Talk:Shneur Zalman of Liadi

message: Pinchas: Even the Nusach Ari article says it is called Nusach Ari but isn't actually Nusach Ari. To quote: "The Ari and his immediate disciples did not themselves publish any prayer book." 210.84.40.154 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is 'according to' not 'is' --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nusach Ari is not the Nusach of the Ari. It is what Chabad calls Nusach Ari. 210.84.40.154 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, as Pinchas said, Chabad does not claim that it is the actual nusuch of the Ari, but that it is *based on* that nusach.Yehoishophot Oliver 04:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oliver, so you agree with me that it is CALLED Nusach Ari and not according to nusach ari. 203.217.41.188 10:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is so difficult to understand?  The AR's nusach is על פי נוסח אר"י - according to the nusach of the ARI.  That is how it has been described since the first printing.  If you have a point you'll have to make it much more explicit.  Zsero 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not according to but what is called 

message: As far as I know, Sterna outlived the Alter Rebbe and is buried in Lubavitch, why then the term Wife 1?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.128.42 (talk) 01:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 
: Good point.  I've edited Template:Infobox Rebbe to fix this.  The number 1 now only appears after "Wife" and "Issue" if there is a second wife (see, e.g., Shmuel Schneersohn).  Zsero 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife 1 

message: In this article it says Alan Dershowitz argues that Rabbi Shneur Zalman believed that suffering was good for the Jews. Suffering would inspire asceticism and bolster the Hasidic cause.
I concede that Alan Dershowitz is a person of note. However, he has no mandate to express an opinion on matters of Hasidism, of which he knows next to nothing. He is a professor of law, not religion. Although he has made a name for himself as a commentator on Jewish life in his books, the books are all centred around secular issues. I propose that this paragraph be deleted from here, and also from the controversies of Chabad article, where it is reproduced. Dershowitz is entitled to his opinion on the matter, but his fame doesn't make that opinion notable. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Dershowitz  

message: Isnt it already a well accepted fact that it was?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.255.223 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest not a result of Misnagdim  

message: This article says he was an orthodox Rabi. There was no orthodoxy back then, there were only Rabanims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.49.133 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox

message: Is his title "Baal HaTanya ve-haShulchan Aruch" in reference to the Shulchan Aruch of Yosef Karo, which is what is linked at the moment, or in reference to the Shulchan Aruch that he wrote? Zerotalk 08:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The second. I'd say 'obviously', because the first was written as you correctly mentioned by somebody else. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'll unlink it since his own book is already linked.  Also, regarding his acronym "Razash": although I see that in reliable sources, I see "Rashaz" (רש"ז) more often, including in the Hebrew wiki article.  I'll add it, but let me know if I'm missing something. Zerotalk 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with both the unlinking and the addition of רש"ז. I never heard of "Razash", and it looks like a mistake. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's gone. Zerotalk 00:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baal HaTanya ve-haShulchan Aruch 

message: Everyone in the family tree is either "Rabbi" or "Rebbetzin".  I believe this is contrary to WP:HONORIFIC and since everyone has the same title it doesn't provide information either.  It also makes the diagram too wide for a tablet. So I plan to remove the titles; does anyone wish to argue against? Zerotalk 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a violation of WP:HONORIFICS, which allows one mention with a relevant honorific. Since they were (unless in specific cases you have reason to believe otherwise) all rabbis and rebbetzins, I think it makes sense to say so, and that this would be in accordance with WP:HONORIFICS. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree 

message: I think it's important to unify the transliterations of hebrew pronunciation of names into english. For example, in line 5, there is "Baal HaTanya ve-haShulchan Aruch',   "Admor HaZaken", i.e. the sephardi pronunciation and next:  "Rabbeinu HaZokein", "Rabbeinu HaGodol" i.e. one of the different ashkenazi pronunciations (not even the lubavitch one which is "hagodeil"!). I think it is important to use a consistent and constant system of transliteration, and since the sephardi one is the most widespread and prevailing, it is the one that should be used.
In note 5: "Sipurie" doesn't exist in hebrew: it's either "sipure" or "sipurei".
About his bar-mitzwah speech: In "hayomyom" at the date of the 7th of shvat it is written that he was 12 years old:
ז שבט
בהיות אדמו"ר הזקן בן תשע שנה למד חכמת ההנדסה והתכונה. בן עשר - סדר לוח על חמש עשרה שנה. בהיותו בן שנים עשר נזדמן שלמד ברבים הלכות קדוש החדש להרמב"ם, ולא מצאו הגאונים, שהיו באותו מעמד, ידיהם ורגליהם בבית המדרש.  Therefore that was not his bar-mitwah speech.
"elevation of Tzar Alexander I" at the end of the paragraph "Arrests" should be replaced by "accession of ... to the throne"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by אלימיט (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:HEBREW would seem to apply. As a rule, we use modern Hebrew transliteration, with sometimes the addition of "also pronounced as X". So basically I agree with the above. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  אלימיט, updating the spelling is a good thing, and you did a nice job. However, in a few cases you updated spelling in quotations or links. That you should not do. For quotations we, as a rule, use the original spelling. If you change spelling in links, they don't work any more, which is called that you "broke the link". Please repeat your edit, just leave out the quotations and links. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I was not aware of the problem and did not understand the first time17:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same is true for internal links, like the link to Yisroel Hopsztajn. I changed back Boruch and Rochel, because these are names, and if we would have articles for these people, these articles would almost certainly use the "o". Debresser (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed in situ Yisroel to Yisrael for the same reason of unification. Moreover, if you want to spell names as they were pronounced, then, since he lived in central Poland and not in Lithuania, the spelling should have been Yisruel and not Yisroel. And also, in the same line where you changed Rachel to Rochel, appears Devorah who should be spelled Dveire in the Lubavitch pronunciation. And so on and on in the whole article. That's one of the reasons why I insisted to have an unique way of spelling hebrew names or concepts.22:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unification of transliteration 

message: "The legendary 1797 Tanya got lost in a fire and no copies survived. The extant and more authoritative version of this work dates from 1814."— How can it be maintained that something is more authoritative than something that doesn't exist?  To me it makes no sense. Zerotalk 06:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it would be a good idea to remove "and more authoritative". Debresser (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanya 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shneur Zalman of Liadi. 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/20120218125150/http://www.world-geographics.com/europe/russia/kursk-3399/511648-pena.html to http://www.world-geographics.com/europe/russia/kursk-3399/511648-pena.html
*Added  tag to http://www.asknoah.org/Zalman.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to this quote from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, the birthdate should be given in New Style, the date of Death in Old Style (Liozna was on the Gregorian Calendar from 1582 to 1772, then on Julian again from 1772 to 1918). -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe thaty is because sources use the Old Style date? Debresser (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar."