Open main menu

"I have the education of the first-born son of the rabbi of Yekatrinoselav"Edit

Is city's name spelling an exact quote from book cited? The thing is that Yekaterinoslav is usually transliterated without an additional 'e' (i.e. not Yekatrinoselav). Rabbi himself would doubtfully misspelled it as he lived there, but I don't know about the book.

EscapeEdit

As I understand it, Schneerson and ghis family were rescued from Warsaw. The US Embassy in Berlin asked the German government to rescue him. Hitler and Himmler ordered a Jewish German officer named Bloch to take him from Poland to Finland then Sweden and send him and his family to the USA. Did he ever thank his rescuers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.105.161 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You are talking about his father in law and predecessor, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaGabi (talkcontribs) 16:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Plus, to the best of my knowledge that was Canaris, not Hitler and Himler. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Never visited IsraelEdit

The article mentions that Schneerson never visited Israel. I would assume that there were good reasons for visiting Israel or even immigrating there, and also reasons why he did not. But the article does not mention any discussion of this point.

--217.149.163.18 (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Content Dispute RE: “influential and controversial"Edit

Let hear some actual arguments for why influential and controversial cant be in the lead, its clearly not in violation of WP:LABEL... So whats the argument against? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Shach_-_”controversial_and_divisive"_? is relevant, seems like some parties here have been involved in related disputes for close to a decade. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The cited sources so not seem to support controversial, nor does my recollection of coverage here support it. (Obviously the whole messiah thing was controversial - but tmore in regards to those who did the labelling).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly the decade old talk page has a good section on this, user:Jayjg actually argues rather fabulously against his current position:

4. In reality, Schneerson was even more "controversial and divisive" than Shach ever was (admittedly in part because he was simply better known in the non-Orthodox world). For example, American Jewish Desk Reference (p. 85) has a biography on Schneerson that starts "SCHNEERSON, MENACHEM MENDEL (1902-1994) Perhaps the most controversial and charismatic contemporary Orthodox Jewish leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, inspired both a legion of devoted followers and band of critics who denounced his leadership as a cult of personality".

Im doing a review of the sources now but this is ironically extremely convincing. Given as this is the lede we don’t have to strictly go by what the four attached sources say, nor should there really be so many attached sources in the lede but thats a different point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: I didn't argue at all against my current position (read that discussion more carefully), and your insertion in this article is obviously in violation of WP:LABEL. WP:LABEL says "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies". Which did you do? "Describe the individual using the subjective and vague term controversial", or "give readers information about relevant controversies". Clearly the former. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Please clarify your statement, I was not the user who added this text I simply object to its removal. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: You "objected to its removal" by revert-warring it back into the article[1][2] after a one-edit editor added it to the article today. Now, which did you do when you made those edits? "Describe the individual using the subjective and vague term controversial", or "give readers information about relevant controversies"? Please clarify. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Please observe Wikipedia:Civility, this is an minor disagreement so theres no need to go around making personal attacks. Your continued edits to my talk page are unnecessary. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I clearly haven't made any personal attacks, and if you don't want me to respond on your talk page, then don't write messages to me there. Now, please respond to the relevant issue here: when you made these edits[3][4], did you "Describe the individual using the subjective and vague term controversial", or "give readers information about relevant controversies", per WP:LABEL? Please clarify. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I hold that in context statement "influential and controversial” is substantially different from “controversial,” so different in fact as for WP:LABEL to no longer apply. If the sentence simply said "He is considered one of the most controversial Jewish leaders of the 20th century.” you would have a point, but it doesn't. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, I hold that it is sophistry at best to argue that if you stick the phrase "influential and" before the word "controversial" you no longer violate WP:LABEL. Now, per WP:LABEL are you planning to "give readers information about relevant controversies" in the article lede? If so, what do you propose to add? Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You have to remember the history of the page, there is plenty controversial but it has been merged into the main text or placed somewhere more relevant. See Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 7#Criticism section as well as much of Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 6 and Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 5. Should we quote the American Jewish Desk Reference as you did? "controversial and charismatic” is similar and perhaps more appropriate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
First of all, please consider that WP:BRD means that since your edit was reverted, you should discuss and obtain consensus before you redo it.
More to the point. At Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Shach_-_”controversial_and_divisive"_? there was a discussion whether to mention that Shach was a controversial and divisive person, which was amply sourced, and neither of these terms were allowed as being WP:LABEL violations and additional references to WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:LEDE and WP:WTA. The same must be upheld here. It may be noted that I was of the opposite opinion in that discussion, and still am, but insist that the same rules be applied to all articles. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I would note that Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Shach_-_”controversial_and_divisive"_? does not in fact come to a consensus... There was “no consensus” to add but there was not in fact “a consensus” that it shouldn’t be added, I know thats wikipedia lawyering but you are misrepresenting the facts. Unlike with Shach we actually have a WP:RS that does in fact say that Schneerson is unambiguously one of the most controversial Jewish figures of his era, so its a completely different argument (you now say that theres ample sources that describe Shach as controversial, but that does not seem to be accurate given the policy based arguments made over there that center on a lack of reliable sources as well as WP:LABEL). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You are correct that there was no consensus at that discussion. The result was that the information was removed shortly after its addition. That means de facto that the result of the discussion was against inclusion. Indeed a bit of Wikilawyering.
As I remember it, there were some who raised issues with part of the sources, but not convincingly, and part of the sources was not challenged, if I remember correctly. There definitely was no consensus that all of the sources were below par. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Just making a note than another independent editor (admittedly one who has edited the page before) has agreed that “controversial” belongs in the lede, Wikipedia is not a democracy but if it were there would appear to be a clear majority decision... We do appear however to be approaching a consensus that controversial does in fact belong in the lede, sorry guys I know you have your hearts set on excluding it however obvious its inclusion is. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if you guys have seen but the LA Times uses controversial, as in the story "A Long-Distance Calling : Brooklyn’s Controversial Rebbe--Who Some Believe Is the Messiah--Makes an Impact on Jews in County” [5]. The text reads “ The rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is the controversial chief rabbi of the Lubavitcher movement, an ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish sect whose members still retain 18th-Century European dress and many of it customs.” I also note that none of the sources used to cite the relevant sentence in the lede are used at all in the text of the article which is highly abnormal. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
At present the lead reads: "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the 20th century." That statement has 4 sources. Only one of them uses the word "controversial". That source is the Wall Street Journal on the issue of crowd-sourcing the High Holy Days. A non-academic source, and in general probably not the best of sources for Judaism-related issues. Not to mention the rather peculiar subject of the article, come to think of it. In any case, the rabbi was not the main subject of that article, and for that reason as well any passing mention of him n this article is probably not the best of sources. I am aware tha same can be said for the word "influential", but that word is supported by at least three other sources.
The LA Times is another non-academic source, and probably not the best of sources for Judaism-related issues either, generally speaking. Not to mention that there is no indication in the article, why the term "controversial" would be fitting for the rabbi.
I would like to add to the above that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and based on that rule it is my humble opinion, that any claim that a person is "controversial" is in need of good sources.
IMHO, using the word controversial in the proposed way would be a clear violation of WP:LABEL. The burden is therefore upon Horse Eye Jack to explain his stated opinion that "its clearly not in violation of WP:LABEL", when even a superficial reading of that guideline suggests otherwise. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptionEdit

It appears we need to answer our friends question, although he appears to have answered it himself: "What detailed knowledge? All you need to know is that there exists a Chassidic movement called Chabad, and that many know.” That there exists Chassidic movements is extremely detailed knowledge, let alone that there is specific movement called Chabad. Per WP:short description we need to have a description that is “readily comprehensible” which the current one clearly isn’t. This applies to all seven Chabad Rebbes, perhaps it should say something along the lines of “Russian-American Jewish leader, Seventh Chabad Rebbe” so that it can be both generally accessible and specifically descriptive? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you seem to have this same issue on all Chabad rebbes pages, may I propose you make a centralized post at WT:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Why? This appears to be specific only to the Chabad Rebbes and not to Judaism as a whole (Chabad being but a minor fringe sect). The violation of WP:short description also seems pretty clear, by your own admission it isn't readily comprehensible as one must already know that there is a Chassidic movement named Chabad. But if you say that it is standard procedure I would be more than willing to make a post on WT:JUDAISM. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I have posted the overarching question to WT:JUDAISM, thank you for identifying the appropriate forum in which to ask this question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Chabad a fringe sect. It is arguably the most known movement of Chassidism.
I don't think terms like "Chassidic" and "Rebbe" are much less known to the general public then "Orthodox" or "rabbi", e.g. In any case I am confident that almost all readers will associate them with Judaism, which is a good start.
WP:Short description says that the short description must help distinguish articles. You sound like you propose to use "American (or Russian) Orhtodox rabbi" for all of these rabbis and a few thousand more. That is not helpful. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Menachem Mendel Schneerson" page.