Talk:Barry Gurary

message: 15:44, 11 September 2006 : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Gurary. Closed 19 September 2006: no consensus; kept. `'mikka (t) 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: From his birth he was the heir after his father of Chabd. However due to his disassociation with Chabad of his uncle he was exculuded from herldom. In the headlines of article according to my opinion the notion of Chabad line of succession should be mentioned.Narshavs 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: heir or not?

message: Please see a vote and discussion that is similar to how this article was treated recently: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 19#Liozna and Larger than Life (books). Thank you. IZAK 06:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review: Liozna and Larger than Life (books) 

message: Anyone here ever heard of Self-evidence?: "In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof." Does the obvious require "verification", such is if one says that "the sun's rays are very warm" or "it is very dark at night" or "if you drink a lot of vodka you will get drunk" or such like obvious self-evidnent statement, descriptions and explanations? Here are some questions to ponder, and the answers need to be part of this article. Does anyone have a better way of providing them? I submit that there is nothing novel in the above disputed section because it can indeed all be verified from Wikipedia itself, and the Internet if need be. IZAK 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what you bring is not relevant to this article as mentioned by several editors above. Furthermore, what you write here is not making any of your statements self evident and they are not reliable sources etc. as I wrote above. (I can copy/paste if you would like...) --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PinchasC: They are all trying to be nice (to you) I think, and they have not given any serious alternatives whereas I at least try to solve a central riddle here by stating the facts, nothing more. Here is my basic question to you: (without hiding behind Wikipedia's formalities which in this case is a huge cop-out) How would you suggest an explanation should be formulated for the fact that Barry Gurary never made it to become the Rebbe of Lubavitch, for whatever reasons? After all, being both the grandson of the sixth Rebbe and the nephew of the seventh should have given him at least the potential to become Rebbe eventually, or at least a fair and legitimate open opportunity by the rules of Chasidus. For example, in similar historical circumstances, after Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum  the last Satmar Rov passed away, his nephew, Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum indeed became the next Satmar Rebbe. Another example: When Rabbi Aharon Rokeach the previous and fourth  Belzer Rebbe was niftar there was a serious division of opinion within Belz, but ultimately his nephew Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach the present Rebbe took over. So please, you owe it to the public to explain why and how the nephew of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe never made it in the race to be Rebbe in Lubavitch? when in other Hasidic movements it did take place, (and please don't tell me that the Rebbe was Mashiach/and or/an incarnation of the Eibishter and that he is "still" the Rebbe - this is Wikipedia, remember?) Nothing that I have written here is outside the paramaters of good logic and basic self-evident facts. The citations above stress the photos that tell it all, that Barry Guarary was held close to the bosom by his grandfather the sixth Rebbe of Lubavitch, no different to any rebbishe einikel ("[a] grandson [of] rebbes") who was being coddled and prepared to become a potential future Rebbe himself. It's just that something happened along the way that made it no so, and this article MUST address that isssue one way or another (and which you seem to be resisting tooth and nail), otherwise this article will remain like a house with its roof (Roov?) missing. IZAK 07:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yitzi, just stop it.  We all understand, and indeed appreciate, that you feel annoyed or even offended about Pinny's removal of your well-written content from the article.  The point remains, as I and others have told you plainly, most of the removed text doesn't belong in this article ...  Referring to quibbles and squabbles in the succession among various Chasidic dynasties is fine, but the text you're arguing for, in large part, is relevant to most Chasidic dynasties, and is not of particular and special relevance to an article about Gurary specifically.  Look at the text you're fighting for, and then look really closely at the name of the article.  Yes, much of it applies to Gurary, but just because it applies to Gurary doesn't mean it belongs in an article about Gurary.  It's just a little bit of a leap, and I hope that by saying so up front, you won't use the big leap I'm about to make as some strawman to attempt to delegitimize the very important point I'm trying to impress upon you by making this leap...  Gurary is Jewish.  Now, imagine someone coming along and trying to insert 4 paragraphs about Who is a Jew? into the Gurary article.  Gurary is Chasidic.  Now, imagine someone coming along and trying to insert 4 paragraphs about Chassidic Judaism into the article.  To take it to the extreme, Gurary is [I hope] circumcised.  Imagine your outrage if someone were to come along and try to insert 4 paragraphs about Circumcision.  The point is, the article is ABOUT GURARY, not about "Processes of succession in Chassidic dynasties".  As I said before, there's nothing wrong with the text itself, it simply, however, does not belong in this article.  Yeah, it sucks that the information presented is really hard to give citations for, but one or two would be really impressive, especially in light of how hard it is to come up with such citations [keep in mind, citations are not limited to WWW URLs!].  That would be almost as impressive as including the information in a relevant article would be.  I don't doubt the veracity of the information, I simply see no valid argument being made for its inclusion in Barry Gurary.  Nobody's saying "IZAK!  You're you're fulla crap!!!"...so a line-by-line refutation and saying "see, this too is truth" is a red herring.  Nobody's accusing you of providing false information, but I think there's a strong consensus that as far as this article is concerned, what you're insisting "needs to be included", does not belong in this article.  It has its place, to be sure, but this article is not its place!  Alright, I think I've got so much bold and capitalization and italicization and bold italicization and bold and capital and omg, what's my name?  IZAK.  Keep the information.  Defend it. Source it.  And then include it in an article where it's actually suitable.  Cheers, Chagh sameach, kol tov, etc.  Tomertalk 08:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Tomer, I am not upset, I just think that not giving a decent explanation fails simple empirical scholarship which seeks answers to the questions of "why," "how" and "what" - in this case: why did Barry Gurary fail to become an eventual rebbe in Lubavitch unlike in other dynasties where nephews did succeed to the top, what happened and how ? That's it. Why is that so hard to digest? I can understand where PinchasC is coming from, but what's your stake in this beyond trying to protect his feelings? What about Barry Gurary's honor. He has become like the proverbial "Man in the Iron Mask" of Lubavitch. I know you don't subscribe to the ArtScroll or Chabad style of studying and portraying history and biographies so why the verbose commotion? Your analogy to the Who is a Jew? article makes no sense (in any case by now so many people have added so much fluff to that article so as to make "being a Jew according to Wikipedia" almost meaningless, but we won't get into that discussion.) Wikipedia is awash with crap, some of it coming from very nice well-meaning people (yeah, well, sometimes they are not well-meaning) but if an article, in this case a biography about a controversial person, is to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion without it's core guts missing then that article MUST be edited as I have done here, provided that the information is true, logical and as I say here, self-evident. I am prepared to take as long as it takes to work this through. Let me ask you, do you have any problems with the photos serving as citations? Take a look at the links to them above. PinchasC has in the past removed them as references in the article from the "external links" yet, on technical grounds, which is why I have reproduced them here as links on the talk page as part of the discussion being links for anyone to see. Let me know. And yes, have a wonderful Chag Sameach and enjoy your Sukkah -- whose pictures will be decorating yours? IZAK 09:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Line by line truth

message: There is an old, wise, and funny Jewish tale, unfortunately I cannot render it in English it its full wit. But the story goes like this. Abram and Isaac went into a quarrel; gewalt, pieces of payot in the air... Chaim comes by: "Why so noise? Go ask rabbi to judge you". The three go to rabbi and all three start shouting there. Rebbe says: "Speak in turns. You Abram first" Abram says: "It was thus and thus, rebbe". Rabbi nodes wisely:"You are right, Abram."  Issac, impatiently: "But rebbe, it fact all this is so and so!" Rabbi nodes wisely:"You are right too, Isaac." Now Chaim jumps in: "But rebbe, how can it be possible? Abram is right and Isaac is right?" -- "And you are right, too, Chaim!.."
The background is essential to establish notability of Barry beyond the petty theft issue. Otherwise we may well delete this article. At the same time some of IZAK's text goes beyond the description of the context. Things like drawing parallels or making guesses is original research. Unless really trivial and common knowledge, all work of logic must be referenced. It is not that we think that wikipedias are stupid, it is because some wikipeditors are stupid, and unfortunately in wikipedia the line between (potential) stupidity and wit is drawn right on the boundary of wikipedia. No one invented a non-controversial way to increase "expert-friendliness"  of wikipedia yet. Attempts of Larry Sanger for "expert-friendly" but otherwise similar wikiprojects are of limited success so far, to put it delicately. 
Concluding, I am deleting some pieces, but the section in question is relevant and useful. 
On the other hand, the section could have been much shorter if we had an article Hasidic dynasty (now it is a redirect to the list). We have  Hasidic philosophy, Hasidic Judaism, but the text similar to written by IZAK here seems cannot be found in wikipedia (at least not easily). I would like to encourage IZAK to start the Hasidic dynasty article by adding references to the text from "Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes". `'mikka (t) 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion of third party

message: Added the  tag. IZAK 08:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversial 

message: This new version removed alot of the problems in the original. However there is still a problem that most of the sources are from blogs ehich is not a reliable source. The source from these blogs need to be quoted instead. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sources are taken from books then they should be quoted from those books as they are more reliable than blogs. Please see my edit summaries for the parts that I did remove, as I listed my objections in those edit summaries, instead of mass reverting. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: Hi all you Chabad POV warriors, you only want to lynch a dead man a million times over, that is sick! Take note, ALL the references here are based on PHOTOS readily available on EXTERNAL links, regardless of the sources, it's a PHOTO only! Do not remove them please! Thanks. Happy Shavuot! IZAK 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reverting to your version of more than SEVEN MONTHS AGO, with multiple editors editing in between and the removal of many valid sources is disruptive and will not be tolerated. Chocolatepizza 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is sourced from Ehrlich's book, if you do not accept him as a source, remove his quotes from everywhere else as well. Chocolatepizza 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revert 

message: Ok Chocolate: Let me ask you, for example, about the following sentence, which needs to be clarified before it is "enshrined" here in this article in the service of anti-Barry propaganda: 
"but there were perceived, if not actual, irregularities in his behavior that precluded his succession. He had shaved his beard at a young age and had a reputation for publicly desecrating halakhah."
#What does it mean that things were "perceived" -- exactly who was doing the "perceiving" or maybe it was instructions coming down from the top to dirty Barry. Bottom line, the word "perceived" just proves that what we are dealing with is just PERCEPTIONS and not realities or facts about anything -- as it says in the quote itself that these were not "actual" -- so then they are probably lies that are being given prominence here, as "scholarly" views. Why?
#What does the word "irregularities" mean here? That he did not drink hail mary's to his uncle? That he went to a Litvishe yeshiva? That he hated Smirnoff vodka? That he just wanted to be NORMAL and not just a hypnotized groupy? After all, this is supposedly the key sentence "explaining" why Barry did not become Rebbe eventually, and the best you can do is quote from a book by Ktav that speaks in vague words that do not add up?
#Define "irregularities in his behavior" because the way it's presented makes it sound that he was crazy or something. Was Barry a mental case or just a very wise man hated because he was smart and brave enough to see through all the hogwash and propaganda? Was he convicted of crimes? Or What? Speak up.
#"He had shaved his beard at a young age": hmm, what is that supposed to mean? That he shaved in a manner against Halachah? This may imply that he shaved off his beard with a razor, G-d forbid. Well, did he? Did he indeed have th facial hairs to grow a beard at a young age. Many teenagers who first start growing beards look like they "shave" or was he acting like many yeshiva bochurim in this days who preferred not to grow beards? "Not growing a beard" is a nicer way to put it. He was not an evil person because he may have wanted not to have a beard as a youngster. In any case, when exactly did all this take place? How about his character and midos, was that not considered to see whether it would help to make him a more kindly leader instead of a running the movement like a cult. Did G-d check Moses and Rabbi Akiva's beearsd before giving them leadership over the Jews? Moses had to take care of sheep, smelly huh, what would the neighbors have said? And Rabbi Akiva was an ignoramus and knew nothing until he started studying at the age of 40. How many manhigim are ther like that today? I heard it said that Barry accused his uncle of making Lubavitch into a cult, which means he had a brain in his head and could think for himself and not act like a programmed robot, so what is so terrible about that, but no, they have to look at how long or short his facial hairs were. Sick.
#Finally, this is the cream on the cake and absolutely the worst statement here: that Barry "had a reputation for publicly desecrating halakhah" -- really? What was the source of this "reputation"? You know it is very easy to start a Lashon Hara campaign against someone when you want to wipe out their credibility. How in the name of the Torah did Barry Gurary "publicly" "desecrate Halacha"? What did he do? Was he mechalel Shabbos? Did he eat traif in non-kosher restaurants? Did he date gentile women and dance with them in nightclubs? Did he eat chometz on Pesach? Did he take loans from banks and not repay them? Did he deal in drugs anything illegal? I mean, this is a serious accusation, and to say that there was a "perception" that he broke Halachah, is absolutely NOT good enough, because it is only saying that the slander against him was so powerful that even though he may have been the biggest Tzadik in the world, but once the 7th Rebbe decided he was public enemy number one, which by the way, he did become after the whole phony library dispute, so then like any Jews who are tragetedd for eventual elimination are also "perceived" as being against the powers-that-be which in turn then means that they get demonized, and then everyone knows what has usually happened next in history... 
So this is a slippery slope, and this article should not be allowed to evolve into a kind of reverse affirmation of Lubavitch hate propaganda against an innocent man who happened to be related to a very complicated ruling family. As far as many, many who knew Barry Guraray personally, and I have spoken to some of them and read what they have had to say, Barry was a very modest, honest, fully-Halachically observant, very scholarly about Torah and secular matters, with an exceptionaly high intelligenece, who was just NOT enamoured with his uncle. The rivalry goes back to the sibling rivalry between Barry's mother and the 7th Rebbe's wife (a very good case study for a psychological study of a dysfunctional family), and no amount of stupidity generated in print can hide the fact that Barry Gurary was a banished Lubavitcher royal prince who was seriously demonized in a long drawn out power struggle and who  suffered much for the courage of his convictions. IZAK 09:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sourced from Ehrlich's book, if you do not accept him as a source, remove his quotes from everywhere else as well. Chocolatepizza 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputing an assertion

message: The section titled: As nephew to the seventh Rebbe is basically an WP:OR discussion about nephew's in other movements becoming Rebbes. This is not fitting for a wikipedia article, giving undue wight to Barry as the "should be" successor. This section should be deleted. Shlomke 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing. Shlomke 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nephew 

message: How on Earth can anyone believe this piece of slanderous propaganda?IZAK 07:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, that's what the source said. Erlich by the way is the preeminent secular scholar of Chabad, and his position is quotable. Lobojo (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed passage 

message: Many deaths, and nearly all births, attributed to Montclair, New Jersey, actually happened at Mountainside Hospital, which has a Montclair ZIP code, but is on the Montclair/Glen Ridge border, with the parking garage on the Montclair side and the patients on the Glen Ridge side, so the births and deaths are really in Glen Ridge, even though almost no one realizes this unless they actually look at the birth or death certificate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.152.17 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death location probably wrong 

message: There is much information on page of Barry, which belongs on other - or no other - pages.
I will start with this: "Little is known about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson's own surviving relatives. Prior to his death Rabbi Menachem Schneerson appointed Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Krinsky, a non-relative, as the sole executor of his will upon his death." I am not sure why this belongs on Barry's page, and I am considering removing it. EhadHaam 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am considering deleting much of the section "as a nephew of the seventh rebbe". I cant make heads or tails of it, and there are no sources to this anyway. EhadHaam (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary information. Page cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barry Gurary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429184041/http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/pdf/didannatzach.pdf to http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/pdf/didannatzach.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified