Lembit Staan (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
:Rioting does not create a connection to Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The traffic accident can serve as a pretext for rioting. But Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not the cause of this accident, and no one ever blamed Menachem Mendel Schneerson for this accident. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
:Rioting does not create a connection to Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The traffic accident can serve as a pretext for rioting. But Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not the cause of this accident, and no one ever blamed Menachem Mendel Schneerson for this accident. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
*Schneerson has only accidental and rather remote relation to the event, therefore a separate section in his bio [[WP:UNDUE|is undue]]. At best, it may be listed in the "See also" section. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 23:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:16, 15 December 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Birthdate
If the Old Style/New Style issue crops up from time to time, perhaps it would be a good thing for the editors who keep an eye on this article to put together a "recurring themes" (like the one at Talk:George Washington) or "Frequently asked questions" section (like at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting). Shearonink (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- We used to have a link to Old Style and New Style dates on the page. Is it gone? Debresser (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, the Wikilinkage is still there. I just thought it might nice to let readers know that this issue has cropped up before. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You might all wish to be advised that, after a lot of discussion at talk:Old Style and New Style dates and talk:Adoption of the Gregorian calendar, the two articles have been reshuffled. The former is now primarily about the OS/NS changes in Great Britain and its colonies and it is the latter that takes a worldwide perspective. So I've changed the OS and NS wlinks in this article to Adoption of the Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Eastern Europe because that covers Russia in detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC: The statement that
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following statement is false: "In 1978, the U.S. Congress designated Scheerson's birthday as the national Education Day U.S.A.,honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department". Congress in their proclamation (designation) made no mention of any such role. They did not honor that role in the designation.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Rococo1700 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked for evidence on whether there is a link with Education Day USA and a role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department. Does the honor derive from the latter fact? My answer is that all the evidence marshals against the fact. It is not true. Please read the following presidential proclamations:
- Education and Sharing Day 2000 by President William J. Clinton
- Proclamation of Education and Sharing Day 2002 by President George W. Bush
- President Barack Obama
- "The White House - Press Office - Presidential Proclamation Marking Education And Sharing Day". Archived from the original on September 26, 2009.
- To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
- Please spare me the platitudes of claiming a voice of reason. This encyclopedia is a matter of facts. You can reasonably discuss false statements, and that does not make them true. It is not right to quote only Lubavitch literature to claim the Education Day honored Scheerson for helping establish a cabinet level department. If such a momentous feat had been achieved by Scheerson, then I would expect it would be highlighted in the proclamations by congress or by over four presidents. None of them does this, despite having proclamations that honor Scheerson. I agree Scheerson is honored by Education Day. He is not honored for helping establish a cabinet level department. That is false. If you continue to revert this fact then we need to seek outside mediation. You are not discussing the evidence. That is not reasonable.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry. That is original research. There are two sources linked in the article which state explicitly that the reason Congress did so was a to honor of Rabbi Schneerson's involvement in the creation of the cabinet level position. Original research, on the other hand, is not acceptable. TM (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry. This is not original research. Documents from Congress explicitly state the reason why Congress honored Schneerson. Your sources are biased. Mine are not. I recommend again that the tag questioning the article's neutrality be place on the article. Again answer the facts. Congress and the presidential proclamations regarding Education Day make no mention of your claim, none, zero. It is false.
- Please spare me the platitudes of claiming a voice of reason. This encyclopedia is a matter of facts. You can reasonably discuss false statements, and that does not make them true. It is not right to quote only Lubavitch literature to claim the Education Day honored Scheerson for helping establish a cabinet level department. If such a momentous feat had been achieved by Scheerson, then I would expect it would be highlighted in the proclamations by congress or by over four presidents. None of them does this, despite having proclamations that honor Scheerson. I agree Scheerson is honored by Education Day. He is not honored for helping establish a cabinet level department. That is false. If you continue to revert this fact then we need to seek outside mediation. You are not discussing the evidence. That is not reasonable.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Rococo1700 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have made a referral of the problem to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Please do not revert my neutrality tag until you have addressed the present problem.
TzviMichelsohn and Debresser assert that Schneerson was honored with Education day, USA, and subsequently Education and Sharing day, honoring of his role in establishing the Department of Education as a cabinet level department. Yet neither the first proclamation by Congress or President Jimmy Carter, and none of the proclamations by either congress or at least 4 presidents, ever mention this fact. If he was honored for such a major contribution to our governance, why wouldn't it not be mentioned. The proclamations honor Schneerson, but they do not honor him for this role. Facts are the facts. My sources are the proclamations themselves, they are listed above.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- In reading the comments above, I find that TzviMichelsohn is perservering in a obfuscation that I encountered in editing prior entries in Wikipedia. Let me use an example: TM would claim that if he has two sources that say that the Declaration of Independence was written because Jefferson wanted to sell his house, then that would have more validity than the reasons stated within the Declaration itself. He would consider that quoting the Declaration is "original research", and that only his third party source is valid.
Again this is a fallacy often used by editors trying to replace common sense facts with biased observations. I would refer TM to Wikipedia:No original research, Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Again there are two ways to use the proclamations in this case, one could use a secondary source, and follow their claim, COMPLETELY ABSENT from the primary source, that interprets the proclamation as honoring Schneerson for something that is not even mentioned in the proclamation. That begs belief.
- TM goes on to state that the sentence in question does not state that the proclamation honors Schneerson for the disputed role. That is not true. The sentence as it stands, links the proclamation with the honoring for the role in establishing the Education Department as a cabinet level position. And again, there is no evidence for that in any of the proclamation(s).
- Is it possible Schneerson called somebody in Congress or the White House and expressed his preference for the Education Department as part of the cabinet? Maybe, I don't know. Did this have a role? Maybe, I don't know. I doubt it, but if TM wants to claim that so an so source say so, go ahead. However, I find it incompatible with reality, incredible, that the Congress and President would emit these proclamation and honor Schneerson with such laudatory praise (1991) such as: Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;/Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;/ Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;/ Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;/Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;/Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws but then fail to take note here, or in any subsequent proclamation by presidents or the congress, that these proclamations have anything to do with his role in a major Government restructuring. It strains credulity. I requires one to believe that the secondary sources that TM cites find some honor in this text that is not there. This is not original research, this is making a point that the cited studies cannot find justification for their claims in these proclamations. They do not honor him for any role in the Department of Education being raised to cabinet level. Period.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have merged the three new sections made by Rococo1700.
- I think that opening an Rfc was a premature step, in view of the fact that the issue has hardly been discussed here. In addition, it would have been proper to first ask other editors at WT:JUDAISM to step in and give their opinion, and see if that would solve this issue.
- I have removed the POV tag again. This is a minor issue, relating to one sentence in one section, and tagging the whole article is overkill. In addition, I think that POV is not the issue here. It is more a matter of synchronizing the article with its sources.
- Although Rococo1700 mentioned my name as though I am a party to the issue, I see myself more as an outside observer to this issue, and as such would like to appeal to all sides and especially to Rococo1700 to take it easy. Opening 3 sections on the talkpage, tagging the whole article, opening an Rfc and a DR is overkill. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Debresser, I urge you to read prior archives of this Talk page and recognize that neutrality in this subject this has been a long-standing problem, and some of the controversies in the past included you. I find that it is easy to have editors like TM and you just revert well-substantiated edits and not address the issues. You have not addressed the issues here (again). Rather than just stating you are an "outside observer", and complaining about other editors, address the facts. I have pointedly done so a number of times. I appeal to you to do so rather than complaining about the process.
Again, can you find me any evidence in the proclamations honoring Schneerson, that he was "honored for elevating the Department of Education to a cabinet position." Simple question.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Rococo1700, I did address part of the issue in this edit. I don't think you are likely to complain about that edit, are you? But your tagging this article with a POV template is overkill, and I will address your hotheaded edit behavior, since it is detrimental to this article and the general atmosphere here. So I urge you to talk this over before making any more edits, and use the right perspective on what really is a minor issue. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Education Day is not the same as founding a cabinet level department. That is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to the extreme and chabad POV pushing. Not everything in this world is due to Lubavitch and the entire US educational system is not because of the Rebbe. If it is, you need to bring reliable sources, such as a congressional record of the formation of the US Department of Education. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Link to DOE Founding Act The Department of Education act was enacted in 1979. https://federaleducationpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/department-of-education-organization-act-1979/ I took a quick look at the act and nowhere is the Rebbe mentioned. I think we can close this RFC. Here's a link to the Wiki page: Department_of_Education_Organization_Act nowhere is the Rebbe mentioned. I think Education Day and Department of Education might have been confused but the founding of the Department was in no way due to the Rebbe. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Sir Joseph. But are you honestly disregarding two separate published sources? And as a side note, I would suggest your comment "Not everything in this world is due to Lubavitch and the entire US educational system is not because of the Rebbe." is extreme POV and displays a total lack of neutrality. Also, did anyone here even make such grand a claim? TM (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- A published book (possibly being a biased book) can't overturn an act of Congress. If you're claiming that Congress enacted the DOE because of the Rebbe, then in the "millions" of "whereas" there should be a Rebbe statement, but there isn't. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am not claiming that DOE was enacted only because of the Rebbe, nor did the article (or the two sources provided) ever say that. There were likely many factors in it's founding but you seem to be engaging in typical straw man building and knocking. What I am saying, and what is undeniably published, is that the Rebbe was involved and played a role in DOEs establishment, hence Congress decision to honor him. I am sorry if the facts are painful. Are you now also suggesting that these two books are biased but not denying your own bias I exposed above? TM (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- If the Rebbe had a hand in the DOE establishment, it would have been in the Congressional Record, it's not. Your claim that the Rebbe had a hand in the DOE founding needs to be sourced. You need to show where the Rebbe had a hand. Just saying in a book, is not good enough. And not that it matters, but the Telushkin book is a biased book, not saying it's bad, but it is biased so that it can't be used especially when it goes against the US Congress. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you would be familiar with the how Government keeps records you would know that is not the case. For example (and I am not comparing the two, but just giving a recent example) the JCPOA agreement makes absolutely no mention of John Kerry. And just to go back to the original act of 1979 and Congressional record that you posted above the with comment "I took a quick look at the act and nowhere is the Rebbe mentioned. I think we can close this RFCT" if you would look at it a bit better, you would perhaps notice that it dosnt mention anyone else at all either. Now, the claim that you are looking to remove is clearly sourced to two separate books, written by reputable authors, and published by mainstream printing houses. Also, the books don't just make a statement. They provide background and longer explanation as to where the Rebbe had a hand. If deemed necessary and relevant by unbiased editors, I'm sure that additional information can be added later in the page. Have you read what is written in the books? TM (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't assume and don't keep POV pushing. If you look at the Act here: https://federaleducationpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/department-of-education-organization-act-1979/ you will see what I told you originally, there is no mention of the Rebbe at all. I don't know why the JCPOA would mention John Kerry, it's not his act, your claiming the DOE was due to the Rebbe so it would be in the Act, yet it's not. If you claim that the DOE is due to the rebbe, show me where. Which page in the book details where the DOE act is because of the rebbe. If it's clear as day, it should be clear and simple to find sources and your Telushkin book is not good enough, you need reliable unbiased sources. It should be simple to find newspaper articles and other press releases and congressional clippings that details the Department of Education was founded because of the Rebbe. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you seem to not like the truth. No one claimed it was "due to the Rebbe" or "founded because of the Rebbe." The undeniable, published fact, however, is that the Rebbe played a role in its establishment and was therefor honored. Again, the link you provide mentions no one at all so I am not sure what original research you are trying to use it for. Perhaps it also somehow proves that no one was involved and it all happened on its own.. As I said, you are obviously unfamiliar with how Government keeps records. Now, once again, and I hope finally, the claim that you are looking to remove is clearly sourced to two separate books, written by reputable authors, and published by mainstream printing houses. They provide background and longer explanation as to where the Rebbe had a hand. Have a look at them before displaying a bias and insisting on deleting sourced information. TM (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I told you before, don't assume, and two, show me the proof. What book, what page number. Your claim that the rebbe had a hand in the founding of the DOE needs super proof, and merely saying "it's in a book" is not good enough. You continuously mix up Education Day and the DOE. He was honored with Education Day, as you in the above section even mentioned. It does not say he had a hand in the founding of the DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no one assuming here besides for yourself. You are assuming its not true. Nor is there any confusion. He was honored with ED as a result of his role in the establishment of DOE. This is documented in two separate books. Titles, publishing information and exact page numbers are all linked as sources on the main article page. Have a look at the sources before just blindly deleting info you are not comfortable with. You seem to have displayed a major bias here but I'll leave that for others to decide. TM (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be the only one in the world that is aware of that evidence. Please tell me which page number it can be found that documents that the rebbe had a hand in founding the US Department of Education. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no one assuming here besides for yourself. You are assuming its not true. Nor is there any confusion. He was honored with ED as a result of his role in the establishment of DOE. This is documented in two separate books. Titles, publishing information and exact page numbers are all linked as sources on the main article page. Have a look at the sources before just blindly deleting info you are not comfortable with. You seem to have displayed a major bias here but I'll leave that for others to decide. TM (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I told you before, don't assume, and two, show me the proof. What book, what page number. Your claim that the rebbe had a hand in the founding of the DOE needs super proof, and merely saying "it's in a book" is not good enough. You continuously mix up Education Day and the DOE. He was honored with Education Day, as you in the above section even mentioned. It does not say he had a hand in the founding of the DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you seem to not like the truth. No one claimed it was "due to the Rebbe" or "founded because of the Rebbe." The undeniable, published fact, however, is that the Rebbe played a role in its establishment and was therefor honored. Again, the link you provide mentions no one at all so I am not sure what original research you are trying to use it for. Perhaps it also somehow proves that no one was involved and it all happened on its own.. As I said, you are obviously unfamiliar with how Government keeps records. Now, once again, and I hope finally, the claim that you are looking to remove is clearly sourced to two separate books, written by reputable authors, and published by mainstream printing houses. They provide background and longer explanation as to where the Rebbe had a hand. Have a look at them before displaying a bias and insisting on deleting sourced information. TM (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't assume and don't keep POV pushing. If you look at the Act here: https://federaleducationpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/department-of-education-organization-act-1979/ you will see what I told you originally, there is no mention of the Rebbe at all. I don't know why the JCPOA would mention John Kerry, it's not his act, your claiming the DOE was due to the Rebbe so it would be in the Act, yet it's not. If you claim that the DOE is due to the rebbe, show me where. Which page in the book details where the DOE act is because of the rebbe. If it's clear as day, it should be clear and simple to find sources and your Telushkin book is not good enough, you need reliable unbiased sources. It should be simple to find newspaper articles and other press releases and congressional clippings that details the Department of Education was founded because of the Rebbe. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you would be familiar with the how Government keeps records you would know that is not the case. For example (and I am not comparing the two, but just giving a recent example) the JCPOA agreement makes absolutely no mention of John Kerry. And just to go back to the original act of 1979 and Congressional record that you posted above the with comment "I took a quick look at the act and nowhere is the Rebbe mentioned. I think we can close this RFCT" if you would look at it a bit better, you would perhaps notice that it dosnt mention anyone else at all either. Now, the claim that you are looking to remove is clearly sourced to two separate books, written by reputable authors, and published by mainstream printing houses. Also, the books don't just make a statement. They provide background and longer explanation as to where the Rebbe had a hand. If deemed necessary and relevant by unbiased editors, I'm sure that additional information can be added later in the page. Have you read what is written in the books? TM (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- If the Rebbe had a hand in the DOE establishment, it would have been in the Congressional Record, it's not. Your claim that the Rebbe had a hand in the DOE founding needs to be sourced. You need to show where the Rebbe had a hand. Just saying in a book, is not good enough. And not that it matters, but the Telushkin book is a biased book, not saying it's bad, but it is biased so that it can't be used especially when it goes against the US Congress. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am not claiming that DOE was enacted only because of the Rebbe, nor did the article (or the two sources provided) ever say that. There were likely many factors in it's founding but you seem to be engaging in typical straw man building and knocking. What I am saying, and what is undeniably published, is that the Rebbe was involved and played a role in DOEs establishment, hence Congress decision to honor him. I am sorry if the facts are painful. Are you now also suggesting that these two books are biased but not denying your own bias I exposed above? TM (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- A published book (possibly being a biased book) can't overturn an act of Congress. If you're claiming that Congress enacted the DOE because of the Rebbe, then in the "millions" of "whereas" there should be a Rebbe statement, but there isn't. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Sir Joseph. But are you honestly disregarding two separate published sources? And as a side note, I would suggest your comment "Not everything in this world is due to Lubavitch and the entire US educational system is not because of the Rebbe." is extreme POV and displays a total lack of neutrality. Also, did anyone here even make such grand a claim? TM (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Debresser keeps telling me to "calm down", that this is a minor point, but then TM argues vociferously against the evidence. Please be reasonable here. I would accept that it is possible, and would have no objections to saying that some authors state that Schneerson lobbied, favored, argued for, or supported the creation of a Department of Education as a cabinet level position. He may have even played a role in changing the mind of someone influential in this regard. How influential? I tend to agree with Sir Joseph, that a major role would be independently verifiable in a review of the history of the agency. But that is not my point. Again, let us be clear, there is no evidence in the proclamations honoring Schneerson that he was honored by Congress, or the President(s), with "Education and Sharing Day" for the stated role. It is not credible that such an role would have escaped the praise of those formulating the proclamations. You need to separate the two ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - Just follow the (appropriate) cites - cites do not support the language as presented and the language as stated seems factually incorrect.
- * Cites source - "In 1978, the U.S. Congress designated" needs cites from 1978 and Congress, or about Congress in 1978. Cites in different decades from Clinton, Bush, and Obama are not so RS for congressional opinion in 1978. And for these particular items - the Clinton does not speak to the birthday, and the Obama links are dead to me. Bush only makes a minor remark of it being the same day, not a causal satement or about Congress.
- * Different day - the 1978 designation seems to be for a different day and shows no such association, see GPO.
- * Different event - the article language conveys that "Education and Sharing Day" was begun in 1978, but the 1978 item designation is a different event title, the proclamation is "Education Day, U.S.A.".
I think you could validly start the event in 1982 and remark about a previous Education Day USA, but to say that 1978 was this event or to say that 1978 was his birthday are both factually incorrect. cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Markbassett (talk). I may be misunderstanding you. But the document from 1978 makes explicit mention: "Whereas world Jewry marked in 1977 the seventy-fifth birthday of the revered and renowned Jewish leader... Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who proclaimed on that occasion a "Year of Education" and... the seventy-sixth birthday of this celebrated spiritual leader will occur on April 19, 1978... Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating April 18, 1978, as "Education Day, U.S.A."."
- With regard to his role in the establishment and advocacy for the DOE, there are two separate sources from published books. If there is something that I misunderstood in your comment, please let me know. Thanks. TM (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- What page number? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The page numbers are stated explicitly in the sources on the page. Have you looked? TM (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't have the page numbers. If you had the page numbers, you would tell me since I'm repeatedly asking for them. It's up to you to tell me; I don't have to go digging through the page to find them. You are asserting an incredulous claim, you need to find the source. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, you should look at the sources provided before deleting material. TM (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just did a keyword search of the book and it doesn't mention anywhere the DOE or Department of Education, so unless my search was faulty you need to pinpoint the exact location where the rebbe helped found the US DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your search obviously was faulty as the admin themselves have just told you the words Department of Education are in the book. Now continue reading the book and you will see the background and all the relevant information. I am wondering, is your search faulty, or you just don't want to believe whats written? TM (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I will search again, but like I said earlier, it's irrelevant, those two sources would not be WP:RS for this claim. You would need a newspaper or the Congressional Record or a reliable source, not a biased source that claims that the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- You may not like what it says, but they are both valid sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines. You can not make a special set of rules for this topic just because you don't like the proven, documented and published information. Now that we have finally cleared this, I think we are safe to put it back. Shalom! TM (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- We didn't clear anything up, and they are not reliable sources. And indeed, we do have rules for topics. You can indeed have rules for a biography that claims something. This is a biased source that supposedly claims something so outlandish. If the rebbe had a hand in founding the US DOE it would have many more sources. You cant add it until you have more verifiable sources. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, just because you don't like the Rebbe, and just because you don't like what he did and what the books say about him, does not mean they are not valid sources. They are. They are also both completely valid in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies. You clearly have an ax to grind. [Just to sum up: first you claim it didn't happen, then you claim it's not documented, then you claim its not in the book, then you claim the page does not exists, then you claim that the source are not valid. C'mon!]TM (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just read page 161 and you are mis-reading it. He had a campaign, just like we all campaign to do stuff, does not mean he had a hand in founding the DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph Please note that insistence on being provided with what you can look up for yourself, is not an argument against the validity of the information. At most it can be proof of you being lazy or belligerent. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did look it up, it says no such thing. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good for you. Now that is a serious claim. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's why I said show me other proof. Congressional Records always have fluff stuff like this. Do you actually believe the rebbe had a hand in founding the US DOE? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good for you. Now that is a serious claim. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did look it up, it says no such thing. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph Please note that insistence on being provided with what you can look up for yourself, is not an argument against the validity of the information. At most it can be proof of you being lazy or belligerent. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just read page 161 and you are mis-reading it. He had a campaign, just like we all campaign to do stuff, does not mean he had a hand in founding the DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, just because you don't like the Rebbe, and just because you don't like what he did and what the books say about him, does not mean they are not valid sources. They are. They are also both completely valid in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies. You clearly have an ax to grind. [Just to sum up: first you claim it didn't happen, then you claim it's not documented, then you claim its not in the book, then you claim the page does not exists, then you claim that the source are not valid. C'mon!]TM (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- We didn't clear anything up, and they are not reliable sources. And indeed, we do have rules for topics. You can indeed have rules for a biography that claims something. This is a biased source that supposedly claims something so outlandish. If the rebbe had a hand in founding the US DOE it would have many more sources. You cant add it until you have more verifiable sources. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- You may not like what it says, but they are both valid sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines. You can not make a special set of rules for this topic just because you don't like the proven, documented and published information. Now that we have finally cleared this, I think we are safe to put it back. Shalom! TM (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I will search again, but like I said earlier, it's irrelevant, those two sources would not be WP:RS for this claim. You would need a newspaper or the Congressional Record or a reliable source, not a biased source that claims that the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your search obviously was faulty as the admin themselves have just told you the words Department of Education are in the book. Now continue reading the book and you will see the background and all the relevant information. I am wondering, is your search faulty, or you just don't want to believe whats written? TM (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just did a keyword search of the book and it doesn't mention anywhere the DOE or Department of Education, so unless my search was faulty you need to pinpoint the exact location where the rebbe helped found the US DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, you should look at the sources provided before deleting material. TM (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't have the page numbers. If you had the page numbers, you would tell me since I'm repeatedly asking for them. It's up to you to tell me; I don't have to go digging through the page to find them. You are asserting an incredulous claim, you need to find the source. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The page numbers are stated explicitly in the sources on the page. Have you looked? TM (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- What page number? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I want to reiterate that TM is ignoring a glaring problem with his position. The statement he puts forth and says is supported by "his sources" is that by the proclamation of the "Educ.." day, Schneerson was honored for helping establish the Dept of Education as a cabinet level department. Yet none, I repeat none, of more than half-a-dozen of the official proclamations, including the original ones, none of them mention this, despite profuse praises of Schneerson. Are you saying they forgot? Are you saying they didn't think this major role was important? You continue to ignore the point. Again if so and so says in a book that the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed because Jefferson did not like pumpernickel bread. I would remove that statement from Wikipedia, because the Declaration of Independence makes no mention of pumpernickel bread. The proclamations of "Educ." day make no mention, none, of raising the "Educational Department to cabinet level". Therefore they could not be established to honor Schneerson for that role. They honor him for other reasons as stated in the proclamations. Rococo1700 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Since as Debresser (talk) pointed out Sir Joseph is being lazy, I have quoted a section of the relevant information here: "Shemtov was sent back to D.C. in 1970... by the late 1970s he was pushing the Rebbe's first Washington campaign - the creation of a department of education, separate from the existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Shemtov was later appointed to an intergovernmental advisory committee on education -the only religious figure on the committee - and spent hectic months lobbying for Congressional support for a cabinet-level department of education. Carter supported the idea and Schneerson wrote to him to express his hopes that other nations follow the U.S. lead. In 1978 Carter declared the first Education Day USA in Schneerson honor... U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley thanks Schneerson for his early and concerted support of the department's creation. "His voice, so respected and beloved, helped to make it happen. So I owe my job to him." Riley said." This is from just one of the sources and I think this is crystal clear. As to Rococo1700 (talk), you are engaging in original research. TM (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Riley was the Secretary of Education in 1993. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- TM, I still find your source unconvincing. I refer you to a Chabad website discussing this specific point [1]. This website includes the original proclamations from Congress, and President Carter regarding Education Day. None of them mentions or honors Schneerson for any role in the department of Education. On April 18, 1978, Schneerson himself gave a speech, but did not mention any role in the formulation of the Education department as a cabinet level department. On September 18, 1978, President Carter in a letter congratulated Schneerson for Education Day U.S.A (it is strange that his presidential proclamation did not mention Schneerson).
- There are in this webpage, two letters by Schneerson in which he voices support for moving the Dept of Ed to a cabinet level position. The first, dated February 9, 1979 (and sent to the President) and the other February 26, l979 (sent to Vice-President Mondale). Note this is nearly a year after they had first proclaimed "Education Day USA". Schneerson tells the President:
In light of your gracious letter of September 18, l978, with reference to the resolution passed by Congress designating April l8, "Education Day - U.S.A." which you signed into law, it will come as no surprise to you, Mr. President, that your proposal to establish a Cabinet-level Department of Education has received my fullest endorsement and acclaim.
- Again I read this letter that Schneerson fully supported this change, but it does not support your contention that he was honored for this role with the holiday. In his letter to the Vice President, Schneerson voices similar endorsement. None of this data confirms the text your inserted. In addition, the commentary of Schneerson after the proclamation of the day appears to contradict that he was honored for that role, described in the letter as President Carter's ("your proposal" in his letter). There is a difference between Schneerson supporting the change, and being honored for playing a role in the change being made. Are we clear?Rococo1700 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Since as Debresser (talk) pointed out Sir Joseph is being lazy, I have quoted a section of the relevant information here: "Shemtov was sent back to D.C. in 1970... by the late 1970s he was pushing the Rebbe's first Washington campaign - the creation of a department of education, separate from the existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Shemtov was later appointed to an intergovernmental advisory committee on education -the only religious figure on the committee - and spent hectic months lobbying for Congressional support for a cabinet-level department of education. Carter supported the idea and Schneerson wrote to him to express his hopes that other nations follow the U.S. lead. In 1978 Carter declared the first Education Day USA in Schneerson honor... U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley thanks Schneerson for his early and concerted support of the department's creation. "His voice, so respected and beloved, helped to make it happen. So I owe my job to him." Riley said." This is from just one of the sources and I think this is crystal clear. As to Rococo1700 (talk), you are engaging in original research. TM (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- TM also, your quote above has a glaring problem:
In 1978 Carter declared the first Education Day USA in Schneerson honor -yada, yada, yada - U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley thanks Schneerson for his early and concerted support of the department's creation.
- Well to paraphrase George Costanza, you can't yada yada from first Education Day to honoring him with the day for his support.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- So we have consensus that the present version, which as this diff shows is without the contended sentences is acceptable to all? Alternatively, can we get a promise from all editors that there will be no edits till there is consensus? That way we can unprotect the article. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Rococo1700?
- The version now which does NOT link the Education day to a role in establishing the Dept of Education as a cabinet level department is acceptable. I have concerns that the influence of Schneerson is overstated:
- During his life, Schneerson had great influence on numerous political leaders from across the aisle, many of whom would seek his advice. He was visited by Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, Senators, Congressmen and Mayors. Notable among them are John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Jacob Javits, Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, David Dinkins and Joe Lieberman.[67][126]
- I believe this can be toned down. I see no evidence that he had a great influence on Franklin D Roosevelt or Jimmy Carter. Then again these are different sentences. Maybe just "influence" would suffice. Is there a need to list Presidents, governors, senators etc. when the following sentence has Presidents, governors, etc. But ultimately I can live with such hagiographic fluff at the edges, when at least the introductory paragraph has the prior nonsense removed. I agree with the present version.Rococo1700 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Rococo1700 Contrary to what you write, this paragraph does not imply that the presidents were influenced by him. It says: 1. he influenced numerous political leaders. In a separate sentence: 2. he was visited by presidents. I feel as though you are looking for things that aren't there. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph?
- TM?
- I would continue to follow the published sources and refrain from engaging in original research. And yes, it seems like Rococo1700 and Sir Joseph have exposed themselves to being extremely biased. TM (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- You need to AGF. This is an encyclopedia, not a biography or hagiography you buy in Eichlers or Hecht's. And one reason politicians visit rebbes, like him or the Satmar or Bobov is for votes, so saying that they visited him because they were influenced by him might not be correct either. Which is I think what you were implying. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's an encyclopedia, with specific rules and guidelines that editors must adhere to. And that means there may be information about an individual who you despise that is still true. I initially AGF with you. But your petty arguments have exposed yourself to having a preconceived bias. What can we do, there is always that one rotten apple. TM (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- TM, I agree with present text; even though I find other minor disagreements with text, I am not going to edit those. The present text does NOT claim a relationship of education day with a role in the elevation of the Department of Education to cabinet level. It seems your answer is that you disagree. Yes or no, please? Rococo1700 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I may have misunderstood you. Was it his role in the establishment of DOE as a cabinet level that bothered you, or the text that claimed a relationship of education day with that role? TM (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly had problems with the sentence that said "congress established Education day, honoring him for the role". There is no evidence in any of the proclamations for this. Zilch. Second, he appears to have agreed with the push to raise the Department to a cabinet level; but I would not describe it as saying he played a significant role in the process. Again there are two letters by Schneerson quoted in Chabad article, but they seem to show Schneerson supported an effort underway by the administration, not that he was playing a major role: Schneerson spoke to Carter saying it was "you proposal" and that "the Administration is making an all-out effort" for this change. I have no problem in saying Schneerson supported the change, however, I see no evidence Schneerson played a major or significant "honored" role, I would like to see some Dept of Ed history or historian cite those efforts or role. Certainly I see none. Again, I think the question before us, is whether the facts relating to this question, as it stands, is ok. I say yes. What say you? Yes or no? You are avoid answering the question. Rococo1700 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- You need to AGF. This is an encyclopedia, not a biography or hagiography you buy in Eichlers or Hecht's. And one reason politicians visit rebbes, like him or the Satmar or Bobov is for votes, so saying that they visited him because they were influenced by him might not be correct either. Which is I think what you were implying. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would continue to follow the published sources and refrain from engaging in original research. And yes, it seems like Rococo1700 and Sir Joseph have exposed themselves to being extremely biased. TM (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- So we have consensus that the present version, which as this diff shows is without the contended sentences is acceptable to all? Alternatively, can we get a promise from all editors that there will be no edits till there is consensus? That way we can unprotect the article. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well to paraphrase George Costanza, you can't yada yada from first Education Day to honoring him with the day for his support.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
lede
There has been consensus on the lede of this page for some time. Recently an anonymous editor has added and edited without providing a single source to back up these claims. Then another editor has been constantly defending and that anonymous editor (Sock puppet?). Having many "sources" that go to pages with info about the chabad movement, doesn't mean it says what a particular editor claims it does. Open the sources and have a look. TM (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just know that you can be blocked for calling someone a sockpuppet. Wikipedia is not a hagiography, we don't censor. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- oif der ganev brent dem hittel as they say in yiddish. Interesting that you out of all people are getting defensive that I was referring to you. If we don't censor, explain why you removed/change a sourced statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century.". Is it because you don't like it? TM (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not in the source. My edit is properly sourced. If you keep reverting, I will report you. You need to follow WP:CITE and WP:RS, etc. The source does not say He is considered one of the most infuential..... Sir Joseph (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- What in the lede now do you specifically object to? Everything in there is properly sourced and following WP:DUE, so any changes should be discussed here since you already reverted. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- You keep reverting even when the sources are in there. I will report you if you don't stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is not a single source there that says "many followers believe he is the messiah." Please provide at least one then we can discuss. At most you have some sources from a decade ago that claim some followers "believed" he was the messiah. Just dumping a load of "sources" that don't back your claim won;t make the claim true. Also, you casually removed the only sourced statement here that said "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century." You are obliviously bias and should be barred from this page. TM (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- You keep reverting even when the sources are in there. I will report you if you don't stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- What in the lede now do you specifically object to? Everything in there is properly sourced and following WP:DUE, so any changes should be discussed here since you already reverted. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not in the source. My edit is properly sourced. If you keep reverting, I will report you. You need to follow WP:CITE and WP:RS, etc. The source does not say He is considered one of the most infuential..... Sir Joseph (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- oif der ganev brent dem hittel as they say in yiddish. Interesting that you out of all people are getting defensive that I was referring to you. If we don't censor, explain why you removed/change a sourced statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century.". Is it because you don't like it? TM (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Guys, since I know you both for quite some time here on Wikipedia, please allow me to ask both of you to cool down. There is no doubt in my mind that both of you are good editors, and there is no reason to bar any of you from this or any other article.
- Let's just stick to sources. The statement that many followers consider him to be the redeemer is correct. All that is left to do is check if the sources say that, or something else.
- I checked one source, after I saw that TM removed it for the second time, and he is correct: the article by Susan doesn't make the claim that it was supposed to support. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Debresser for double checking. Indeed, when such a source is provided we can have a different discussion. Also, I am curios as to why SirJoseph removed the statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century" which was sourced? TM (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, read the Tablet article again, it says that many people believed him to be the messiah. And it does not say that "he was the most influential" That is not in the article. The Tablet article has a few cites similar to this: "Some of his followers tried to proclaim him the Messiah, " Sir Joseph (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. "Some of his followers tried to proclaim him the Messiah" is not "many followers believe he is the messiah." There is a difference there. The other statement is from the NYT. No need to hide behind the Tablet. TM (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is just one source within the article. And why did you remove the Bar Hayim cite? You can't just remove cites you disagree with. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- So now when two editors read the article and show you that the claim you are making is not there you say "that's just one article"?? I have read all of them, and none of them make the claim you are making. On the other hand, the claim "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century" is indeed properly sourced to more than one source. As you just wrote "You can't just remove cites you disagree with." TM (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since you don't seem to get it, what is wrong with the lede now? Your claim is in the lede, it's sourced. What more do you want? Moshe Rabbeinu saying the Rebbe is the greatest? Your bias is clearly showing. As I keep asking you, tell me what you want changed in the lede and we can discuss it. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- So now when two editors read the article and show you that the claim you are making is not there you say "that's just one article"?? I have read all of them, and none of them make the claim you are making. On the other hand, the claim "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century" is indeed properly sourced to more than one source. As you just wrote "You can't just remove cites you disagree with." TM (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is just one source within the article. And why did you remove the Bar Hayim cite? You can't just remove cites you disagree with. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. "Some of his followers tried to proclaim him the Messiah" is not "many followers believe he is the messiah." There is a difference there. The other statement is from the NYT. No need to hide behind the Tablet. TM (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, read the Tablet article again, it says that many people believed him to be the messiah. And it does not say that "he was the most influential" That is not in the article. The Tablet article has a few cites similar to this: "Some of his followers tried to proclaim him the Messiah, " Sir Joseph (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Debresser for double checking. Indeed, when such a source is provided we can have a different discussion. Also, I am curios as to why SirJoseph removed the statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century" which was sourced? TM (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why did you remove the Bar Hayim cite? You have some nerve to keep editing after you were warned. You are edit warring. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- This "...and arguably one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the second half of the 20th century" has been in the lede for weeks. You need to self revert or you risk being blocked. I can't believe you edit war after being warned and being brought to AN. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. Have the hagiography. I am removing this page from my watchlist so you can destroy it. And that is what arguable means. He wasn't the most influential, he was arguably the most influential. I'm nagain, not sure why you're fighing about that term. But make the lede UNDUE, see if I care. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, since you are "removing this page from" your watchlist, does that mean that you will not revert my deletion of the word "controversial"? Also, for what reason did you undo my edit? Kamel Tebaast (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, I agreed with Kamel Tebaast's removal of the word "controversial" for the reasons he indicated in his edit summary. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since you pinged me, I will just echo what Editor2020 said. You removed the word controversial as if it was put there by an editor, but it wasn't. The word controversial is part of the quote. Indeed, here is the first sentence from the NYT article. Debresser, I'm not sure why you agree with the removal. The lead is quoting a source and the source says as such.
- For the record, I agreed with Kamel Tebaast's removal of the word "controversial" for the reasons he indicated in his edit summary. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a Russian-born, Sorbonne-educated scholar who took an insular Hasidic group that almost came to an end with the Holocaust and turned it into one of the most influential and controversial forces in world Jewry.
Sir Joseph (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Jerry Seinfeld has some great lines about "With all due respect." As long as you begin your sentence, "With all due respect," you can virtually say anything after that. With all due respect, you're an idiot! It seems to be the same with quotes. As long as something is in quotes, anything can be placed on Wikipedia. In retrospect, I did not see the quotes, so, yes, that makes a difference. However, for previously stated reasons, the word "controversial" should not be in the lede. Therefore, I suggest that we remove the quotation marks, remove the word, and keep the citation. Kamel Tebaast (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC) To add one other element, the voice of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in particular is not in quotations. Quotes are generally reserved for someone of note (and a reason for) making the quotes: "Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time," said Magic Johnson. The meaning is obvious when stated by Magic, not an anonymous quote. Hence, the quote placed in the lede should not be a quote. It wasn't made by a president, or anyone of note, but simply by a NY Times journalist with his biased POV. The quote should not be in the lede with the word controversial. Kamel Tebaast (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
praise/criticism balance
There were discussions previously on these talk pages of including details of MMS utterances that were racist concerning the superiority of jews over others. There is also the incident in which his cortege of vehicles broke a red light and killed one guyanese child and severely injured another in NYC . In what appears to be a saintly life these incidents stand in sharp contrast. The city of new york paid out 400,000 dollars to the victims of the motorcade driver. Was this because the police escort had led the entire motorcade through a red light ?
I hope that this article is not yet another example of where a group of editors sharing a particular bond and an enthusiasm for the subject have staked it out to include only positive information.
Is there any record that any other editor is aware of, of Schneerson even once apologising on behalf of his young driver riding shotgun who killed and injured two children ? If not, it would be consistent with the ugly attributed racist remarks --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please see in the archives of this talkpage, that this was discussed previously. By the way, there is no doubt that the rabbi himself was not involved in that accident. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tumadoireacht: There is nothing from stoping you to be BOLD. You can also be reveted for WP:UNDUE or other such policy violations. KamelTebaast 22:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Kamel Tebaast Actually there is; this was discussed and rejected previously. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser, as I wrote, there is nothing stopping Tumadoireacht from being BOLD; however, as I also wrote, they may be reverted (as you stated). KamelTebaast 20:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser- I had already pointed out that the subjects WERE previously mentioned, but they were not rejected as you state. Also there are two items - the alleged racist statements of Schneerson, and the significance of Schneerson's motor cortege having killed and maimed children. Do you maintain that there should be no mention of, or link to either from this article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 03:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tumadoireacht: for the record, "Schneerson's motor cortege" did not kill or maim anyone. A driver did, of which there was a Grand Jury hearing. KamelTebaast 03:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- For the record: the record does not concur with your opinion stated here Debresser. See reference in discussion below and NYT articles at both the time and anniversaries since also. The fatal car was there because of Schneerson. Why do you have difficulty acknowledging that undisputed fact ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tumadoireacht: for the record, "Schneerson's motor cortege" did not kill or maim anyone. A driver did, of which there was a Grand Jury hearing. KamelTebaast 03:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser- I had already pointed out that the subjects WERE previously mentioned, but they were not rejected as you state. Also there are two items - the alleged racist statements of Schneerson, and the significance of Schneerson's motor cortege having killed and maimed children. Do you maintain that there should be no mention of, or link to either from this article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 03:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser, as I wrote, there is nothing stopping Tumadoireacht from being BOLD; however, as I also wrote, they may be reverted (as you stated). KamelTebaast 20:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Kamel Tebaast Actually there is; this was discussed and rejected previously. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tumadoireacht: There is nothing from stoping you to be BOLD. You can also be reveted for WP:UNDUE or other such policy violations. KamelTebaast 22:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The death of Gavin Cato and the Crown Heights Riot are linked to Schneerson
I have not commented on this hagiographic article for months; it still remains so. In the past I focused on singular issues which have substantive backing. Now looking at this point, I have no idea why there is zero mention of the Schneerson in relation to one of the largest, most influential riots in recent New York City. Again, Schneerson is not directly to blame for Gavin Cato's death. But he was in the second car of a three car caravan returning from the visiting his wife's grave, under police escort when the car following him, so as not to depart from the entourage, accidentally jumped the curb and hit two young children. A riot followed and two men were killed, many arrested, looting and civil disturbances ensued. I think this was an important day in the life of the city and of Schneerson, even if to say he was not driving or in the car involved in the accident or involved in any of the decisions afterward. But linked to the event? For certain. No doubt. Article after article from journals in the city mention his name when talking about the incident. Again, none says he caused the events, but he is linked. I tried to look back through the archives to see how any decision was made that there is no room in the article to mention this link.
For example, the Crown Heights riot article states:
The riots began on August 19, 1991, after two children of Guyanese immigrants were unintentionally struck by an automobile in the motorcade of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of a Jewish religious movement... This event was said to cause tensions between Jewish and black residents to erupt.
I argue that at least this same sentence should be included, in this article. To exclude it is to remove one of the most consequential days in the life of Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Rococo1700, I agree that it can be noted in the article. However, as you'll notice in the main article, Menachem Mendel Schneerson is mentioned only twice, in both case, only stating that it was his motorcade. Meaning, he was ancillary to the entire situation. So, yes, I agree that it can be mentioned, however, I suggest with caution, and only as it was written in the main article, as no more than a footnote that it was his motorcade in which a driver was involved in the incidents that ignited the riots. KamelTebaast 04:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps the greater relevance has to do with the context of the perception of the Lubavitch by the African American community of the neighborhood, but as a leader, one might find some way to integrate Schneerson into that milieu of interactions. The Gavin Cato incident was a spark for a deeper problem between two groups that either don't interact though they share some of the "same roads". Again not central to Schneerson's life, but worth some notice.
Again, if I recall there have been incidents where a presidential motorcade has caused an accident. For example, a policeman tragically died escorting a Obama's presidential motorcade in Florida a few years ago. I don't think that merits an entry in Obama's biography. But in the case of Gavin Cato, it was not only the death from the motorcade, it was the larger echo of the riots, the subsequent killings, the later trial, and I would hopes someone would enter one sentence about what Schneerson thought of the events.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- The "perception of the Lubavitch by the African American community of the neighborhood" is a different article as is the "case of Gavin Cato." If there are RSs regarding the Rebbe and those events, it can certainly make the article. KamelTebaast 06:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- This book may form one pillar of reference for an informed debate on what details of the incident should be included in this article. The jewish leader's criticisms of Schneerson's silence and obscurity after are also worthy of note. https://books.google.ie/books?id=StQXz-ClGuUC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=schneerson+apology+for+crown+heights+death&source=bl&ots=yRlgEGCuWu&sig=--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are after on this Talk page. As you know, you are free to edit the article based on RSs. If you are reverted, then the discussion will come to the Talk page. That said, much of what I read in your linked book is opinion, interpretation, and ultimately could be WP:SYNTH. KamelTebaast 04:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- i am attempting to generate debate with a view to reaching consensus. One need not always be bold. Much of I read in the linked book was reportage on statements of Jewish and African American leaders and other authorities on Schneerson's involvement and silence. It is not Synth to mention such well sourced statements from the players. I am surprised that any editor could confuse the two.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 05:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are after on this Talk page. As you know, you are free to edit the article based on RSs. If you are reverted, then the discussion will come to the Talk page. That said, much of what I read in your linked book is opinion, interpretation, and ultimately could be WP:SYNTH. KamelTebaast 04:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- This book may form one pillar of reference for an informed debate on what details of the incident should be included in this article. The jewish leader's criticisms of Schneerson's silence and obscurity after are also worthy of note. https://books.google.ie/books?id=StQXz-ClGuUC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=schneerson+apology+for+crown+heights+death&source=bl&ots=yRlgEGCuWu&sig=--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Why was the entry on the Crown Heights Riot deleted. Kamel Tebaast has deleted information that was well sourced and relevant to Schneerson. Some time ago, I complained about the fact that this article included information that was non-factual. Now it seems to be excluding factual information. You can state that the Schneerson was not in the car that crashed. You can not however argue that the event has no relationship to him. One could comment that the controversy, and it is a controversy is that the event revealed existing tensions between Jewish and Black residents in the community. As a leader in that community, his actions had an impact, albeit a complex one, leading to that day and the time around it. To not mention this day in his life, when people died, and millions of dollars of costs were involved, is wrong. Others can argue how to interpret his actions or inactions. I only stress, that the link of Schneerson to the event can not be denied. It was his motorcade. Again, if there is blanket deletion of this, I recommend the neutrality of this article be questioned and we have a debate about whether some authors are protecting the article to favor a biased depiction of Schneerson's biography, not to reflect his life. Again, if Kamel Tebaast had a different section to add this to, he is welcome. The question of a proofread, could be valid, but it is a responsibility for him. The citation was provided. Proofread it first, then modify if you wish. Rococo1700 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think material extraneous to a biography of Menachem Mendel Schneerson should be included in this article. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was not driving the vehicle that struck Gavin Cato nor was he even in that vehicle. That was an unfortunate accident but no one ever blamed Menachem Mendel Schneerson for that accident. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is not extraneous to his biography. My text did not blame Schneerson. You are wrong in implying that it did.
- The obituary for Schneerson in the major newspaper of New York City states in paragraph 4 and 5 Rabbi Schneerson Led A Small Hasidic Sect To World Prominence by Ari Goldman, June 13, 1994:
- Rabbi Schneerson had been ailing in recent years and more reclusive than ever -- he had a heart attack in the 1970's and a stroke at his father-in-law's grave in March 1992. But his followers were at the center of events that shaped New York City in the 1990's.
- The Crown Heights disturbances in the summer of 1991, which became a central issue in last year's mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. And four Hasidic youths who were shot on the Brooklyn Bridge in early March were returning from a visit to the Manhattan hospital where the Rebbe was recuperating from a cataract operation. A 16-year-old Hasidic student die, and a Lebanese national was charged.
- Again please find show me evidence from reliable, nonprimary sources, that do not include this event as part of his life. Even so, you have a difficult time stating what you do, when a summation of the man's biography in the major newspaper of his town includes the above information. If you wish, we can paraphrase from the paragraph above(starting with The Crown Heights disturbances. You can place this in the text in different sections of the article. Rococo1700 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- This was discussed before, at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F. I stand by my opinion from then, that there is no connection to the rabbi. In reply to a comment above, the fact that the car was in the rabbi's entourage, or even just a follower who drove behind him, is only an incidental connection. He wasn't charged, summoned or anything.
- Now, if someone were to write a short paragraph about the accident leading to riots and how the rabbi related to those riots, that might be something noteworthy. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Debresser's conclusion. There was NO CONSENSUS in the archive quoted by Debresser to exclude this from Schneerson's biography. If anything, the sense of the discussion was that it should be included. It has been repeatedly excised by persons with a bias. As I stated above, Debresser, if you have a reliable source which indicates that this was not important in Schneerson's life, I would like to see it. I have quoted the obituary from the most prominent newspaper in the city in which Schneerson lived, and it does feel that the incident was relevant to mention, with more than a sentence, and this is a summary of his life that is shorter than our Wikepedia article. This alone is a strong, powerful, independent, verifiable indication that it should be included. Your opinion, while welcome, does not suffice to delete my entry without some verifiable reasoning why it should not be linked to his life. People died because his motorcade suffered an accident. The event is an example, as I stated in the paragraph, that there were tensions between the Black Community and the Lubavitch Community. Schneerson was a leader of the latter community. If not the accident, then the riots also have a bearing on him. Both do. I am standing my ground. I have facts and a reliable source to back this up. You do not. Do not delete this, or we will have to start again larger debates on this article. This article has a long history of this problem. You can start a request for editorial input.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I have elected to restore the deletion to the controversy section, given how controversy is still engenders. Again, there is no controversy that this is part of his biography.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the archived discussion and others, I am convinced that discussions in this regard become to easily intractable, and devolve into racism versus anti-Semitism debates. I have posted this in the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not discussing a new issue, but one which in the past appeared to coalesce over the inclusion of the facts as a sentence in the article, however, that seems to be opposed by one party, despite evidence of its link to Schneerson's biography. Having others add to the discussion or arbitrate would be useful.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rioting does not create a connection to Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The traffic accident can serve as a pretext for rioting. But Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not the cause of this accident, and no one ever blamed Menachem Mendel Schneerson for this accident. Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Schneerson has only accidental and rather remote relation to the event, therefore a separate section in his bio is undue. At best, it may be listed in the "See also" section. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)