that it was his motorcade. It is important to say that a child died and that other persons died afterwards from the riot. It is important to state that this crash was the immediate trigger, spark, or incident that set off the riot. Again all of this can be done without assigning innocence or blame, or that can be hashed out in the Crown Heights riot entry. I am not against including a sentence that states, he was never investigated for any role, and/or that he was not in the car involved in the accident. Or a sentence saying that he did not encourage violence, but it also has to state that he did not speak of the riots or the dead child. Again Bus Stop: the neutral authoritative and relevant sources link this event to Schneerson and cite this as an important event in his life. What you need to answer is how can we not include it as relevant to his biography.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider wording involving context such as: "Overtly anti-Jewish rioting broke out, lasting three days and costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights after a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African-American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African-American cousin. The car involved in the accident had been following another car carrying Schneerson which in turn was following a police escort vehicle."[7] Bus stop (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop: The term anti-Semitism is not used in the New York times article nor the Daily News article use that word. A New Yorker editorial on ten years later does mention that Giuliani called the riots a pogrom, but it also mentions the sense that the Al Sharpton had that Black community felt that there were apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances. If you balance those quotations, then I agree. Strongly anti-Semitic is biased wording.

I propose in the Controversy section:

• Rabbi Schneerson and the Crown Heights riots

In August 19, 1991, a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African American cousin. The car was the tail of the three car motorcade of Schneerson, with the Rabbi in the middle car led by a police escort vehicle. After the accident, three days of rioting ensued, costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood. While some in the Black community denounced an apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances, others, including the future mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, publicly described the riots as a modern example of a pogrom; the controversy reflected a longstanding undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood between the Black and Hasidic communities. Schneerson did not comment on the riots.

All this can be substantiated, including quotations by the references provided. The word pogrom, which is a direct quote, reflects the view of some that this represented strongly anti-Semitic violence. I recommend we place it in the text, and then discuss changes.Rococo1700 (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is relevant to article, but what source says that Schneersohn didn't say anything about the 1991 riots? I read somewhere that when Schneerson urged mayor Dikins to put an end to violence, Dikins answered "on both sides, right?", to which the rebbe responded: "there are no sides, we are all part of the same city." I think I read it in a Chabad magazine. Could you look for a source? I really doubt that Schneersohn remained silent.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

On further consideration I would revise my suggested edit to the following: "Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out to quell the Crown Heights riot or to comfort the family of a seven year old boy killed and a seven year old girl severely injured by a car accident in 1992 involving a Lubavitch driver." Bus stop (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Angelsi1989: I do not see any of the retrospectives on the riots that mentioned Dinkins visiting Schneerson. You would have to find a well-sourced account for this. It is relevant because Schneerson's obituary in the major newspaper mentions this exact point. Because retrospective histories of the event mention this. Here is the paragraph, I will insert:

• Rabbi Schneerson and the Crown Heights riots

In August 19, 1991, a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African American cousin. The car was the tail of the three car motorcade of Schneerson, with the Rabbi in the middle car led by a police escort vehicle. After the accident, three days of rioting ensued, costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood.(Ref = Ari Goldman article NYT) While some in the Black community denounced an apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances, (American Voices: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Orators By Bernard K. Duffy, Richard W. Leeman, page 416 ) others, including the future mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, publicly described the riots as a modern example of a pogrom; (http://chabadinfo.com/magazine/giuliani-to-obama-crown-heights-riots-were-a-pogrom/ and http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/01/nyregion/mayor-race-focuses-on-word.html) the controversy reflected a longstanding undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood between the Black and Hasidic communities. Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out to quell the Crown Heights riot or to comfort the family of the dead boy and his injured sister hurt by the car accident in 1992 involving a Lubavitch driver. (Ref = Ari Goldman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs)

I find the above excessive. This is the edit that I would suggest: "Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out to quell the Crown Heights riot or to comfort the family of a Guyanese seven year old boy killed and a Guyanese seven year old girl severely injured by a car accident in 1992 involving a Lubavitch driver." Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would favor the Rococo version. It seems well sourced and covers the main points. The sources I checked all mention that it was Schneerson's motorcade so I think that should be included. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect and good faith edits to user Rococo, the overly excessive text above primarily focuses on the riots and tensions between two communities. This is neither the forum nor the article for that, which already exists at Crown Heights riot. Even the lede in that article is shorter than the proposed text here, which should probably not be more than a footnote. Rococo seems to be confusing/merging between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Chassidic community that was involved in the riots. Regardless, the only content that should be placed into the article needs to focus directly on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, which seems to be that it was a car in his police-escorted motorcade (in which he was a passenger), struck two immigrant children, killing one and injuring the other. (Twenty years after the riots, Yankel Rosenbaum's family still blames Al Sharpton for his death. Are we really going to get into all of the intricacies of the riots?) As far as Menachem Mendel Schneerson being criticized for not speaking out, what is this? We must also not forget that Menachem Mendel Schneerson's public speaking was generally on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays when microphones and video are not permitted. Therefore, after any edit that criticizes him about not speaking out publicly, I would add this information as well, which is well sourced. KamelTebaast 18:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with dropping "Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out..." Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks Kamel. After seeing this clear evidence, it's clear that Schneerson spoke about the incidents and tried to calm down the situation. Any future text must mention this meeting with mayor Dinkins.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

None of this has much to do with Schneerson's biography. Schneerson wasn't in the car that had the accident. And despite the station wagon carrying four Lubavitchers following the car in which Schneerson was a passenger, the accident has nothing to do with Schneerson. A young boy and a young girl respectively, were killed and maimed, but however unfortunate that is, it has nothing to do with Schneerson. There was a "Crown Heights riot" after a station wagon carrying four Lubavitchers had a car accident that killed and maimed, respectively, a young boy and a young girl. This is a very unfortunate and sad occurrence, but the "Crown Heights riot" did not occur because of something Schneerson did. The car in which Schneerson was a passenger was not involved in any automobile accident at all. Nor did the "Crown Heights riot" occur because Schneerson failed to do something after the accident that he should have done. Schneerson was not negligent in any way. So, why are we explaining certain aspects of the "Crown Heights riot" in the Schneerson article? All of the material that we are discussing for possible inclusion in this article is extraneous to this article. We have an article on the Crown Heights riot. What we need to do in this article is alert the reader to the existence of that article. I am trying to suggest a sentence that can serve the purpose of alerting the reader to the existence of the other article. I would say "A car following Schneerson's car was involved in a fatal accident. For the next three days the Crown Heights riot took its toll claiming lives and property." That sentence (actually two sentences) serves the purpose of linking that article to this article. I would place that sentence as a freestanding, two-sentence paragraph, at the end of the New York section. I think that is the best possible placement but I also consider placement in the lede, as the last sentence in the lede. Another possibility for linking to the other article is to use the "See also" section of this article for that purpose. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus, I'm scratching my head. First, you persuasively argue from several aspects as to why this notation is no more than a two sentence inclusion, then you add: "I also consider placement in the lede, as the last sentence in the lede." How do you jump from a non-incident regarding Menachem Mendel Schneerson to possible inclusion into the lede? KamelTebaast 03:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast—It doesn't have to be in the lede. But the purpose of anything we write in this article about the Crown Heights riots is to alert the reader to the Crown Heights riots article. That requirement calls for prominence of placement. Where is there greater prominence than in the lede? I'm less concerned with where in the article this notification is placed than what the content of that notification should be. My position is almost entirely against the inclusion in this article of material that is already in and much more appropriately belongs in the Crown Heights riot article. My only concern is that a reader should be alerted to the existence of the Crown Heights riot article. I mentioned three possible parts of the article for placement. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop, please point me to the Wiki policy that calls for prominence of placement because of a linked article? KamelTebaast 05:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast—I am not insistent that it be in the lede. I would say it should be in the New York section. Bus stop (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems logical. KamelTebaast 05:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is a proposal: 1) this has to be placed in the controversy section. How can we argue over something this much and it not be a controversy. 2) Again Bus Stop. A biography in this encyclopedia is not what you want it to be according to your conscience. It is what reasonable, authoritative, neutral sources report it to be. I have repeatedly underscored this. Also it is not one source but multiple historical reviews that include the link of Schneerson to the events. I am not here to adjudicate innocence or blame. I am here to insert the relevant facts into the discussion. As I have stated before, other biographies and historical accounts establish this as an important event in his life, and the life of a community in Crown Heights to which he was a main leader. You bet they view it as a controversy. The sentences you propose above are not valid for this encyclopedia. First and foremost, on what neutral source do you base them? You continue to evade this important point. Second, a car following Schneerson's car could have belonged to anybody. It was a car in his police-led motorcade. While there are many questions one could raise about the entire situation? Why did he need weekly police escort? Who paid for it? How did the Black community view that? Did they view it as an example of the police protecting some in the community, and not others? Why were the men in that car under attack? Why did the ambulance initially only take the driver? Was that the police recommendation? And you could go on and on for dozens of qustions. This is a very complex issues. I think all those questions are best left to the linked article on the riot. However, the paragraph below has a balanced description of a complex event that can be well sourced. That merits a section in the controversy section of the article.

• Rabbi Schneerson and the Crown Heights riots

In August 19, 1991, a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African American cousin. The car was the tail of the three car motorcade of Schneerson, with the Rabbi in the middle car, led by a police escort vehicle. After the accident, three days of rioting ensued, costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood.(Ref = Ari Goldman article NYT) While some leaders in the Black community, like Al Sharpton, denounced an apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances, (American Voices: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Orators By Bernard K. Duffy, Richard W. Leeman, page 416 ) others, including the future mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, publicly described the riots as a modern example of a pogrom; (http://chabadinfo.com/magazine/giuliani-to-obama-crown-heights-riots-were-a-pogrom/ and http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/01/nyregion/mayor-race-focuses-on-word.html) the controversy reflected a longstanding undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood between the Black and Hasidic communities. Six days after the incident, during a meeting with mayor of the New York, David Dinkins, Rabbi Schneerson stated taht the city needed peace, not from two sides as the Mayor asked, but for all people: one people living in one city under one administration and under one God. (August 26, 1991 http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/26/nyregion/dinkins-calls-for-healing-in-brooklyn.html) Rococo1700 (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Crown Heights riot article and the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article are two different articles. We should not put material into this article that belongs in the other article. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BusStop: where is your source for that? Why are the sources provided inadequate for you? Answer the question. Your complaints, biased and unsubstantiated, continue to have zero standing for this encyclopedic entry. You have to prove the other sources are either invalid, biased, or wrong, and that you have a better neutral source for important events in his life that ignores this event. Rococo1700 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't have to prove the other sources are invalid. This article could optionally be burdened down with material of little relevance to this article (although arguably of relevance at another article) and I object to it being burdened down that way. You are arguing to put material in this article that has little to nothing to do with Schneerson. There exists an article appropriate for that material. We only have to link to it. The link should be prominently placed with enough context to alert the reader to its significance. I've even suggested using the lede of this article for that purpose. Again, these are the sentences I suggested: "A car following Schneerson's car was involved in a fatal accident. For the next three days the Crown Heights riot took its toll claiming lives and property." We need not get carried away exploring nooks and crannies of material that will be explored in the "Crown Heights riot" article. Just because something is sourced does not mean that it has to be in an article. Finally, the New York Times in a print edition would not internally link to a Crown Heights riot article from a Schneerson obituary, but our electronic text allows for that and therefore we should distribute material across articles as appropriate. As I've already mentioned my suggested text could be placed at the end of the New York section of the article, possibly also in the "See also" section. I don't think all three placements are necessary but two would be OK. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)