Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Chabad article AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House and if you can raise the quality of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More hard info, less sugar-coating

I just spent more than an hour copyediting this article, and along the way found a few inconsistences and a lot left out. I prepared a subheading for the whole "Moshiach fervor" that broke out during his lifetime, and opened the floor to a full discussion of how Chabad has split into three camps since his petirah. I agree with what was written above (in 2007) that this article lacks teeth. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. It's crazy that the controversies are not referenced in this article. It would seem that this is a clear POV fork. MikeR613 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A statement like "His focus on messianism was controversial and his legacy is deeply polarising within Orthodox Judaism. " is blatant POV, and unsubstantiated. Failing somebody adding a verifiable source, I intend to delete it as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement is both obviously true, and amply supported in this article or its sub-article. Please don't remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg . At the same time, it should preferably be sourced. Perhaps you could find a source yourself? Debresser (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's so "obviously true" and as "amply supported" as Jayig claims, then providing references 'directly supporting the statement' shouldn't be too hard. Failing such, it remains blatant POV, simply untrue, and a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V which I intend to remove. I have searched but could not find any remotely reliable source for a statement like that - but I'm not the one who stuck it here.Winchester2313 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing gushing praise

I've no doubt that someone will put it back, but I've removed a perfectly outrageous piece of gushing praise of the Rebbe. "The Rebbe was and is considered one of the greatest scholars and holiest men from this, past, and future generations. his holiness pervaded the entire world. it was unmatched." Saying that it is unsourced is a terrible understatement. The Rebbe was one of the most controversial figures in modern Judaism, and the fact that one of his followers thinks he was the greatest doesn't justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. As I said, someone will put it back, but it's wrong to do so. Consider it my protest. MikeR613 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It should not be put back, since these words - although true - are clearly overdone from an encyclopedical point of view. But you too should differentiate between the objective greatness of the Rebbe, and the controversities arond him. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebbe's picture

The image Image:Rebbe.jpg is not a free-use image, and has been removed by a bot from my userbox Template:User ChabadnikLubavitcher. Isn't there a free-use image of the rebbe? Isn't it possible to get one? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New Additions Regarding "Vacantly Senile Stare"

The following has been repeatedly re-added:

Following the stroke, some of Schneerson's followers interpreted his "vacantly senile stare" as an indication that he had attained enlightenment and was the Messiah.

I think this is rather POV, especially considering the tenor of the link provided. That article was written by a clearly biased anti-observant Jew who obviously has an axe to grind. I see no firm reference basis to support such a claim and see no reason it has a place in this article—at least not without much more to back it up and a bit of rewording. Your thoughts, everyone? RavShimon (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mark A.R. Kleiman is a Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. To dismiss him as a "biased anti-observant Jew" is quite unfair. He tends to prefer a more low-key style of Judaism, but this doesn't make him "anti-observant," just anti-fundamentalist. This article has far too much hagiography, as indicated by previous complaints, and doesn't adequately address the fringe movement surrounding the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Including this relatively mild criticism is a good step forward. *** Crotalus *** 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that samefacts.com is not considered a reliable source, but is considered "self-published" and is thus it is very uncommon to allow it. The exceptions are encapsulated in WP:V as "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I do not think Dr. Kleiman's expertise in public policy makes him an established expert on the Lubavitch movement, or even Hasidic Judaism, so the source should not be accepted. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This article is primarily about the impact of fundamentalist Judaism on public policy, so it is within Dr. Kleiman's field of expertise. Furthermore, a Washington Post article (reproduced here) indicates that the "messianic belief gained speed — and voice — when Schneerson, who had no children and had not appointed a successor, suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." So that's some backing for the statement that Schneerson's less reality-based followers started to consider him the Messiah as a result of injuries sustained in the stroke. *** Crotalus *** 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with both statements. Firstly, Kleiman is not considered an expert on Lubavitch or Hasidic Judaism. I highly doubt he is even considered an expert on "fundamentalist Judaism" as one paper doth not an expert make. Nor is Lubavitch considered classic "fundamentalist Judaism" anyway. Thus, Kleiman's self-published works on Lubavitch are not acceptable. An example of an allowed self-published source would be quoting James Davila, a Professor of Early Jewish Studies and Principal of a college who has published ten or so works in the field of Second Temple Judaism and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, from his blog PaeloJudaica, a blog devoted to "ancient Judaism and its context". That is an example of a recognized expert with multiple quoted works being quoted from a self-published source that is directly related to his or her expertise. Secondly, the fact that there is "some backing" for the statement may or may not be true, but even if it is, that is your synthesis, Crotalus, and thus cannot be used. The most that can be said is "According to Liz Leyden of the Washington Post, the messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." or something to that effect. I've heard that theory a number of times before, so if we can find another source, we can say "A number of opinions…" or something similar, and not need to identify Ms. Leyden. But I still see no acceptable sources for the "vacantly senile stare" quotation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against such wording because 1. many would disagree with that description 2. it is insulting, and as such simply unacceptable here. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"…messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." is a direct quote, and currently, is attributed to Liz Leyden. It's hard to rephrase direct quotes unless we find an acceptable paraphrase. There still no no acceptable source for the "stare" quote and it is out of the article as of now. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Liz Leyden

I again removed the following paragraph.

Liz Leyden of the The Washington Post wrote that belief in Schneerson as the Messiah "gained speed — and voice" after a stroke rendered the Lubavitcher Rebbe unable to speak.

First of all, let me reply to two of the editors who restored this paragraph.

1. The problem is not the reliabilty of the source. All agree, that the Washington Post is a fine source.
2. Especially rude was the accusation of "whitewashing" this article. What is black and what is white in this anonymous editor's opinion, I don't know.

The point remains, that (at least) three editors have removed this paragraph again and again, and all for the very same reason: it doesn't fit in this article, in its present form and at the places it was added.

In my opinion, if it were to be rewritten "The belief in Schneerson as the Messiah "gained speed — and voice" after the stroke that rendered the Lubavitcher Rebbe unable to speak." (and the reference, of course), it just might be kept at its first location. At the second location it was even more out of place. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have placed it in the original location. I don't really care where in the article it goes, but it needs to be in there somewhere — the Messianic fervor surrounding Schneerson is a major part of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's notability. If others on this page insist on removing this quote, I think the next step would be to open a request for comment to bring more uninvolved editors to this page. *** Crotalus *** 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You were summarily reverted. Let's await the outcome of this discussion. The questions are if this is needed, and how to formulate it.

Please note that nobody is removing the subject of messianism altogether. The subject is just this specific paragraph. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This sentence has no connection to the section it is in. And even within that section this sentence is out of chronological order. It would be more fitting in Menachem Mendel Schneerson#Last illness, chronologically, although it does not fit there so well either. Basically, this sentence is more about messianism than about Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and as such should perhaps be in Menachem Mendel Schneerson#The Meshichist movement, but it seems extensive for that section. Perhaps putting it in Chabad messianism is best. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

mentalblog.com as a reliable source

Information in the article is being sourced to mentalblog.com, a blog that was apparently closed in January 2009. How can those inserting the link ensure that it meets the requirements of WP:V? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As said before, the source is not the blog, but the document explayed there. And it is available, for all to see. And can be archieved also, if you'd care to. Debresser (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that this material is accurate? Anyone can create a scanned PDF with anything on it they like. How does the source satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The link is indeed archived, and I have added that to the reference. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What difference if it is archived? So, it was on the blog a couple of years ago. How does that make it reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to use {{Verify source}}, although I recognise the signature, and know this document from other sources as well. Why do you try to discredit this information? Debresser (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So we can use User:Debresser in the footnote? Please provide reliable sourcing for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The information is true, and sourced by two sources now. The blog just made a pdf of a few pages from the book. While blogs may not be the best sources available, there is not discrediting information here that needs the best of sources. What I do not understand yet is whether you are just wikilawyering, or do you have any reason to doubt the source? Or do you perhaps have a conflict of interest? Debresser (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is clearly not a WP:RS, and Wikipedia can only source information to reliable sources. What kind of WP:COI could you possibly mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of enough people who are so convinced of the fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still alive, that they would dismiss the possibility of Schneerson contemplating his possible demise as sacrilegious. Debresser (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And how could this possibly be relevant to me or WP:COI? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not for me to know. But the possibility exists. After all, to doubt a paper source you need some strong motives. Which remiinds me that if you will not show your rationale for having reasonable doubts about the sources you tagged with {{Verify credibility}}, the tags will be removed. Debresser (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on article content, not "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". When someone adds as sources, a) a blog, b) an archived version of that blog, and c) a name of a book but cannot provide a page number, then there are more than reasonable doubts about the sources. I'll quote directly from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with you, not me, and you must provide page numbers when citing books. Now, please abide by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. And I have provided the source. But removing a source because it has no page numbers or quotes, desirable as they may be, is unheard of on Wikipedia. So please stop quoting me things I know by heart. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention that there is a differencebetween what is preferrable and what is reason to remove a source. this seems to be your point of confusion. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the paragraph from WP:V above? I'll quote from it again: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a fundamentally wrongheaded argument. The will itself—a primary sources—is being used as a reference. The use of primary sources is fine for certain sorts of information. WP:V is silent on the manner of republication / collection of primary documents. If the authenticity of the document is questioned, that is a separate question entirely. ^Bongo_matic 05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that PDF on the blog is an accurate representation of Schneerson's will? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As explained at RS/N, that is not a question of reliability of sources, but authenticity of documents. ^Bongo_matic 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the position you have advanced at RS/N. So far 7 others commenting there have disagreed with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heshbono shel olam as a reliable source

What makes the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin a reliable source? Also, regarding this edit, could you please provide a page number and relevant quotation? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a published book be a reliable source, pray tell me? Debresser (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting something published in a book does not guarantee it is a reliable source. Please review WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You really seem to have some problem here. Since when do we have to provide quotations? Or page numbers, for that matter. Go look it up yourself. Your request is preposterous within accepted Wikipedia norms. Debresser (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be very explicit in explaining what "problem" I have. Also, since you used the material in your citation, you need to provide the relevant information, including page number. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says on the documentation page of Template:Verify credibility "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question." When have you had the time to do this? I think you had better remove those tags. Or explain why you doubt their credibility. Debresser (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book, and it's not online. I have attempted to verify the credibility of the source, by asking the person who entered it as a citation what page number the material was on, and for a relevant quotation. I think you had better provide them, per WP:V. Have you even seen the source yourself? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. I have read the whole book, a few years ago. And remember this will. And for sure I recognise the signature of the LUbavitcher Rebbe. And your demand still is preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Debresser (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Memories of books read "a few years ago" by anonymous Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources, and page numbers are a requirement for WP:V on books. Your comments are preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Provide the page number or the source goes. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is the book, not my memory. And although it says a page "should be" provided, nowhere does it say that the lack of a page turns the source into unreliable, or warrant removal. Why do you keep on wikilawyering? Debresser (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The source you have provided is your memory, not the book, which you do not have and haven't seen in years. I'll quote directly from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with you, not me, and you must provide page numbers when citing books, and the only person "wikilaywering" here is you. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin satisfied WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason you are saying the same thing twice? Debresser (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The comments aren't identical. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin satisfies WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just to make sure nobody can accuse me of having a conflict of interest. I personally hold points of view which are in some cases oposite to those brought forth by Lipkin. I just positively can't stand it when people try to censor information. Debresser (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I also "positively can't stand it when people try to censor information"; that's why I've quoted the reliable source (Ehrlich) more fully. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned our disagreement as to the reliability of these sources on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson. I asked for input here. Just now I saw that you had posted there as well, without informing me. Debresser (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also added the source mentioned on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

Know what, give me two days to find the pagenumber in Lipkin's book, ok? Debresser (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No need, since you've given no indication as to why Lipkin's book would be a WP:RS, and an actual WP:RS has been found. I've used that instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the sources, pending the outcome of this discussion and the one at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#mentalblog.com. I find your behavior unbefitting. Please wait untill these discussions are closed. Debresser (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You've also removed all the information I've added from Erlich's book. I suggest you revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source because the author has studied the subject of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe extensively and brings numerous external sources. I want to point out that the website only brings a pfd copy from a few pages of the book, which are themselves only a copy of the original documents. So we are not questioning any conclusions drawn by the author of either website or book. So ultimately, unless we want to accuse people of falisification, there is no sources issue here. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Where can we find out more information about Lipkin and his book? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The PDF stands on its own. Who cares where it's hosted? mentalblog is not the source, the will itself is the source. The signature is clearly visible, and instantly recognisable to anyone familiar with it. If you're claiming that this will was somehow forged, then the burden is on you to give some reason why that is at all likely. Simply objecting to the web site that hosts it is not enough.

Also, what makes Ehrlich's book more reliable than Lipkin's? Erlich is just some shnook who got a book published, just like Lipkin; unlike Lipkin he was never a Lubav, wasn't there during the events in question, and his entire "expertise" consists of having hung around Gershon Jacobson for a few months picking his brain. Getting an academic publisher makes it "reliable"?! Who at the publisher was competent to fact-check it? -- Zsero (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about this Avrum Ehrlich? Full professor of Judaic studies at the Centre of Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies at Shandong University, and honorary Professor in the Dept. of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts, at Sydney University, Australia? The one who has published two books on the Lubavitch movement, and was recently Editor-In-Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora? The guy who is already cited 10 times in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that Avrum Ehrlich. What makes him more reliable a source on this subject than Lipkin? A job at Shandong University?! What sort of credential is that? And yet, as you say, he is cited repeatedly in this article as some sort of authority. So where do you get off challenging Lipkin as a source? In any case, even if we had no Lipkin, the will itself stands on its own. You have not yet given any reason to doubt its authenticity, any reason for us to believe that some master forger fabricated it, signature and all. -- Zsero (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:SPS, and then explain again why the blog or Lipkin satisfy WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not the source. You keep evading that point. The will is the source; the blog is simply a convenient site where one can see an image of it. If there was no online image of the will at all, it would remain a valid source. As for Lipkin and SPS, I'm not impressed; Ehrlich's book may be published by a third party, but so what? Do you imagine that the publisher checked his facts? How would it do that? What conceivable knowledge of the subject could the publisher have, beyond just relying on Ehrlich? There is no such thing as peer review on something like this. That makes SPS irrelevant in this field. -- Zsero (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the blog is the source. Are there any other sources with this same text? As for Ehrlich, he more than complies with the requirements for WP:V and WP:RS, which is what Wikipedia uses to make sourcing decisions, and WP:SPS is never "irrelevant". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How long are you going to keep evading the fact that the blog is not the source, the will is the source. The blog is simply a place where people can look it up. The will would be exactly as good a source if it weren't hosted anywhere at all, and one had to go to the office of public records or somewhere to look it up. Giving a link to the PDF scan makes it more convenient for the reader; challenging it on the grounds that it's a blog by a mentally unstable person is nothing but wikilawyering and gamesmanship.

And yes, SPS is irrelevant and useless. I am not impressed by your arguments from authority; this is not a sport, in which the point is to abide by arbitrary rules. Every rule, guideline, and even policy is only as good as its premise; if the premise makes no sense in some particular context, then it's stupid to follow it. The whole point of guidelines like the ones you're citing is that sources that fit the preferred description are fact-checked, peer-reviewed, and are therefore more likely to be true. Despite what WP:V says, the goal here is truth; the point of this whole enterprise is to build a better encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia that tells the truth is obviously better than one that tells lies. When "reliable sources" are in fact no more reliable than "unreliable" ones, because they are not fact-checked or reviewed by people who know anything about the subject, then they're no better on WP than they are in real life. I know who Ehrlich is and what his "research" consisted of, and that is why I regard him as no more reliable than anyone else, and the fact that KTAV published his book, or that some university in China gave him a professorship, doesn't change anything. -- Zsero (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that the blog is not the source does not make it so. In fact, the blog is the only source provided for the text of the will. Please review the many comments from Fifelfoo, Itsmejudith, Slp1, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Nathan, and me at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com as to why it's not a reliable source. As for WP:V, that's what Wikipedia relies on, despite personal feelings otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the text by Jayjg completely. Then I added the blog as a second source (which seems reasonable to me, even though it is "only" a blog, because it says precisely the same things). Then I added the sentence "He made up two wills" and added a link to the pdf file and the book as places where these document can be found online or inprint, but not as sources of information. I hope this is satifactory for all involved. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For some information about Binyamin Lipkin. I saw an article written with him. It has a picture and calls him the editor of the weekly haredi journal "Bakehila". Debresser (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And that makes him a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It certainly makes him more likely than Ehrlich to know what he's talking about. -- Zsero (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about his reliabiliy as a source as understood in Wikipedia. You asked who the guy is, so I told you what I could find about him. Have you read his book? If you had, you would have know that it is a serious book, involving a lot of research. More about facts, than about interpretations. Anyway, excuse me, but what the hell do you mean with "Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention." If we were to show this to your English teacher, you no doubt would be severely scolded. Could you start speaking normally, please? Debresser (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Zsero, not to you. All claims about the reliability of sources must be stated in terms of Wikipedia's policies. The relevant ones are WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who you were responding to. This is a public talkpage. And you have not rephrased your question in normal English. I am afraid nobody here (and elsewhere, because I asked you the same thing on the noticeboard) understands what your problem is, and what it is you want to hear. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I personally have no preference on how this article is written, but perhaps I can assist with how the dispute is being handled? As a start, might I suggest that everyone please focus on discussing just the content of the article, and not other contributors? For example, try to write posts without using the words "you" and "your". Simply phrasing things in the third person, can often have a remarkable effect at de-escalating disputes.  :) There is also a great deal of useful information at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Those on the WP:RS/N noticeboard have no trouble understanding the concerns regarding Lipkin's work. See, for example, Fifelfoo's comment 1, Fifelfoo's comment 2, Itsmejudiths' comment, and Nathan's comment. WP:SOURCES says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Which of these is Lipkin's book? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I suspect it is neither of these. So it is not among "the most reliable sources". So it will be "just a reliable source". Debresser (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way does it qualify as a "reliable source"? By "reliable source", I mean a source that conforms with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources. For example, what we know about the author (Lipkin) is that at one time he was apparently the editor of a weekly haredi newspaper. Is there anything we know about the publisher of his book? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, since you're adamant on not using blogs and self published material on WP, I assume you would also have no problem deleting other material of that sort from WP, like content from Gil Student [1]. Right? Shlomke (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Of what relevance is this question to this article and me? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without agreeing with the indiscriminate removal of all such sources, I would like to point out that in certain cases that is precisely what needs to be done. And eh, Shlomke, I do hope you are not trying to have somebody else make a pointy edit for you with this link. :) Debresser (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SZero. I've read much of Lipkin's book, and it's clearly well-researched. Just because he doesn't have lots of professorships next to his name, that doesn't mean it should be disqualified. Conversely, may I point out, we've seen plenty of idiotic and ignorant information on this topic coming forth from people with lots of titles. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide whether or not sources are reliable based on whether or not Wikipedia editors vouch for them. It instead relies on the requirements of its verifiability policy and related reliable sources guideline. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Because Jayjg has forgotten to mention it, he has posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blogs_used_as_references. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Incumbent

In the infobox it says "Successor: Incumbent". What does that mean? Debresser (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it. And yes, I did check in the mean time what it means. 1. There is no successor 2. A person can't be his own successor, so whatever the editor who added this intended, it can't be correct. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How many meshichistim are there

Two weeks ago I changed "some of his followers consider him to be the Jewish Messiah" to "a substantial part of his followers have considered him to be the Jewish Messiah". Portia327 has reverted me three times already, asking for a source of this what he calles "qualifier".

I'd like to argue first of all, that "some" is also a qualifier. But foremost I think the word "significant" is a qualifier not of the relative number of meshichistim, for which I indeed have not found any source, but of their importance. It comes to stress that they are not a fringe group, but a considerable, and very influential part of the Chabad movement.

I'd like to ask for your commentaries. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, I have not violated the 3R rule, I have in fact reverted your unsourced information twice and it was within the last few days. Exaggeration doesn't help any argument when facts are at stake. You can't put up a word like significant or substantial w/o a verifiable source attached to it. 'Some' means neither a minority nor a majority of his followers share the belief and is all I think should be committed to until someone who's more interested in accuracy of numbers goes and finds a source that shows a figure. Otherwise, pulling a possible number out of the air would tend to show a POV which we want to avoid. No one's said anything about fringe groups, but if you have a cite to show something more concrete than vagaries like 'considerable' and 'influential', bring it. Portia327 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not refering to the 3RR rule. I have no problem with your removal of any qualifier, both "some" and "substantial". "Part" is completely correct and avoids all indication of size and/or importance. I considered doing the same myself, actually. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

'Part' is grammatically incorrect when referring to a group of people. It should be 'some'. Also, without hard data, guesstimating the size or significance of the messianist within Chabad is sheer speculation, and does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.58.107 (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation of "Yechi" slogan

I've changed the translation of the "Yechi" slogan again, to match the translation used in the article about Chabad messianism. The Hebrew word moshiach means Messiah and the translation of moshiach as "the Anointed One" lacks the same implications in the English language. Besides, the slogan is in the section of the article called "Schneerson as the Jewish Messiah" and in the context of a description of how some of his followers believed he was the Messiah. Comments? --AFriedman (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The main point is that it should be "Long live..." as in an exclamation, and not "He shall live" as in a statement. Because that is how people intend it, and how I have seen it translated often. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi

A few editors have removed the title "Rabbi" from in front of the name "Menachem Mendel Schneerson". In my opinion this is in disagreement with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles, and the established on that basis practise on Wikipedia to mention all honorifics at the first mention of a person (but not to repeat them), including articles on other rabbis and chassidic rebbes.

The additional argument of Jayjg, that the sentence already mentions that he was a rabbi later on, has in my opinion no bearing on said guideline and practise, because it is not close to the name, as honorifics should be.

Note that Template:Infobox Jewish leader likewise places the honorific "Rabbi" in the its banner. Debresser (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CREDENTIAL#Academic titles is the more appropriate guideline here. Compare with Yitzchok Hutner, Norman Lamm. And it makes no sense to say "Rabbi X is a rabbi". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Argument accepted. But please refrain from your usual personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Failing scholarship"

User:Zsero has deleted the following paragraph from the article:

According to Erlich, towards the end of his life, particularly after his heart attack in 1977 his scholarship began to fade - one of Schneerson's editors, David Olidort, "told how most of Schneerson’s aides and editors adored him and saw him as virtually infallible, despite their numerous corrections of his failing scholarship."<ref>''The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present'', M. Avrum Ehrlich, Chapter 8, p. 80, note 35. KTAV Publishing, ISBN 0881258369</ref>

His rationale for removing it was untrue. olidort never told ehrlich any such thing. When I objected to this removal, on the grounds that the material was reliably sourced, he restored it again, with the rationale lies do not belong on wp, no matter who wrote them. a source that tells lies is by definition not reliable. The author, Ehrlich, was actually ordained as a rabbi by Chabad, the movement which Schneerson headed. In addition:

He read Jewish Philosophy and Political Science at Bar Ilan University, completed his doctorate on leadership strategies of Hasidic masters at the University of Sydney. He was awarded a Krytman scholarship to research at the Cambridge based Centre of Jewish – Christian Relations, and was awarded a Chevening and British Commonwealth Scholarships to undertake research on religion, law and government at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Social and Political Sciences and later at the Centre for Advanced Religious and Theological Studies.

In addition to his other books on Judaism, Ehrlich has written Leadership in the Habad Movement: A Critical Study of Habad Leadership, History and Succession, (Jason Aronson, New Jersey, 2000) and The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidism Past and Present (KTAV, New Jersey, 2004). He was also the Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, (ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, 2008). He is currently a full professor of Judaic studies at the Centre of Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies at Shandong University. Now, keeping in mind that Zsero's statement is likely already likely a violation of WP:BLP, could Zsero please explain which reliable sources contradict Ehrlich's statments? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually took the time earlier today to call Olidort himself, and ask him about this. He assured me, in no uncertain terms, that he never made the statement that Ehrlich quoted, that he had confronted Ehrlich following publication whereupon Ehrlich confessed to fabricating the 'quote' based solely on his own, subjective, retro-analysis and imagination. Ehrlich further assured Olidort that this paragraph would be removed from future editions (an unlikely event, as there will probably never be another edition). Apparently, Ehrlich didn't even conduct a proper interview with Olidort, and sufficed by constructing 'quotes' based on his recollections of conversation at a holiday meal he had gotten himself invited to, at Olidorts home in Crown Heights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDFLAG is obviously the relevant guideline here, as calling this an 'exceptional claim' would be something of an understatement. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, personal phone calls are not considered reliable or verifiable. Sadly, the rebuttal must be made in a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, book, etc.). Perhaps, if Olidort has his own blog that is reliably his, that may be enough for statements about himself, and (after asking on WT:RS) we could write that "Olidort himself refutes the claim". Curious, wouldn't Olidort sue Ehrlich for libel/defamation in this case? -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• In this case I agree with Winchester2313. It is a bad idea to have something that is dubious to begin with, if we have good reason to doubt its accuracy. Especially since in any case it borders on problematic by virtue of its non-complementary content. Remember, there is no guideline or policy that says we must have any given piece of information, and there are several issues here that argue against inclusion. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why would it be "dubious to begin with"? What "good reason to doubt its accuracy" do we have? It seems a perfectly ordinary, commonplace, entirely plausible kind of statement. Unless, that is, one believes that the normal effects of aging would not affect Schneerson. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The best reason to highly doubt the accuracy of Ehrlichs claim is that there is apparently no, nor does he present any, evidence to support it. Schneerson meeting thousands of people every week, while displaying incredible memory of both identities and events, not to mention thousands of scholarly verbal exchanges, and still lecturing weekly for hours on end from memory, means Ehrlich needs to substantiate his claim with real evidence, not the reverse. Csteffen13 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this paragraph should be removed until or if somenoe supplies a more solid reason why it should be believable. The rule clearly say that 'Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.61.162 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That the "relevant community" (I assume you mean Chabad followers) considers Schneerson to be the greatest human being who ever lived, perfect in every way, is not particularly relevant. It is in no way a "red flag" to think that a person's intellectual abilities might become less acute as he ages. In fact, it would be a "red flag" to think the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. All available evidence contradicts Ehrichs claim, your bit of OR & POV in that statement notwithstanding. Schneerson was a highly scrutinized public figure, and while I'm no Chabadnik, the claim made by Ehrlich is absurd to anybody even remotely familiar with Schneersons work. Fact is, that in the many hundreds (thousands?) of lectures delivered after 1977, he continued to speak unaided by any text, and quote extensively, verbatim, from memory. A major (if not the major)part of his novellae on Shas and Rambam were produced after 1977. So Ehrlichs claim remains 'controversial', highly 'exceptional' and a major Red Flag in every way. If there were any truth to it, surely somebody else would have noticed and made mention. Csteffen13 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I've removed the lines in question, and think they should be mentioned in a footnote, with an explanation of their highly questionable and disputed status, as that is what they are, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDFLAG.66.202.61.162 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I subscribe to 66.202.61.16's argument, which is what I had in mind as well. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind that Rabbi Schneerson would speak weekly for hours and hours on end. If he had made some sort of scholarly error, there would be plenty good "friends of Lubavitch" who would have pounced on it with glee. The fact that not even one such instance was adduced demonstrates that this claim is, indeed, highly doubtful and requires more substantial proof in order to be included here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In the real world, however, it is entirely common that a person's intellectual abilities would become less acute as they got old, and after they had been plagued by ill health. Anything claiming the opposite would be WP:REDFLAG. And the protestations of members of his religious sect, who tend to view him as the greatest intellect who has ever lived (or ever will), and quite often also regard him as the Messiah, with various God-like abilities, are not really good indications of what Wikipedia might consider to be a WP:REDFLAG. If you do have reliable sources refuting Ehrlich's claims, by all means bring them forward; otherwise, these protestations regarding Schneerson's undiminished abilities are, to quote, "bit of OR & POV". Jayjg ^(talk) 12:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg is again pushing his opinion by sheer force and lies, like claiming a (non-existent) consensus on WP:RS/N. To which he forgot to place a link here, although the main discussion is here, rather than there. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am an otherwise uninvolved administrator who was asked to come take a look at this situation.

First - Jay has a source which he's verified, which says that Schneerson's scholarship faded. There seems to be no question as to that source existing or saying what he says it said. Though the source's author may be imperfect, they are a tenured professor and they meet WP:RS and WP:V criteria. This does not make the source right - but it does make it verifyable and generally reliable.

Second - IF the specific quote was misquoted or accidentally fabricated, then that's a valid specific issue to be noted outside the general reliability and verifyability of the source.

HOWEVER - All we have at this time in evidence that the quote was fabricated or misquoted is one Wikipedian's claim in the article talk page above. The claim that it's misquoted or fabricated therefore does not meet reliable source or verifyability guidelines.

Out of an abundance of caution we might assume for the moment that it's true - however, and this is not really up for negotiation or discussion - a claim like that must be confirmed in a manner which meets RS and V requirements. Call Olidort back, and ask him to go on the record - with a letter to the editor of some scholarly publication, a blog posting, anything which will meet our RS guidelines for verifying that he said that.

If he does that - great, Ehrlich's claim on that specific point is rebutted, and we leave it out.

If Olidort won't go on record, then your assertion that he disputes Ehrlich's claim is not something we can take on your word.

So, please go back to him, and either get him to go on record or find out where he has previously gone on record and get a citation for that.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're rearranging deck chairs, George. It's an article generally guarded and written by folks who like Schneerson, and occasionally edited by a few other people who don't much like Schneerson at all. I mean: "Books and pamphlets were written containing proofs for the Rabbi's status as Messiah" is in the article. Any reasonable article would say something like "seeking to prove he was the Messiah." As for Olidort, one of Schneerson's discipless, getting a "denial" published in a letter to the editor should not then "disqualify" a scholarly source. At any rate, is it really so surprising that the scholarship of a 79 year old who had a heart attack would "begin to decline?"Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. Ehrlich makes a definitive statement about a public figure, for which the only basis he provides is a supposed conversation with a 'source' who denies ever having made it! If the facts are as Ehrlich wrote, then surely they've been reported in mainstream media, but all commonly available evidence seems to squarely contradict Ehrlichs claim. So yes, this discussion is about rearranged deck chairs...lol. And since the sole sole source claimed by Ehrlich is David Olidort, then if he denies having made the statement, out it goes.Winchester2313 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source on that please?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.....and vice-versa. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this point - Ehrlich's scholarship is reliable in general and verifiable. Even if it turns out he misquoted Olidort.

Olidort's specific claim that he was misquoted and disagrees with the position attributed to him may be true, but so far all we have to substantiate that is a claim by a Pseudonymous poster on a Wikipedia talk page - which absolutely and completely fails our reliable source guidelines. Personal claims of research fall under our original research policy.

I am assuming in good faith that you're not trolling or lying, that you made the call and that Olidort said what you say he said. However - even if that's true - for inclusion in Wikipedia facts have to be sourced to a verifiable and reliable source. A phone conversation isn't good enough.

The burden of proof here is on you - talk to Olidort, tell him that he needs to write a letter to the editor of something disputing Ehrlich's quote, or some other way of going on the record (or if he's done so, have him provide you a citation for such a reliably sourced existing refutation).

Continuing to snipe back and forth here on the talk page is not helpful. We've told you what you need to do - take this information from being a form which is not usable by Wikipedia and convert it into a form which is. Once that's done, then that resolves that aspect of the dispute.

If you focus on arguing back and forth here without going and getting that confirmation, it calls the accuracy of your claim into doubt. We're giving you the benefit of the doubt now - but that requires reciprocation on your part to attempt to get the reliable evidence to back up your claim.

It's really simple. Olidort goes on the record, we can use that. Please call him back and request that he go on the record.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and especially for your plain English. I will get on it very soon.Winchester2313 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(replying to Bali Ultimate's first)

If a quoted subject denies on the record (in a reliable verifiable source) that they said what is quoted, it is not the final word on the subject, as they can be lying. However, it is enough to establish credible doubt in our reliable source requirements as to the accuracy of the other source that quotes them.

If the original author comes back and again insists in the accuracy of the first quote, we can then cover it in a manner describing both the allegation and the disputation of it.

I don't think any independent reader will see the "Books and pamphlets" sentence and believe that anyone outside Chabad is asserting the ultimate truth of Schneerson's Messiah-hood. It's clearly a "they believe this". Which I believe is accurate. It's not the ultimate neutral way to portray it, but your alternative is going too far on the skeptic side as well.

Neutrality doesn't mean disrespecting article subjects' beliefs to the point that our articles phrase every one of their claimed beliefs in a skeptical and insulting way.

I don't have any problem with the general assertion that 79-year-olds who have heart attacks often or even usually go somewhat into decline. The accuracy of the quote in question - whether Olidort thought he went into decline or not - is different than the question of whether he went into decline. It's entirely possible that both Olidort didn't say he thought he went into decline, and that an uninvolved reasonable observer would have thought he did or was declining.

The statement as asserted is claiming that an insider thought there was a decline, which the insider is denying (but not yet on the record). If Ehrlich asserts from his own experience that he felt there was a decline, that's one thing, but he asserted both that and that Olidort agreed with that, which Olidort reportedly now disagrees with.

At the very least, if Olidort didn't say that then any mention of Ehrlich's comments needs to remove mention of Olidort.

All of this assumes that someone can reliably sourcedly substantiate that Olidort is now contesting the quote. Which, as I said, we can assume for the sake of argument for the moment, but which must be confirmed by a reliable on the record source we can verify within reasonably short order. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that a no?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to go from a hard to dispute generalization (79 year old + heart attack = tendency for decline) to a specific (in this case, there was a decline).

I do not dispute the generalization. I have no information regarding the specific with Schneerson. My family experience was that first heart attacks in the 80s didn't lead to abrupt mental or physical declines (My late grandfather was still walking 2-3 miles a day and working on the farm and in the shop). If you believe that the generalization is necessarily universally true then I totally disagree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the history of Schneerson believers' public claims about the "truth" I am more inclined to believe Erlich. I would quote erlich, and quote olidort denying (if and when this denial ever appears in print). As for the "generalization" I'm simply pointing out it isn't a particularly extraordinary claim (he didn't write, for instance: "After his heart attack, Schneerson sprouted wings and started flying, Olidort told Ehrlich.") What's plausible? That a disciple was candid in an informal setting, but for public image/propaganda reasons now denies they said it. Happens every day in my business.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees that Erlich is in general a reliable source. At the same time Georgewilliamherbert ignores the arguments specifically brought above to the extent that 1. it is unlikely that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would be able to give addresses for hours and make mistakes that nobody else would notice (including those who were ardent in finding fault in anything connected with Lubavich), and therefore 2. such an exceptional claim needs impeccable and unchallenged references. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your arguments regarding Schneerson's scholarship in his later years. Do you have any reliable sources for your claim that Ehrlich's view regarding this matter is incorrect? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg , please reread what I wrote. They are 1. not my arguments, and 2. the first argument is not about the the Lubavicher Rebbe's scholarship, but about the fact that it is unlikely nobody would have mentioned any changes in his scholarship if such were detectable. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish to make the additional point that once Erlich's claim is proven a fabrication through Olidort's repudiation, this calls into question Erlich's scholarship and integrity in general, perhaps disqualifying him as a reliable source altogether. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, if these are not your arguments, then please point us to the reliable source that makes them. And Yehoishophot Oliver, nothing has been proven, and even if Olidort were to make a public denial, it would have essentially no impact on whether or not Ehrlich is a reliable source. A public denial by Olidort would not mean he never said it, but merely that he later denied doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's painfully obvious to anybody reading this by now, that Jayjg has no interest in debating this issue on its merits, rather, he seems determined to browbeat everybody else into accepting his opinion as fact. Nonetheless, certain facts remain unchanged by all the hyperbole:

1. Ehrlich has made a rather exceptional allegation, one that seems to contradict all available public evidence.

2. Ehrlich provides no proof of any kind to support his allegation, save a single disputed 'quote'.

3. Ehrlich is unique in making this particular allegation about a very public and highly scrutinized figure - this itself is quite suspicious.

4. As Ehrlich makes very clear in his books, he is far from an impartial observer of the subject matter, and thus further arouses suspicion when one analyzes his controversial 'findings' and opinions.

5. Ehrlichs 'source' may not even have been formally interviewed. Should Ehrlich prove unable to provide audio (or at least written) transcripts of his interview(s), the thinking person will have to reconsider Ehrlichs veracity as a researcher. This would apply to anything he wrote that cannot be independently verified, or researched at-source.

I think it's rather clear by now in which direction the accusations of 'failing scholarship' would best be leveled... and not in an encyclopedia. Winchester2313 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Winchester2313, I thought you were going to "very soon" "get on" Olidort to disavow in a reliable source his former statements. Please make good on your promise. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though Jayjg might be (!) technically right, I think we should differentiate between two cases: if this were a discussion to include certain information, then yes, the source must be undisputed, but since this is about not including certain information, which is a lot more serious, IMHO the reasonable doubt casted by the report of a fellow Wikipedia as to the reliability of the source, with claims of a phone call and outright denial, are enough to remove this unflattery sentence from the article. Debresser (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm only interested in policy. The views of outside editors here, and at WP:RS/N, have been unanimous; Ehrlich is a reliable source, and, failing any reliable sources contradicting him, the material is in no way doubtful or objectionable. And by "reliable sources contradicting him", we mean, of course, WP:RS - Wikipedia editors, even though they might have been editing pseudonymously for almost 5 months, and have made over 300 edits, do not qualify. That Schneerson's followers are unanimous in believing their deceased leader had no flaws, was impervious to the normal effects of aging, and, indeed, might not even be deceased, is immaterial. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on WP:RS/N has been nothing of the sort. Perhaps you should start considering other editors actual points. And please explain why, logically, opinions of chabad-critics should carry more sway than those of chabad-supporters?! In any event, as per the discussion above, and as per Georgewilliamherbert, this issue seems to be pending resolution, albeit not to Jayjg 's satisfaction, so please give it a rest. (Oh, and forgetting to sign some posts doesn't exactly constitute editing 'pseudonymously', especially when said editor re-edits their own post by adding a signature, wouldn't you think? BTW, I hear there's a tenured position available at Shandong University - the Chinese government has awarded them 'National Key' status - even Yale and Harvard don't have that....) Winchester2313 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Winchester2313 's assessment of consensus on WP:RS/N, and would also like to point out again, that Georgewilliamherbert has not addresses the other points raised in this discussion. In addition, Jayjg should not forget that there are no policies that obligate us to include material, while there are plenty of reasons to remove material. In this case a few of them apply. In addition , Wikipedia specifically includes a failsafe in the form of WP:IAR, which would be a good start for any editor who wanted to remove false information which seems to have a reliable source. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing seems to be reliable. The only argument I can remotely conceive of that might argue against inclusion is the simple boring nature of most of what Erhlich says. Of course scholarship declined when he got older. That happens to everyone. But none of the reasons given at all resemble a reason to not treat this as a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The comments here that the WP:RS/N discussion resolved that Ehrlich is unreliable are an inaccurate view of that discussion. The only previously uninvolved opinion the discussion generated is JoshuaZ, and Winchester2313 and Debresser are misrepresenting his opinion and the consensus there.

As I said earlier, there's a clear and unambiguous correct way to resolve objections to Ehrlich's quoting and conclusion, and that's get the quoted person on the record. You (Winchester2313) agreed to attempt to do that. Where does the situation stand on that contact and confirmation?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one only claim that even is Erlich is generally regarded as a reliable source, still in this specific case, it is preferable not to include the information for several reasons. Your comments have carefully avoided those issues. In addition, please also notice that Winchester2313 might or might not be able to get Olidort to go public. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I and other uninvolved admins have concluded that the reasons to leave Erlich's material out here are not well founded in Wikipedia policy. I am not evading that point; I have concluded you're wrong on it.

Winchester2313 may or may not be able to get Olidort to go on the record; yes. That's clear. What Olidort is willing to do is up to Olidort. However, what Olidort choses to do affects whether we have a Wikipedia-policy compliant reliable source challenge on the table or not. A phone conversation comment is not a Wikipedia-policy compliant reliable source challenge. We need something on the record in a verifiable manner.

If neither Olidort nor anyone else in the Chabad movement bothered to go on the record challenging Erlich's writings on these points, then we are faced with an unfortunate case of esoteric knowledge colliding with modern reliable knowledge theory and Wikipedia's particular reliable source and verifiable source standards.

It might both be true that Erlich is wrong, and that nobody is willing to challenge his statements on the record. If so, then the community of those who know otherwise are responsible, for not taking affirmative action to (in a reliable and verifiable and on the record sense) correct the established written record.

Wikipedia policy is that we don't try to take sides and ajudicate underlying actual historical fact. We can't know what the truth was. What we go with, as we're a modern information resource and an encyclopedia, is what the record says, in the sense of reliable and verifiable information.

There are undoubtedly factually incorrect things in Wikipedia in many articles. We are attempting to severely limit our incidence of factually incorrect things for which we have no reliable or verifiable source. Our policies are entirely focused on operating not on truth, but on sources we can identify and presumably rely on.

If Olidort and all the others won't go on the record, they're conceding the academic (and historical, and journalistic, and so forth) record to those who did. Wikipedia standards are that we rely on the record.

If Chabad collectively won't go on the record - the article here must reflect the record, not the asserted truth. Even if the underlying factual truth is that the asserted truth is what really happened. The reason is that the rest of us cannot rely in any circumstance on any asserted truth that is not on the record.

The article here is not the right place to fight this. If the movement needs accurate history, according to their memories of the situation, they need to make the histories accurate, and fight that elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You "have found"? Get of that tree, please. You have not addressed part of the issues, just the by and large undisputed point of Erlich reliability. You'll have to do better, if you want to impress experienced editors. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous volumes of published scholarly talks by Schneerson between the years 1977 and 1992. I have found some Schneerson video with English subtitles of this era at Living Torah which reveal an individual of good mental alacrity. These bring Ehrlichs claims into the category of ”exceptional claims require exceptional sources”. Sorry. --Charleswindsor (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that, and secondarily to accept that consensus opinions including outsiders uninvolved in Chabad and Jewish issues are going to decide the issue, not your personal opinion on what's valid and what is not.

Also, primary sources are not as good as secondary sources, when it comes to descriptive analysis, because we would have to synthesize results from reviewing those primary source videos, and that falls afoul of our policy against synthesizing. It may help call Erlich into question but it's not necessarily a good source on its own. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Olidort on the record?

Has Olidort publicly disavowed these statements in a reliable source? I think we've waited a reasonable amount of time. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur that we've waited long enough for at least some sort of a status report. Winchester2313, do you have an update? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed have an update. I would respectfully beg your indulgence(s) a wee bit longer, as I am reasonably confident that this matter will soon be resolved in an unequivocal and permanent way. What this involves is a question of whether an academic fabricated 'quotes' and 'research', and a publisher failed to thoroughly fact-check a highly controversial claim. My guess would be that clarity soon comes from Ehrlich's publisher, KTAV. As I said, it's just a guess right now, but I'd ask everybody to wait a little bit longer. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• As much as I agree that the best solution to our problem here would be for Olidort to go public with a disavowal, never the less I would like to point out, that even in absence of such a statement there have been decisive arguments in the discussion to remove that paragraph and there is no consensus to have it in spite of them. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • the only opposition to erlich has been from members of the schneerson cult of personality. Unaffiliated folks support it. Now, in the absence of a WP:RS reliable source refuting his claim, we will soon restore that information.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. The argument has been that Rabbi Schneerson spoke year after year for many hours in public each week, with detractors following everything he said, and although many disagreed, no one "caught" him on his scholarship. That's what makes this claim exceptional. If proof is provided to the contrary--that such claims were credibly made--then the quote would be reasonable. As it stands, though, it's not. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you have a reliable source for the original research, synthesis and opinion you just expressed Mr. Oliver? If not, this discussion is pretty much over.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The removal of the information was non-consensual, and no policy-based rationale or evidence has been brought to support its removal. The only editors who support the removal are ones who are members of the movement that venerate Schneerson, the subject of the information. All other editors have confirmed the reliability of the source. We've been more than patient on this matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And the only editors insistent on restoring it are those who seem determined to cast the LR and Chabad in as negative a light as distorting the historical record will allow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources still applies here, imho. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One of my friends from college is now Chabad; I have as open a mind about the organization as I do about any other religious group. That does not change Wikipedia verifiability and reliable source policy.

I don't know any more about the factual events than I know about any other historical event that happened outside my direct experience; I care that the article be accurate and consistent with documented sources out there in the world. That's how Wikipedia works. We have explained this already.

Hopefully you can indeed get sufficient documentation on the record to support your assertions here and that will resolve the matter.

If not - please understand that this is not personal or antagonistic towards the group. It's Wikipedia policy, and it's there for a reason. We do not report persons individual memory, or original research, or any form of revealed truth. We report documented and verifiable information. Some of that may be wrong, but our standards are documented and verifiable. That's how we work. That's how this article must work. That is how you must work if you're working on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

GWH, you continue to be wrong about this basic matter of policy. NOR requires RS to include something, not to exclude it. The fundamental mission of WP is not to record what "reliable sources" have said, but to record what is true. RS is a way of making sure that WP says is verifiably true; if something doesn't appear in RS then it can't be included because nobody can check that it's true. But when an RS says something that we know is false, it doesn't matter how we know it. OR is perfectly adequate to remove false claims from WP. Mr Olidort has now posted his own disclaimer here. He's spoken to Winchester. And yesterday I called him and heard the same denial from him. If you're not convinced, look up his number and call him yourself. Having done so, you will know that the claim is false, and therefore must stay out of WP. -- Zsero (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're off on the mission. Have a read of Wikipedia:Truth. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody questions your intentions, please rest assured. But you have not even once addressed the concerns raised above, although I have asked you three times already to do so. So I do not think that hammering on one point is productive while ignoring others. As long as these issues have not been addressed to satisfaction, the information can not be restored. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments you keep referring to are contrary to Wikipedia reliable sources and verifyability policy, as has been repeatedly explained. "Lots of people know this" is not an acceptable counterargument to a written and evidently reliable source on the record. Counterarguments to written and evidently reliable on the record sources have to be written and on the record. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"the schneerson cult of personality" Please Bali ultimate, do I have to post you on WP:ANI again for your derogative remarks? Debresser (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i feel comfortable describing it as such and i can post chapter and verse reliable sources arguing that a cult of personality centered on Schneerson. If you have a complaint to make at AN/I go ahead. I think the issue of loyalists of small groups guarding and having too much of a voice in wikipedia articles (this is just one of the more eggregious examples of many) needs further examination.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We have been though that at ArbCom already, for your interest. You and your offensive language were luckely absent, if I remember correctly. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am David Olidort. The statement the Ehrlich attributes to me is false, I never said it and it is not true. He admitted to me that this was an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolidort (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation, however (as we have told others above) Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and verifyable sources (WP:RS and WP:V) require that claims made, or disputes about claims made in sources, be made in writing in external verifiable sources.

We need you to go on the record, in a publication which we can cite and refer to.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Herbert (if that is your name). I am inclined to believe that the poster is Olidort. I'm also inclined to believe that he's lying. I'm inclined to believe this whether he gets a letter to the editor published in the Mossiach is Coming newsletter (or however messiah is transliterated) or not. How will you handle your little computer science detour into the humanities, then? You've already gone on record as saying that all history you haven't personally witnessed is equally valid (good little 'wikipedian that you are) so this should be fascinating.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of your beliefs or otherwise, I'm curious as to what relevance you expect anyone to ascribe to your subjective guesswork. Do you claim to have witnessed or heard the supposed statement?!Winchester2313 (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, you post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia we assign credibility to sources (and thereby implicitly to people). I for one am sure that Wikipedia would be better of without your disruptive edits. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you fucking on about debresser? The only reliable source on offer in this entire megillah is the one saying that Schneerson's scholarship declined. There is no reliable source refuting this -- just the avowals of Schneerson acolytes named "Debresser" and "Winchester2313" etc... here on this talk page. The conflict of interest is rather glaring, and the failure of highly motivated partisans to find a single reliable source refuting Ehrlich is telling. Don't you worry though -- wikipedia is structured to help single-minded partisans seeking to control a narrative. You'll almost certainly get your way in the end.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to summarize:

It seems generally agreed that M. Avrum Ehrlich and his book The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present are to be considered reliable sources as in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, or at least were such till the present discussion. This is not the issue.

At the same time we have seen that claims have been made on this talk page that cast a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the specific information that was removed from this article. While it is agreed that these claims here can not be considered reliable sources, they have prompted editors to reassess the information and its sources. Being that the information being discussed is of such a nature that if it were true, it should have been published in many places; and in view of the rules laid out in Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources (specifically "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community"), we must come to the conclusion that this information is not fit to be included in a Wikipedia article. These rules and this conclusion are in effect a practical application of the Wikipedia policy to use common sense and logic. In addition, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deceased tells us specifically that "anything questionable should be removed promptly" from any biography. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with almost every word you just wrote in your summary. No reasonable doubt has been cast on the passage by the unsubstantiated claims of committed chabad partisans on this page. If the stonewalling doesn't stop soon, other means for dealing with what increasingly looks like a major conflict of interest will have to be found.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, please be more specific. How can you disagree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Unless you have anything specific (and to the point) to say, there is no reason to list your disagreement just for the record. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are making no sense at all here Debresser. The circular bullshit is getting tiring. We have a high quality reliable source that supports something not particularly stunning, on the one hand. And we have you insisting that your personal experience and claims should trump that high quality reliable source and you have persisted (succesfully) from keeping a mildly critical piece of information about a man you revere out of the article for weeks. You are ignoring wikipedia policy on reliable sources and verifiability on a subject with which you have strong conflict of interest.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Those Wikipedia guielines are something everybody here agrees upon. So you also ignore all the arguments above. That is not going to get you very far in consensus building and persuading other people that your opinion is the correct one. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take note that a point of view is not the same as a conflict of interest. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser and Winchester - to emphasize my prior comments, "rebuttals" that are not verifiable and reliably sourced and on the record are not valid rebuttals. You two are misreading fundamental Wikipedia policy. This is not OK.

As I have said multiple times now - get the rebuttal on the record. Talking Mr. Olidort into getting a Wikipedia account was not directly relevant to the problem of getting the rebuttal on the record. Stuff said here is not on the record - Wikipedia is not a reliable of verifiable source, and particularly not random comments on talk pages. We have no real-world way to verify that the account is really Mr. Olidort.

Erlich's claims are not so extraordinary in normal real-world context that they require extraordinary evidence. They may be wrong - we are giving you time to demonstrate so, in a reliable and on the record sense - but they stand as credible until refuted.

You have been given ample time to get someone to go on the record on this point. Please let us know, specifically, what actions you have taken in the real world to obtain on-the-record rebuttals, by whom, and what the status is of those rebuttals being published or documented.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, why is it you only repeat one and the same thing, and - for the third time - do not reply to any of the arguments, which are after all solidly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Is it because you know you can not refute any of them? As is, your contribution here as an uninvolved admin has not contributed anything to the discussion at all. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am repeating is policy. What you are repeating is a misunderstanding of policy.

Your other arguments are based on unpublished personal experiences; they fail to meet WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V. They are not valid arguments under Wikipedia policy, because the sources of information you rely on are not things any independent person can verify and trust.

We have told you specifically what needs to happen to bring forwards on the record sources which meet our policies to support those claims. Please listen and focus on that.

If you cooperate and provide sources which are on the record then everything will be fine. If you continue to refuse to do so, and then edit war to keep the Ehrlich information out of the article, you'll be editing against policy and disruptively.

You have been given weeks to work within Wikipedia policy on these points. One of you (Winchester) agreed and indicated that he understood and would work to accomplish that. I and others agreed that it would be reasonable and acting in good faith to leave things as they were while he worked on getting information on the record.

I asked for a status report on getting things on the record; what we got was instead a new Wikipedia account in a primary source's name, which we have no way of verifying is that person, which made as a first person claim the same claims we already stated must be made in writing in a reliable source. That's not how Wikipedia works. We told you all that at the beginning of this.

I don't assume that it's not Mr. Olidort - but neither I nor anyone else has any way to verify that it's not actually a sockpuppet account of you, Debresser, or one of the other Chabad editors here. It's not in writing, we can't verify it, it's not information we can actually use.

At some point in the very near future the presumption switches from "keep it out, out of an abundance of caution" to "go ahead and put it in, we can remove it later if a reliable source emerges". If you present me information that an article or letter on the record are imminently forthcoming we can continue to wait. If you can't or won't do that, then the presumption will change in the next few days.

I'm sorry if you feel that Wikipedia policy is unfair. But that's the policy. Sources need to be on the record, so that we can verify and validate. It's been that way since the beginning. You don't need to agree with that, but if you participate here, that's the policy that the site operates under, and what you must comply with here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You have again not addressed the arguments, which are all based soundly in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your assertion that you understand them correctly and I misunderstand them, is nothing more than that, an assertion. I brought links and pages and sound argument. You bring nothing but a repetition of an argument all agree with, but which is not the issue here. Debresser (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Chabad POV warring returns in full force

It boggles the mind that clear-cut statements and sources, in full compliance with WP:V; WP:RS; WP:NPOV by academically reputable scholar/s as cited by User Jayjg and others, should be so censored, removed, manipulated, attacked and torn to shreds by the obvious pro-Chabad editors when all they have to do is just let a statement stand in the correct spirit and style of "Scholar X has stated 1,2,3," and "Scholar Y has stated 4,5,6," and they do not have to agree with the approved Chabad party line, which can and should also be stated as "The official Chabad movement maintains and believes 7,8,9 and [either] denies or agrees with scholar/s X or Y" -- that is the way Wikipedia articles are written and not to violate WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a pattern of Wikipedia:Edit warring that involves not just struggles over content but reveals a more deep-seated pattern of negative controlling behavior that violates WP:OWN that relies on wearing down opponents and not really seeking to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS. Following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, the ArbCom has warned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies: (1) "Editors reminded: With respect to topics related to the Chabad movement, all editors are reminded to edit these articles, and to collaborate with other editors, in full compliance with all applicable Wikipedia policies, including those mentioned in this decision." -- So on what basis are the pro-Chabad editors fighting the scholar/s that Jayjg is citing? (2) "Editors encouraged: Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links." -- but as can be seen, pro-Chabad editors wish to cut out unflattering information from their POV and only insert what they like. (3) "Future proceedings: It is hoped that good-faith efforts as described above will be sufficient to address disputes on the Chabad-related articles. However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed. Editors are requested to allow at least 60 days from the date of this decision before filing any such request, to give renewed efforts at collaboration in light of this decision a reasonable chance to succeed." -- Well, it's definitely NOT "succeeding" as is evidence above. The present situation indicates that the same pattern of obstructionist editing is the benchmark for pro-Chabad editors. They continue in the same ways of the past. User:Zsero who did not even participate in the ArbCom case that included him, blithely returns to wage the same kind of struggles and censoring that he is famous for, see User:Zsero’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs. So how is this different to before? It is not! 60 days have long past since the close of the ArbCom case on 13 February 2010, and still and all the pro-Chabad editors are in full WP:OWN swing yet again. Indeed the behavior of the pro-Chabad editors is worsening and definitely not improving, not just here but wherever they set foot in Chabad-related articles they deem important to their movement, and therefore it is not too early to approach the ArbCom to re-open this case as per the ArbCom's closing statement: "However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quit your stupid diatribes, please. We had quite enough of them the last time. People who can not reply to sound arguments and reasoning (and I mean the editors who in the section above do nothing but repeat the obvious without addressing the real issue), just won't have their way. This has absolutely nothing to do with Chabad, or POV, or whatever else you were talking about in that dull post of yours. This is a most straightforward content issue. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "stupid" is uncalled for and borders on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, something you do quite often. To clarify: Anything that concerns any of the the Lubavitcher Rebbes, especially the 7th and last one, runs to the heart and core of Chabad, so you make no sense. Sorry if you find my detailed explanation to be a tiring diatribe. If you don't like it you don't have to read it. Others will, and will draw their own conclusions. There is nothing "stupid" in pointing out that the pattern of ongoing edit warring, as exhibited above, by pro-Chabad editors working in tandem against editors or views they do not like is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia that goes way beyond mere arguments over "content" but is instead a reflection of stifling and controlling behavior designed to control, intimidate and censor what pro-Chabad editors do not like. If it was just about content then you would be following the normal procedure of allowing verified sources to be quoted instead of deleting them and coming up with excuses to cut out whatever you don't like. My point is very simple, that you and the other pro-Chabad POV warriors need to remember that the ArbCom has already once reviewed your actions and for now has given you the benefit of the doubt, but if you persist in your obstructionist and negative edit warring the case of Chabad editors will go back to the ArbCom requesting real sanctions against all of you to stop what is very obvious to even the "stupidist" user here: The ongoing encroachment and violation of WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NPOV; and many other serious policy violations of any and all articles related to the gamut of Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism by pro-Chabad POV warriors. Thank you for your attention. IZAK (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If User:Bali ultimate could use the word "fucking", I can use the word "stupid". And mind you, I said your diatribes are stupid, not you. And they are. And all they do is full up wasted space on the Wikipedia servers. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't the Rebbe visit Israel

After seeing this edit, in which an unsourced statement was correctly removed, I recalled an article in the Kfar Chabad magazine a few years ago, in which it was related that over the years the Rebbe had mentioned to Shlomo Goren 4 different reasons not to visit Israel. Anybody here who can dig up that article? Debresser (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)