Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 1

message: Danny, does the brother-in-law info need to be included here, or in a separate article on the Lubavitchers? -- Zoe
Guys, the previous rebbe, Yosef Yitzchok , only had 3 daughters. [One was killed by the nazis with her husband, she was killed on 09/13/1942 (see Days of Chabad, Kehot).] The other married the rebbe Menachem Mendel, the 3rd married Rabbi Gurarie who headed the Lubavitch yeshivas, he pre-deceased Menachme Mendel quietly. He was a quiet person and never a rival. He did have a son tho, Barry, who dropped out of Lubavitch completely, who was very critical of the movement and had no interest whatsoever in being their leader. The guy with the "strimel" is not even a relative I believe, he is just someone who wrote some books about the movement and arbitrarily decided to make himself a successor.Needless to say, no-one either inside or outside the movement took him seriously. There is NO successor, period. User:IZAK
::I don't know what you mean about the "guy with the strimel," but I'll assume you mean the "Liozner," who isn't really taken all that seriously.  You are wrong, however, about the Rashag.  When the previous Rebbe passed away, both the Rebbe and the Rashag (R' SHmaryahu Gourari) declared themselves Rebbe (The Rebbe waited a year to do so officially). Many of the old guard Chassidim openly though that the nasius would pass to the Rashag rather than the Rov who was at that point known as the "Ramash." It was mostly the younger Chassidim who eventually made it clear that the Rebbe was going to be the successor rather than the Rashag.  To say he was never a rival is untrue.  However, when the nasius was decided, he quickly became a follower of the Rebbe, and was publicly very close with the Rebbe.  --Meshulam 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to sure about, I live in Sydney and we have a sliach called Rabbi Michoel Gurarie (somewhere in his 40s) and I think he is the son or grandson of Rabbi Gurarie which married the Rebbe Rayatz's daughter... I'll ask him or one of his sons to comment on this, the next time I see one of them (probably be after Shabbos, as its already Thursday night in Sydney) 220.233.48.200 11:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Family information

message: PhatJew wrote "The following discussion is largely based on controversial opinions of various sources. The reader would do well to check all assertions. There is a bitter and continuing battle within Orthodox Judaism being fought over the Legacy of the Rebbe. The following facts, figures and generalizations are all matters of dispute."
:I removed this for now, because your comments are vague and thus unproductive.  Could be more specific?  Are you disputing the statement that most Chabad Lubavitch Jews are now messianic?  Or are you disputing something else?  Please feel free to contribute, but contribute something a bit more concrete.  (BTW, the only studies I have seen on this subject have been by Orthodox Jews, and all agree that Chabad Jews are now messianic. This also corresponds to my personal experience, as most Chabad Jews I have met are now messianic.) RK 01:57 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Okay, I tried to take out all the Bergerisms and actually replace them with real facts. I hope you will excuse the framing of the controversy as a Hasidic versus Litvak thing...but that is basically a fact. If anybody denies that the cleavage is along the exact same lines as the Vilna Gaon and Baal Shem Tov, we can have a discussion about it and hammer out something acceptable. I really would have preferred to move the whole discussion to a page about the Hasidism and its opponents...but I only have so much time. PhatJew
----
The link to Labor is ambiguous.  Can someone who knows the context please fix it?  Thanks. Rossami 05:17, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Matters of dispute

message: The article still displays an , and I was wondering if this still applies. The edit warring over this article has ceased after a period of protection, and nothing much has changed (apart from the occasional link vandal) since I unprotected it.<BR>
Shall we remove the NPOV tag? After all, the page is not much more hagiographic than pages on some other 20th century rabbis. JFW | T@lk 08:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a rather basic rewrite, and structured some stuff. There is still a fair bit of NPOVing to do. Some things that are presently under "biography" can probably go under other headers. Also, some sections may benefit from trimming. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, User:EPTes provided the final straw. His comments are awaited below. Failing that, this article will be protected until 2 September. Sensible editors may contribute changed paragraphs below, which will be inserted into the article by an administrator. JFW | T@lk 15:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: The "Biopgrahy" title should be "Biography". Jayjg 15:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biopgrahy section 

message: The page has been unprotected; anyone want to take any bets on how long it is before the Berger paragraph is deleted? Jayjg 18:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: After Shabbos. They'll still not be mechalel shabbos to glorify the Rebbe's memory. JFW | T@lk 18:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! It took them 5 days. Jayjg 02:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected again- let the Berger deletions begin! 

message: Please provide Lubavitch sources which put the usual honorifics for the dead (e.g. a"h, z"l, z"tl) after Schneerson's name.  Examples from official Lubavitch websites would be appreciated as well. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter doesn't make it clear which version of the plaque had which words.  Can you be clearer?  Can you also list the publications or websites which use these honorifics? By the way, in your view is Schneerson dead?  Just a "yes" or "no" response, please, nothing longer. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: How about you scan something, ok?  And could you find a link to an official website that uses them as well please?  Otherwise I think we're going to have to go back to "most", rather than "many". Oh, and by the way, in your view is Schneerson dead?  Just a "yes" or "no" response, please, nothing longer. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I guess you don't think he's dead then. Jayjg (talk) 06:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Pinchas, will you concede that this is a bit counterintuitive? To be led by a spiritual entity, one would need some form of revelation. Apart from the endless jokes about the fax machines in the Ohel, how does the Rebbe provide guidance to his flock? Also: who has decided that the Chazal in Yerushalmi Sotah and the Iggeres ha-Kodesh #27 apply to him? JFW | T@lk 11:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: So do you think there are other Jewish leaders who have "passed" but are not quite "dead"?  Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell on those jps it refers to him as "Admor", which would indicate that he is still alive.  Is there something in the fine print I'm not seeing.  Also, do you think there are other Jewish leaders who have "passed" but are not quite "dead"? Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: First, admor stands for "out master, our teacher, our Rabbi", and, as far as I have seen is applied exclusively to the living; do you have examples of it being applied to other dead people?  Second, was there anything in those pictures that indicated he had died?  I couldn't see it but the type was small.  Third, can you name another tzadik who as "passed" but not "died"? Jayjg (talk) 06:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, now how about something that says Schneerson is dead; is the font just too small on those other pictures for me to make it out?  Also, what I was asking is if you knew of any "tzadikim" who have "passed" but not "died".  Are there any "tzadikim" who Lubavitch thinks have "passed" but not "died", aside from Schneerson? Jayjg (talk) 06:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey Pinchas, I'm very unhappy that this page is turning into a Tanya class. The questions are now: (1) Do all Chabad members believe that the Rebbe has passed without dying? (2) If not, how do the other interpret Iggeres ha-Kodesh chapter 27? (3) Which authorities have decided that the Yerushalmi applies to the Rebbe (or any other Tzaddik, for that matter)? JFW | T@lk 10:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorifics 

message: Pinchas, you seem to object to the latest edits to this article and Chabad Lubavitch; what specifically bothered you about them? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it just seems that there is this strong Messianic group within Lubavitch about which you seem to want to suppress any knowledge or mention; you don't allow a discussion of their beliefs in the articles, or any links to their sites.  Why is that?  They information they provided seemed to be well sourced with plenty of links. Jayjg (talk) 13:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about the links themselves, but the changes to the article; what specifically did you object to? Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: :It is an important theological phenomenon that many - probably most - Chabadniks believe that they can still communicate with rabbi Schneerson. I have seen this done myself (although I doubt that the "answer" actually came from R. Schneerson.)  The point is that many Chabadniks do this, while most other Orthodox Jews would never do such a thing. It is thus a distinguishing characteristic between Chabad and non-Chabad Jews. RK 02:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the historical practice of opening holy books at random to freceive guidance, See the
Birkei Yosef in Yoreh Dei'ah, siman 179, se'if 8 says in the name of the Maharikash:
"It is permissible to open the Torah to see what pasuk appears, since it is our life, and just as we see with Yoshiya, who did something because he found a Sefer Torah rolled up to a particular pasuk and so it is common practice. (end quote of the Maharikash)
"And it says in the Yalkut Mishlei, siman 219, if you want to take an eitza from the Torah, take it. As we find that Dovid says, "b'fikudecha asicha" (end of the Yalkut). Apparently, taking an eitza from the Torah is possible and in this is included opening the Torah to see what pasuk appears. And I found in a kuntres, a manuscript from Rabbi Eliyahu Cohen z'l (the author of Shevet Musar) who wrote as follows: I received from my teachers, that when they wanted to do something, and were uncertain whether to do it or not, they would take a chumash or nach and would open it, and look at the top of the page to see what pasuk was there, and based on the pasuk they would take action. And so it comes out, that they consulted the Torah to know what to do in all their inyanim, and this itself is alluded to in the statement of our sages z'l, litol eitza min ha'Torah that it rules it permissible to do so, and this is not at all in the category of 'utilizing the Torah'(end of quote). And it's also possible that our sages z'l ruled on this that despite the fact that it says in Sifri that one does not ask through lots for it says, "tamim tihiyeh," however, in such a way, it is permitted v'dok heitev.(end quote of Birkei Yosef)--PinchasC 03:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Literally contacting the rebbe through reading his books

message: And along comes Ariel. I had to revert all your stuff on Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Firstly, to insert  without a talk page antecedent is ridiculous. Secondly, you put whole sections in nowiki tags - pointless and a formatting problem. Thirdly, you put many external links in the text body. This is not normally done. Finally, there were way too many external links at the end.
Please be aware that there are various editors on Wikipedia who are basically positive about Chabad and its work, but will not tolerate the use of the Rebbe and Chabad articles as biased outlets of Chabad info. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ariel

message: By the grace of G-d
Greetings and blessings. 
I have edited the links section to add few Mashichist sites to give a greater range  of Chabad views on the issue of identity of Moshiach and the proccess of redemption. While I realize Wikipedia is not a link list I feel that all those sites should be included. I have also moved the "Breif history of Chabad Messianism"  to the historical sites section from it's original location in the Chabad Messianic sites section since it's not a Mashichist propaganda, but the author of the article simply presents an overview of the development of the Moshiach identification campaign within Chabad and further states elsewhere on his site that he doesn't believe the Rebbe is Moshiach therefore it obviously doesn't belong in the Chabad Messianic sites section.
I have also added the http://www.YudelKrinsky.com as satire is just another way to convey information and studying it creates a clearer picture about the issue in the mind of a serious Wikipedia reader.
With respect and blessing.
Ariel Sokolovsky 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV editing

message: The article is leaning dangerously towards an unduly sympathetic POV again. I can see no reference to criticisms, and the paragraphs about leaders flocking to his side seem rather suspicious. Is it only me? Where did the Berger paragraphs go? Taragüí @ 16:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Based upon consensus reached on the talk page here and on the talk page on chabad all the controversies relating to chabad were moved to the chabad page and link to from this page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. It was quite nauseating. JFW | T@lk 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky is not even on the board of directors of Machne Israel, let alone heading it. Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky is the Chairman of both Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. and Machne Israel, Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky is a board member of Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. Scholom 05:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion regarding : regarding :! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 05:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succesion 

message: http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/RabbiMenachemMendelSchneerson.htm This one looks like spam, with all the ads. And it trys to sound like it is the offical Gold Medal site when it isn't. Let the VfD of the link begin. 220.233.48.200
*Delete 220.233.48.200 18:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a better link feel free to replace it, but for now this is the only link that I have found that discusses this at length and has quotes from the presidents. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I am an IP so I can't make it, but does anyone want to and link it here. I am surprised such an article be missing. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you have a good excuse to register. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Education and Sharing Day]] article 

message: Shouldn't they just be in the Chabad article? Ems2 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chabad links 

message: The date part is really confusing. I know it refers to the years M.M. was leader but it doesn't make that clear at all. eeemess 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It say's on top "Rebbe of Lubavitch", which would mean the time period he was Rebbe. Although all Lubavitchers still consider him the Rebbe and that he is still leading them. Shlomke 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 1) Shouldn't the "time-line" go on the Chabad-Lubavitch page? 2) What is the use of a "time-line" with two data points? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruber76 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline 

message: I reverted here:  because it is mostly opinion and orignal research/disputed research. I know many Chabadniks that have been there from the old times that say there should be a new shepherd for the animal house. IMO the related articles should make clear in between modern chabadnik and the old timers. eeemess 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit before you was actualy a revert of blanking. It was there for a while. Also could you be more specific about what is disputed? I never heard or read of any Chabadnick that feels there should be a new Rebbe. Shlomke 10:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Thank you, Sholom. I believe that your edit is more acccurate than mine, or what was there previously. The only problem I have is with the words "But that moment never arrived." This does not bring any new information. Deleting these words would not change the meaning of the sentence in the least.  Finally, since it is a major contention amongst many Lubavitchers that nothing has changed between 1992 and now in terms of the Rebbe being Moshiach, that phrase clearly takes a side in the debate. It would be enough to say that he died without verbalizing anything to confirm his followers dream that he be Messiah. Many of those followers, however, still believe that he is Messiah. --Meshulam 15:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  You also make a good point: I agree "that moment never arrived" doesn't add anything and probably ought to be deleted.  The main thing that I wanted to make more clear is that the number of "meshichisten" is truly unknown.  Some think that most L's are, some think that just the fringe are, but it's all anecdotal and difficult to tell. -- Sholom 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I see in Lubavitch, everyone beleives that the Rebbe is Moshiach, the question is just if it should be publicised or kept secret. The definition of a Meshichist is if he beleives in publicizing this belief. Try to find a lubavitcher that will tell you he believes the Rebbe is not Moshiach - very unlikely. If they are not Meshichist they will usualy say they don't want to speak about it, or something else without telling you the Rebbe is not Moshiach. Shlomke 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what you see, can not be included, rather it needs to be sourced.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do editors keep posting ludicrous statements e.g. everyone believes the Rebbe is Moshiach?  Any reading of the news stories out there indicates that there is a faction of the Lubavitchers who believe he is, and a probably larger group who thinks he isn't.  And as one Chabadnich said to me, whatever any of us  believe, the issue will certainly be resolved in the next few years.  At the risk of being reedited, I'm going to slightly edit the article to reflect this.Incorrect 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See for example A Brief History of Lubavitch Messianism, where the above contention is very clear. From reading the news stories it's pretty abovius that the meshichistem are a very large group. The question here is how many Meshichitem are there? my commets are about the differences between The meshichitem and ant-Meshichistem, not how many meshichistem there are. Also you should be aware that during the lifetime of the Rebbe, nearly all Lubavitchers were open about the Rebbe being Moshiach. It was after the Rebbe passed away that there became a much greater split (with many believing that the Rebbe is still alive). --Shlomke 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even More Accurate... 

message: Every major figure/movement/whatever who has sparked any controversy at all - and the Rebbe quite certainly has - has a "criticism" or "controversy" section in his or her article, why not the Rebbe? I added a very modest one and it was almost instantly reverted by User:PinchasC. I'm aware that there is already such a section in the Chabad article, of course, but it is not necessarily the same as controversy over the Rebbe himself. Most controversy over Chabad - such as the Berger issue - concerns claims that he was the Messiah, rather than of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's actual teachings. Nevertheless, his person and teachings were criticised by notable persons as well - Shahak, whatever one's opinion of him, is definitely notable, and so is rabbi Shach - and it deserves a separate mention in his biographical article, while the Chabad article concerns itself with the actual organisation. Guildenstern42 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was agreed a long time ago that instead of having two critiscm sections one here and one in chabad both saying the same stuff to have one in chabad and link it to there from here. If you go to the chabad article you will see a very long critiscm section takling up most of the article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is a criticism section taboo? 

message: Ok, other things that need to be added: Schneerson was a staunch Young Earth Creationist early in life but later in life seemed to be more accepting of people who accepted evolution. When I have time I'll try to source and add this but I wouldn't mind if someone else would do it in the meantime. JoshuaZ 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accepting of "people" who accepted evolution, does not contradict being a staunch Young Earth Creationist, no? --Shlomke 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, rephrase from my WP:OR-laden impression I gather that early on his attitude was something like "anyone who accepts evolution is a kofer" and later it became "I don't believe in evolution but others do and they might be ok" JoshuaZ 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Rebbe never changed his position against evolution, or weakened it whatsoever. If you want to make such a claim, the onus of proof lies on you. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements 

message: TrachtGut changes "When sung before him in his last months, Rabbi Schneerson vigorously encouraged the singing by swaying to and fro and swinging his hand, as he had done during the singing of other songs at the numerous farbrengens over the years." to "When sung before him in his last months, Rabbi Schneerson's hand motions were thought by some to be encouraging the singing, although these motions were far less than what he had done during the singing of other songs at the numerous farbrengens over the years." The Rebbe encouraged the singing many times vigorously, that's on video for anyone to see. Denying that it occured is simply dishonest. But then to say that the "motions were far less"?! This is disingenuous. Of course they were less--half of the Rebbe's body was affected by a stroke! But considering his physical condition, the hand movements were very vigorous encouragement. That was clear to one and all and not just something that was "thought by some". That's a lie. So I'm changing it back. NPOV doesn't mean distorting facts available on video for all to see. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Shlomke 15:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting facts straight