Kamel Tebaast (talk | contribs) →Where to place Crown Heights riot edit?: Warning to Rococo |
Rococo1700 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 426: | Line 426: | ||
:Rococo, if you add your own version again into the article while this is being discussed in Talk, I'll report you to AE. I'll place a warning on your Talk page as well. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">[[User:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="color:Black;background:#FFD700;">Kamel</span>]][[User talk:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="background:Black;color:#FFD700;">Tebaast</span>]]</span> 19:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
:Rococo, if you add your own version again into the article while this is being discussed in Talk, I'll report you to AE. I'll place a warning on your Talk page as well. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">[[User:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="color:Black;background:#FFD700;">Kamel</span>]][[User talk:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="background:Black;color:#FFD700;">Tebaast</span>]]</span> 19:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
Kamel, there is a open debate about the neutrality of this article, by all means report me to AE. Threats mean little in Wikipedia if they are not backed by substantive contributions. And you are not providing any well-sourced material to counter the last entry by Debresser. And again, I ask you not to delete well sourced, relative material from the entry. Remember we are talking of material that was part of this article for years before it was deleted without any discussion in 2013. But again, that is not the reason, that it should be placed in the article; the reason it should be inserted is that it is well-sourced, relevant material. It is a substantial part of his biography in the New York Times obituary summarizing Schneerson's life. It is a controversy mentioned in histories of the events as linked to him. Kamel, this circle of argument has to end somewhere, if not it is merely your whim, your opinions against the sources. That is why I went before the neutrality committee. I have argued here repeatedly with well-sourced material. All you say is that you don't like it. That does not suffice. The failure by you and Bus Stop, and Debresser to support your position with reliable sources, or the counter what is stated in the reliable source material in the article. Again, my recommendation is that the solution here needs to be arbitrated, not mediated, because as your most recent post suggests, all you wish to do is argue based on your fancy, not focus on the subject on hand using well-sourced material. I am going to revert your deletion of Debresser.[[User:Rococo1700|Rococo1700]] ([[User talk:Rococo1700|talk]]) 21:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:34, 20 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)
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)
Staszek: Rioting does not create a connection to Schneerson. However rioting makes it important. What makes a connection to Schneerson is that the biography of Schneerson and the reporting about the incidents of the day by all the major newspapers link the event to the motorcade of Schneerson. If you wish to start a Wikipedia biography page for Motorcade of Schneerson and claim it is linked to that and not his motorcade. In New York City there are many pedestrian accidents, every day. Only once every few decades does such an event lead to a riot. I never said or wrote that schneerson caused the accident. That is your straw man argument. Nor did I say he was blamed for the accident. I only said he was forever linked to the event. To say his presence was remote in relation to the event is far-fetched. It was a car length away. It was a car trying to catch up with him. The other question that arises is why the persons at that corner responded the way they did, and there is no doubt that the perception of a motorcade led by policeman to ferry this man seemed to fit in with some preconceived tensions between the two communities. Schneerson was the leader of one of the communities. Again, nobody blames anyone by saying his motorcade came by, a pedestrian was killed by one of the cars of his motorcade. Riots ensued and two others died, and a large amount of damage was done to persons and properties. You can't detach Schneerson from the events, regardless of who you blame. But ultimately, again, a major biography of the man by the major paper of his city lists this event as part of his obituary, do you have an equivalent non-biased assessment of his life that does so? Please do not say that I said Schneerson caused this (I did not) or that no one blamed him (I did not) or that he was remote (when it was paragraph four in his obituary in his obituary and in all the reviews of the event I have read.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Also I invite anyone to tell me how in the world, the discussion at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F decided that this was not going to be included. It did not. I agree that one could word this in many ways, but the words have to include the statement "a car in the motorcade of Schneerson" and "Crown Height Riots" in the same sentence. And it has to a sentence within his biography, not a see also. You can elaborate as much as you want about how he was not in the exact car, never part of the investigation, did not incite the riot, etc. However the fact is a pedestrian accident led to one of the most influential riots in the City of New York. However it was not just any pedestrian accident, but a car in a caravan for Schneerson. That, tragically was clearly part of the event, and thus links him to it. This was not an event only linked to the driver of that car. You can not convince me that is not part of Schneerson's biography, because the historical sources see it as part of his biography. Schneerson is and will always be linked to that history (others can argue blame, I do not). Schneerson's biography, by authoritative sources, is recounted with this event as part of his life. Again, this does not assign cause, blame, opinion, but it acknowledges these very important world or city events were linked to him.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am glad that we are at least calmly considering these questions. I have referenced above already the strong media and public figure reaction at the time to Schneerson's silence after the road accident and death, and similar comments on the anniversaries of the accident and deaths. I have not yet found any reference explaining why the city of new york paid out 400,000 dollars compensation to the child's family rather than it being the driver who paid or his employer Schneerson and his organisation, but it is likely to have been explained in the nyc newspapers at the time of the award.
Is there an interested editor with time and access to check this ? The references to obscure recorded comments that Schneerson made shortly afterward, that some are reported as believing were oblique or esoteric expressions of regret or apology for the motorcade causing the accident are worthy of mention. The question of inclusion of mention of Schneerson's espousal of jewish scriptural assertions of jewish superiority over other humans might also be worth a sentence or two in the controversy section. I have not yet found any references linking the superiority assertions with the silence but mention of both is completely missing from this biographical article which is distinctly odd. Editor Debresser may be unfamiliar with the talk page guidelines where it states at the start of the Central Points section ( under Maintaining WP Policy) that "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation" I hope that all interested editors can work amicably together here, (without accusations of agenda or laziness !) in a manner fully informed by a fresh close reading of talk page policy in an effort to try to improve this somewhat selective article from its present neglected state.After all is this not the purpose of the talk page? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rococo1700—you say "a major biography of the man by the major paper of his city lists this event as part of his obituary". Yes, all it does is "list" it. It barely mentions it. It doesn't draw a cause and effect relation between the two, and for good reason. The car in which Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a passenger was in front of the car that had the accident. I support the suggestion by Staszek Lem that a link to Crown Heights riot be found in the "See also" section. If there is the misunderstanding that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was somehow connected to the Crown Heights riot, as is being argued here, then the link to that article could serve an educational purpose. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Bus Stop: When I say that biography includes this incident, we are talking about a full paragraph of his obituary; perhaps out of maybe 20 paragraphs about his entire life. If we were to translate that into this article, then 5% of the article should be about Crown Heights. This is not just a passing remark in his obituary. Please look at the sources before you make comments like this. The article, nor does my entry, imply a cause and effect. However, the events stemming from that incident were consequential for the city and his life. Again, you can not detach the event from the fact that a car in the motorcade with a police escort for Schneerson had an accident. That initial event triggered riots and was associated with at least three deaths. Again the events were complex, but they relate to that trigger. I do not want to write a large section about the long tribulation that was the affair. I think one analogy here is Rodney King and the The 1992 Los Angeles riots; King did not cause the riots, he did not participate in them, he does not appear to have wanted them: but events/reactions emerging from actions related to him, triggered these riots. Events/reactions emerging from a crash by a car in Schneerson's motorcade led to riots in New York. Major, consequential riots. People died. No blame. No simple causation. But certainly linked and important. No, a See also section makes this peripheral to his life. I strongly disagree with that treatment. That is not how the event was treated in the New York Times. The evaluation by biographies is that it was not peripheral. It was not a footnote in his life or the life of New York City. If you wish to add to the Crown Heights articles, what Schneerson did or thought or others thought of his reaction, feel free.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Rococo1700, your analogy comparing Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Rodney King is so absurd that it does not deserve a response. Regarding your RS, the ONLY thing you can pull from it is that "a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child." That's it, obviously undeserving of an entire section. You keep trying to broaden this about the riots while your RSs don't support it. KamelTebaast 04:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Kamel Tebaast: just because you say so does not mean it is right. Again I asked specifically for you to counter the obituary for Schneerson in the New York Time. It dedicates a full paragraph to the events. You continue to revert with no justification except your own feelings. I recommend all other editors to attend to [[1]]
Editing in this biography becomes very difficult because one deals with editors like Kamel who do not see m to care about facts; I have no idea where he gets the only thing you can pull from it. What is it? The New York Times Obituary for Schneerson? The New York Daily News retrospective on the Riots? Neither of those sources does that. That simply is not true. Debresser makes false claims that it was agreed not to include this. Bus Stop says that the Crown Height Riot is only listed in his biographical obituary. Again, he did not read the source. That is not true. It is 5-10% of the space dedicated to his life.
Again the New York Times obituary summarizing his biography, dedicates at least 3-4 paragraphs to the events related to the Crown Heights riot in an article of some 30 paragraphs. The entry in Wikipedia says nothing about this. This is absurd. My recommendation is that the dispute resolution arbitrate this and perhaps ban some of the editors above from this article if they continue to revert well-sourced relevant and important information. I also think the article should have a neutrality disputed heading until this is resolved. Again in other situations, I would take more time for this, but looking at prior discussions on this talk page, I recognize this is not an article where some editors have an open mind. They will delete, and spout information that has no basis in fact. I am sorry if this is harsh. But been there, done that, for this article in the past. My recommendation is that far more editors need to get involved. When the Crown Heights entry is placed in, the article should be protected against reversion. Rococo1700 (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Rococo1700, my last reply to you was not about "feelings", but hard facts. This conversation has run its course. KamelTebaast 05:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Show me why an authoritative, nonbiased biographical entry (his obituary) on Schneerson, in the major newspaper in the City where he lives, can dedicate paragraphs to Crown Heights Riots, but you delete any mention of it. Show me why retrospective histories of the riot mention Schneerson and his motorcade, but this article does not. Again, just reverting well-sourced entries does not make you right. I have strongly recommended that an NPOV banner be placed on the article. It would not be the firts time. The debate is just beginning. There is a dispute process afoot. I recommend that you keep an open mind to recommendations.
I have asked workgroups interested in this area the following:
Continued
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson
I have had many problems in past with this article, but the most recent problem is that the article fails to mention the Crown Heights riots, even if but to mention that Schneerson's motorcade was involved. Again my source, and my justification, for adding this to Schneerson's article is that the New York Times obituary [2], and every retrospective article I found on the riots, mentions Schneerson. When I add any mention there is a team of editors that raises extraneous and false claims. I would urge authors interested in this area to help edit some entry in this article that does justice to the link.
My entry, which I thought was the least controversial, although entered in the controversy section (should it have its own section or his legacy?) stated:
- Crown Heights Riot
The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991, which became a central issue in a New York City 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. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. A grand jury found no reason bring charges against anyone in the motorcade.[1][2]
I could live with a shorter version. My quibble is that an article on Schneerson should include the words: motorcade of ... Schneerson and Crown Heights riot in the same paragraph. I could use help from editors providing some reasonable framework with how to proceed.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ New York Daily News, article titled Crown Heights erupts in three days of race riots after Jewish driver hits and kills Gavin Cato, 7, in 1991, retrospective about the riots, by Rich Schapiro and Ginger Adams Otis, August 13, 2016.
- ^ Rabbi Schneerson Led A Small Hasidic Sect To World Prominence by Ari Goldman, June 13, 1994.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING THREAD. THE CONVERSATION SHOULD CONTINUE THERE. KamelTebaast 05:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I proposed something like this paragraph above,[3] so I basically support this. I would demand a source for "which became a central issue in a New York City mayoral race" or even leave that out as too unrelated. However, under no circumstance do I view this as a "controversy", and admit that I have no clear proposal where to put this in the article. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I write pargaraphs, based on the citations, and both Debresser and Kamel Tebaast delete and either voice false conclusions, with no facts, or they look to a straw man argument. I ask for biography or a history of the times by a neutral source that excludes this event. They cannot provide one. This is part of the controversy regarding the event identified in the New York Times in the final summation of his life:
- Rabbi Schneerson was criticized by some black and some Jewish leaders for not publicly commenting on the violence or expressing his sympathies to the family of the dead child (Gavin Cato). His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue.[1]
- Again others then state it wasn't his car... it was an accident... someone else was driving... all these points, correct in fact, miss the historical context. There are pedestrian accidents, some fatal, all over New York City every day. But to extract Schneerson from a time and place in history, is to fail to answer that most central of questions why is this accident different from all other accidents? To historians and journalists of the event there appeared to be a perception among local Blacks in Crown Heights that the Lubavitch, did not see black people. That the driver did not see the children, that the ambulances did not see the children, etc. And there was a perception among those journalists, that the Lubavitch saw Blacks as a dangerous force, requiring police motorcades, a separate ambulance system, a separate protection force... Clearly this a complex event, and that can be left to an article about Crown Heights. What is not complex, what is not controversial, what is incontrovertibly cited in authoritative reviews of the life of Schneerson and of New York City during these days, is that the events were linked to Schneerson, that they cannot be understood, nor can his place in the world be known without making reference to such major historical events, of which he was a part of, however indirectly at the moment of the accident. How someone can say an event like this, which leads to riots is not a controversy in Schneerson's life, begs belief. Both the major sources above would support the event as a controversy, in which different people had different understanding of the events. Some would see it as a legacy, but not a positive one. In this article the legacy section focuses on his positive contributions.
Write a paragraph that is acceptable to others; if not, allow a paragraph to be entered into the article and reach a consensus on the talk page on how to modify it. Again, if there is no movement towards this information in the article, then I recommend arbiters step in, insert some notice of the controversy, and block editing on the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rococo1700—we should write a straightforward article about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. There isn't a pointed relationship between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop: the obituary on Schnnerson in The New York Times is a straightforward article about the man's life. 4-5 of the paragraphs out of 30 deal with Crown Heights riot. This is not about your view of Schneerson, it is about how he is viewed by reliable, unbiased, third party sources. Again, I know you are upset about this, you are saying we should not talk about this, and yet the major newspaper in the City he lived in, dedicated a long obituary to this influential man. A substantial portion of that obituary discussed this issue. After describing that an accidenct by a car in his motorcade was the trigger to the events they stated:
- Rabbi Schneerson was criticized by some black and some Jewish leaders for not publicly commenting on the violence or expressing his sympathies to the family of the dead child (nb:Gavin Cato). His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue.[2]
I feel that somehow you parallel that latter defense. Not only did he not comment on it, but you claim that we therefore should not comment on it also. But we (editors of Wikipedia) are not him. We are not his defenders, we are historians, who share the events of his life and influence and legacy. The Crown Heights riots are linked to his life, influence, and legacy; what that influence and legacy is, is for future debate, and likely in an arena that is not Wikipedia. The link and the history is for Wikipedia to discuss. Again, write a paragraph on how this is linked to Schneerson. If you want to try, here is an example: a car in his police-led motorcade was passing an intersection when it was forced by another car into the sidewalk, accidentally killing a pedestrian Black boy. Events spiraled from there into riots, leading to the death of a Lubavitch man and a man driving through Crown Heights, and highlighting the tensions between his followers and the local Black community. Schneerson never commented on the events. Again, you complain, but do not address a prominent chapter of his history as acknowledged by authoritative third party sources summarizing the legacy of his life. Address that. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Kamel Tebaast again answer the question. You keep ducking the question, how do we add a section to the entry on Schneerson that states:
- Crown Heights Riot
The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. Schneerson had no public comment on the death of the child or the riots. [3][4]
References
- ^ Rabbi Schneerson Led A Small Hasidic Sect To World Prominence by Ari Goldman, June 13, 1994.
- ^ Ari Goldman, New York Times, June 13, 1994.
- ^ New York Daily News, article by Rich Schapiro and Ginger Adams Otis, August 13, 2016.
- ^ New York times article, by Ari Goldman, June 13, 1994.
Again, you keep switching around topics. Address the question: the paragraph above is well sourced. It is an important part of his biography. How do you include in the article?
My point for dispute resolution, is that you delete well sourced and important information, and offer no solutions to what is obviously a problem. As I have stated, and you have repeatedly either failed to acknowledge, the obituary for Schneerson in the major newspaper of the city in which he lived includes a substantial mention of the link of Schneerson to the Crown Heights Riot. The Wikipedia article does not. It avoids it. To be a truthful, historic account of the important events of Schneerson's life, it has to. If it continues to avoid this, then it is a biased piece of propaganda. It should have a banner stating that it is not a neutral point of view, or the article should be completely rewritten by outside editors. Now answer the question, how do you insert the significant, well sourced material, or information reflecting the link of Schneerson to the Crown Heights Riots, into this article. Stop raising straw arguments.
I raised the well-sourced statements that Schneerson failed to address the events occurring around him during and after the riots, because that is similar to what you are doing. "Schneerson's motorcade had a accident. The accident killed a small Black boy. This led to a major riot in one of the largest cities in the United States. He had no comment on the events." Include that in the article. It is history. It is fact. It is substantiated by authoritative third party sources. Address the issue. If you say again that it does not belong in the article, then provide me well-substantiated, well sourced reasoning why you think it was wrong for the obituary of an article on the life of this man to include this information as a major event in his life. Rococo1700 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression that whatever is written in a NYT obit should automatically be placed into a Wikipedia article. The NYT also deals with NY issues, so they may expand on topics that have been written extensively in the paper. That said, you seem to want an entire expose when only two items were written directly about Menachem Mendel Schneerson: (1) that it was his motorcade of which one car struck, etc. and (2) the author surmised, without any specifics, that Menachem Mendel Schneerson received criticism from Jews and blacks for not saying anything. To reiterate, for the last time, the first part can be added, but going into detail about the riots is well beyond the scope of the article (as suggested above). The second part should have secondary sources to back this and, more specifically, details about who the Jews and blacks are that said it. It is neither my responsibility nor desire to do your research to find this. KamelTebaast 22:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Kamel Tebaast: you are wrong. 1) You are wrong. The New York Times obituary, as obituaries always do, talked about a former person, a specific one: Schneerson. 2) You are wrong because an article titled: Rabbi Schneerson Led A Small Hasidic Sect To World Prominence as dealing with only New York issues: Again, I urge you to read the sources, not just type random thoughts.
Let me understand your last deletion, are you deleting this statement because it is controversial or because you think it is not controversial, but should not be a controversy. I have also stated: find another place for it. I insist.
Again I am going to urge editors to freeze this article. And block all editing and start some type of arbitration process. Cause you do not accept reality.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Again I urge administrators to freeze this article. And block all editing and start some type of arbitration process. Cause you do not accept reality. The recent edit from Bus Stop is bad faith. It is a lie. Yes the riot started after the accident. There is not denying that. All the material in the paragraph was sourced and true. Schneerson was in the motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident. A boy died. Later two men died. Schneerson said nothing. All these are true. The events of the riot, before during and after, are very complex. But that does not. I underline DOES NOT extract Schneerson from history. I promise your that this will not go away. You do not have a consensus to exclude it. You will never have my agreement for that. As I stated, I have major authoritative third party source material performing an overview, a biography of Schneerson and they dedicate significant attention to this episode. You can argue about why the community of Crown Heights responded in this way to the accident occurring with a car in Schneerson's mortorcade. But it would not have been a motorcade without Schneerson. It would not have had a police escort without Schneerson. However for a person to come to this article and not see any reference to the historical event. In which millions of dollars of property were lost. In which at least three people lost their lives. This is a "great lie", propaganda, hagiography, whitewashing of a life. My recommendation for administrators is that the article be frozen and that arbitration impose a solution. The editors Bus Stop, Debresser, and Kamel Tebaast are not interested in a Wikipedia entry that reflects history. The article is propaganda.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Rococo1700 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rococo1700—are you sure that you are interested in using the Talk page to resolve this? You are editing the article against the present consensus. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rococo1700—there are disconnects between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a passenger in another car than the one involved in the accident. Accidents are resolved in a court of law. If some said the rioting was because of an accident involving Menachem Mendel Schneerson that would be a pretext for rioting. It wouldn't be the cause for rioting. And the source you've provided doesn't say that the accident is the cause of the rioting. Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not under any obligation to speak on the events unfolding in the wake of the accident and the death of Gavin Cato and the deaths of two other men and the destruction of property over the next few days. We don't have to report every criticism voiced against Menachem Mendel Schneerson. It is his prerogative not to speak on events that were out of control. Menachem Mendel Schneerson didn't cause the mayhem and he was under no obligation to try to say something to curtail it. Some said he should have spoken up to try to quell the Crown Heights riots. That is minor. It doesn't have to be mentioned in this article. The disconnects between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot matter. We can include a "See also" section linking to Crown Heights riot. Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bus Stop that is not true. Over and over again you state falsehoods and straw man arguments. Examples:
Bus Stop: Schneerson was a passenger in another car than the one involved in the accident. Me: I never said that period.
Bus Stop: And the source you've provided doesn't say that the accident is the cause of the rioting. Me: Not true. That is a lie: the New York Daily News article states: Twenty-five years after the tragic car accident that sparked the Crown Heights riots Now will you admit that you are wrong with respect to this fact.
Bus Stop: We don't have to report every criticism voiced against Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Me: But you can not fail to report on a what neutral historians consider a major event linked to his life. I am not interested in reporting criticism. Just bare bone facts. Not as a see also, but as a major event related to his life. You have too much bias to edit this article. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rococo1700—you are taking liberty with the word "sparked". One thing followed the other. But that one thing did not cause the other. It matters that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was not in the car involved in the crash. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was not even the driver of the car that he was in. He was a passenger. If a group of people has an inclination to riot and they cite Menachem Mendel Schneerson as a cause for that rioting we do not have to dutifully report that falsehood. And if fault is found by some that Menachem Mendel Schneerson failed to address the rioters in the midst of widespread mayhem we do not have to dutifully report that some felt he should have spoken up. Falsehoods were being spread and he chose not to enter the fray, which is his prerogative. It may not have been politically correct but it was his prerogative. The Crown Heights riot is not part of the legacy of Menachem Mendel Schneerson. It was used as a pretext for unlawful behavior and it was based on falsehoods such as the notion that somehow Menachem Mendel Schneerson caused the death of the seven year old boy Gavin Cato. To correct those errors in perception we should provide in the See also section a link to Crown Heights riot. The inclusion of what you are advocating is merely optional. I feel it is misleading and should be left out. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Bus Stop: the word "cause" is yours I have not used "cause". Again you are arguing a straw man argument. You do this all the time. You argue against something I did not state. My sentence said: The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots.[New York daily news]
I think the word "set off" for the disturbances is correct. "a riot then erupted". I think that this accurately reflects the sources. The sources accurately reflect history. Again, the fact that Schneerson was in the motorcade is relevant. It would not have been a police led motorcade but for him. The car behind him would not have tried to catch up but for him. No blame, but you can't extract those facts from the event, and they may have been misinterpreted afterward, but only because they were facts. If it had been a random car, and there had been a false rumor that Schneerson was driving erratically or speeding, and he had never been in a police motorcade, I would agree that it would not merit entry. But it was his motorcade, and that appears to have changed the dynamic and interpretation of the event. Again, a pedestrian accident in New York City sparks or sets off one of the largest, if not the largest riot, in the largest city of the richest country in the world. Why was this accident different than other accidents. Not only that, how is it perceived by history and the neutral sources, who perceive it as a major event in his life. The fact that he did not comment on it is also one reason why the sources think he can not detach himself from this history. My statement does not apply blame, that is all you. You are misleading in that regard. You cannot just put a see also section without explaining why Schneerson is linked to the incident. That makes no sense. You can debate and discuss blame or not in the entry for Crown Heights riot. I am not interested in that debate. What is important is to realize that Schneerson's biography is linked to this historical event, and that reliable sources support this. This controversy in Schneerson's life belongs in his biography. If not controversy, then why are we arguing. Why are you raising all those issues about blame. I think your persistent deletion of this is due to bias.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- The death of a seven year old boy served as a pretext for the deliberate killing of two men and the deliberate destruction of property, but the death of the seven year old was only an accident as opposed to a deliberate act. This article should not imply that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was at fault in any way for the two deliberate deaths and the deliberate destruction of property. The Crown Heights riot article presumably describes the sequence of events. There need not be a "See also" entry for Crown Heights riot and there should not be the edit that you wish to make. This article doesn't have to describe everything said about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. We should exercise judgement and place material in its proper article. Despite your protestations to the contrary I think you feel that Menachem Mendel Schneerson bears some responsibility for the riot. A traffic accident is not addressed by a riot, not even one in which a seven year old boy dies. A traffic accident is addressed in a court of law. A momentary flareup is understandable—perhaps a fist gets thrown—but a sustained riot is a different thing—involving multiple participants and lasting days and including the clearly deliberate killings of two men and the destruction of property. Just saying that the Menachem Mendel Schneerson motorcade traffic accident triggered the riot doesn't make it so. The riot had an impetus other than this and we should not imply otherwise, hence I for one vote against the edit that you wish to make. Bus stop (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Bus Stop.
- 1) All your "deliberate" statements and "guilt" proclamations are absent from my entry which does not assign blame. You are obsessed with this, take it up in a Crown Heights riot article. Again it is your straw man argument. My entry says they occurred and were linked. period. You cannot continue to argue against what is not there and use that to justify blocking well sourced events linked to Schneerson's life. I am not interested in recounting the complexities of the riot in this entry. Only that an accident by the motorcade of this man set off the events, and he did not comment on the events. period.
- 2) You say: " Just saying that the Menachem Mendel Schneerson motorcade traffic accident triggered the riot doesn't make it so."
Your statement in untrue. It is a falsehood. As I have stated to you. Well sourced, neutral historians in the event make this link. period. You can rant against history. I am not placing my opinion in the article; it is not me "just saying." The sources say this. It is my opinion that true history should be reflected in the article. All your rant has nothing to do with this. You are the one who thinks that your vote is the reasoning that we should use to decide what enters into the encyclopedia. Guess what, I have said, with evidence, that your vote is biased. You need to read Wikipedia:Core content policies: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.
It also must have a neutral point of view. I have done that. You use your biased point of view and nonverifiable sources (mainly yourself) to delete. I have sourced two newspapers in the city in which the events occured. One article is a biography of the man's life; the other a retrospective of the events on the day. Address this. I have stated this over and over again. You need to step away from the article and examine your biases. The entry must be allowed until a consensus can agree to delete it, not the other way around. I urge administrators to engage in this article. Rococo1700 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- You seem unconcerned with the distinction between something that occurred accidentally and something that was done intentionally. The language you suggest is "The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child." To my ear this is unacceptable because it focusses narrowly on two sequential occurrences. Were the riots really set off by the referred-to accident? In a very narrow sense, yes. But do we have to give the impression that this sequence of two events explains what the reader needs to know about that which transpired concerning a riot which included two deliberate killings? It is misleading. Was the riot caused by the motor vehicle accident? Your suggested edit continues as "In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots." Does this belong in a biography of Menachem Mendel Schneerson? Neither he nor his religious followers participated in that riot except perhaps in self-defense. The biography of Menachem Mendel Schneerson doesn't have to address misconceptions about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Related articles can and should set the record straight on the subject matter that you are arguing should be in this article. We have for instance Crown Heights riot and Lemrick Nelson. My argument is that you should not add material to this article that merely addresses misconceptions about Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I prefer an approach in which appropriate articles set the record straight on such misconceptions. The reader would be misled by the inclusion of the material that you suggest. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
BuStop: You continue to miss the point of how Wikipedia works. If you want to make your own website, feel free. Wikipedia bases itself on "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have done so. All your statements above, including "to my ear" "in a very narrow sense", all that is your original research. It does not belong in Wikipedia. Again, the biography of Schneerson in the New York Times Obituary, a summation of his life DOES ADDRESS this subject, and in far more detail than I do. You are wrong. You are welcome to try and edit related articles. But they are related. This is part of his biography, and it is not my ear, or may narrow interpretation, it is material in a reliable, published source. That has greater bearing on the entry than all your complaints. I have stated before, that you and the other editors are biased, non-neutral, and should be banned from editing this entry since you continue to delete material from reliable, published sources. I will continue to insert this in on a daily basis. You can challenge it on the talk page using the criteria for an entry to Wikipedia, not because you don't like it. Nor do I want to hear any of your legal mumbo-jumbo. This is not a court trial. The information is not meant to assess guilt or innocence. All the sources I find, every single one, dates the start of the riots to the accident. There is zero misconception here. Zero. You are not being truthful when you say that it is a misconception. Second, he did not comment on the event. If you can find a source that said, he didn't comment on the event because he did not have to, or if you wish you can use the quoted reason in the New York Times article, that said His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue. Again, I do not give my opinion. I only include something which in his obituary takes 5-10% of the space; while in this article it is banned from even being mentioned. That is wrong. That is a sign of bias. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. You are welcome to argue his innocence, his rightfulness, anything you want. I don't care. You are not welcome, and should never be, to whitewash a major historical events in the world linked to him. That is not welcome in an encyclopedia. I will continue to insert this into the article. I recommend that administrators, arbitrate a solution, there will be no consensus. A "see also" link is not enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs)
- You say "Bus stop: You continue to miss the point ..." You continue to miss some points too. For instance the point that the vehicle in which Menachem Mendel Schneerson was a passenger had no part in the accident that unfortunately killed Gavin Cato. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that this deserves a mention in the article, based on what's in the RS. But you're going to have a hard time attracting outside opinions to this wall of text. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Kendall-K1. I know what I am up against. No matter, I am too stubborn by half when it comes to facts. I can and will keep this up. The facts are too obvious and stubborn to shake off. I have no anti-Schneerson agenda. I only support the positive aims of an encyclopedia.
Bus Stop: you continue to miss the point. A well sourced authoritative biography of the man makes substantial mention of this event. Your opinion has no bearing on the link to Schneerson. It is not a matter of assigning blame. It is a matter of linkage and relevance. You ignore history. I am not interested in adjudicating blame, only the facts. Again, his biography is linked to this important historical event. You may not like it, but Wikipedia is not here to minister to your opinions. It is here to document neutral, relevant, important, well-sourced facts. How can you read his New York Times obituary and say that one of these has been violated. If you wish, I can also get you over a dozen other retrospectives histories or biographies that give equal amount of weight to this link. You continue to evade reality and come up with straw man arguments. You have no courage to look at the truth. You are biased and should step away from editing this article. I recommend that administrators take control of editing of this page. I am willing to hear of how you can add sentences to the text that report that events in the life of Schneerson are related to the riot of Crown Heights, at the start and some mention of his response be included. None of this should try to work all that innocence or guilt that you are concerned with in any detail. That can be discussed in the Crown Heights riot entry. I recommend you go there and add well-sourced citations to that entry. I do not object to stating that Schneerson was not in the car of motorcade that killed the child, but I do think it is relevant to him and the event that it was his motorcade. It is important to say that a child died and that other persons died afterwards from the riot. It is important to state that this crash was the immediate trigger, spark, or incident that set off the riot. Again all of this can be done without assigning innocence or blame, or that can be hashed out in the Crown Heights riot entry. I am not against including a sentence that states, he was never investigated for any role, and/or that he was not in the car involved in the accident. Or a sentence saying that he did not encourage violence, but it also has to state that he did not speak of the riots or the dead child. Again Bus Stop: the neutral authoritative and relevant sources link this event to Schneerson and cite this as an important event in his life. What you need to answer is how can we not include it as relevant to his biography.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider wording involving context such as: "Overtly anti-Jewish rioting broke out, lasting three days and costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights after a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African-American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African-American cousin. The car involved in the accident had been following another car carrying Schneerson which in turn was following a police escort vehicle."[4] Bus stop (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Bus Stop: The term anti-Semitism is not used in the New York times article nor the Daily News article use that word. A New Yorker editorial on ten years later does mention that Giuliani called the riots a pogrom, but it also mentions the sense that the Al Sharpton had that Black community felt that there were apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances. If you balance those quotations, then I agree. Strongly anti-Semitic is biased wording.
I propose in the Controversy section:
- Rabbi Schneerson and the Crown Heights riots
In August 19, 1991, a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African American cousin. The car was the tail of the three car motorcade of Schneerson, with the Rabbi in the middle car led by a police escort vehicle. After the accident, three days of rioting ensued, costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood. While some in the Black community denounced an apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances, others, including the future mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, publicly described the riots as a modern example of a pogrom; the controversy reflected a longstanding undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood between the Black and Hasidic communities. Schneerson did not comment on the riots.
All this can be substantiated, including quotations by the references provided. The word pogrom, which is a direct quote, reflects the view of some that this represented strongly anti-Semitic violence. I recommend we place it in the text, and then discuss changes.Rococo1700 (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this is relevant to article, but what source says that Schneersohn didn't say anything about the 1991 riots? I read somewhere that when Schneerson urged mayor Dikins to put an end to violence, Dikins answered "on both sides, right?", to which the rebbe responded: "there are no sides, we are all part of the same city." I think I read it in a Chabad magazine. Could you look for a source? I really doubt that Schneersohn remained silent.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- On further consideration I would revise my suggested edit to the following: "Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out to quell the Crown Heights riot or to comfort the family of a seven year old boy killed and a seven year old girl severely injured by a car accident in 1992 involving a Lubavitch driver." Bus stop (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Angelsi1989: I do not see any of the retrospectives on the riots that mentioned Dinkins visiting Schneerson. You would have to find a well-sourced account for this. It is relevant because Schneerson's obituary in the major newspaper mentions this exact point. Because retrospective histories of the event mention this. Here is the paragraph, I will insert:
- Rabbi Schneerson and the Crown Heights riots
In August 19, 1991, a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African American cousin. The car was the tail of the three car motorcade of Schneerson, with the Rabbi in the middle car led by a police escort vehicle. After the accident, three days of rioting ensued, costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood.(Ref = Ari Goldman article NYT) While some in the Black community denounced an apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances, (American Voices: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Orators By Bernard K. Duffy, Richard W. Leeman, page 416 ) others, including the future mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, publicly described the riots as a modern example of a pogrom; (http://chabadinfo.com/magazine/giuliani-to-obama-crown-heights-riots-were-a-pogrom/ and http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/01/nyregion/mayor-race-focuses-on-word.html) the controversy reflected a longstanding undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood between the Black and Hasidic communities. Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out to quell the Crown Heights riot or to comfort the family of the dead boy and his injured sister hurt by the car accident in 1992 involving a Lubavitch driver. (Ref = Ari Goldman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs)
- I find the above excessive. This is the edit that I would suggest: "Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out to quell the Crown Heights riot or to comfort the family of a Guyanese seven year old boy killed and a Guyanese seven year old girl severely injured by a car accident in 1992 involving a Lubavitch driver." Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would favor the Rococo version. It seems well sourced and covers the main points. The sources I checked all mention that it was Schneerson's motorcade so I think that should be included. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect and good faith edits to user Rococo, the overly excessive text above primarily focuses on the riots and tensions between two communities. This is neither the forum nor the article for that, which already exists at Crown Heights riot. Even the lede in that article is shorter than the proposed text here, which should probably not be more than a footnote. Rococo seems to be confusing/merging between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Chassidic community that was involved in the riots. Regardless, the only content that should be placed into the article needs to focus directly on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, which seems to be that it was a car in his police-escorted motorcade (in which he was a passenger), struck two immigrant children, killing one and injuring the other. (Twenty years after the riots, Yankel Rosenbaum's family still blames Al Sharpton for his death.[1] Are we really going to get into all of the intricacies of the riots?) As far as Menachem Mendel Schneerson being criticized for not speaking out, what is this? We must also not forget that Menachem Mendel Schneerson's public speaking was generally on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays when microphones and video are not permitted. Therefore, after any edit that criticizes him about not speaking out publicly, I would add this information as well, which is well sourced. KamelTebaast 18:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would be fine with dropping "Schneerson was criticized for failing to speak out..." Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect and good faith edits to user Rococo, the overly excessive text above primarily focuses on the riots and tensions between two communities. This is neither the forum nor the article for that, which already exists at Crown Heights riot. Even the lede in that article is shorter than the proposed text here, which should probably not be more than a footnote. Rococo seems to be confusing/merging between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Chassidic community that was involved in the riots. Regardless, the only content that should be placed into the article needs to focus directly on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, which seems to be that it was a car in his police-escorted motorcade (in which he was a passenger), struck two immigrant children, killing one and injuring the other. (Twenty years after the riots, Yankel Rosenbaum's family still blames Al Sharpton for his death.[1] Are we really going to get into all of the intricacies of the riots?) As far as Menachem Mendel Schneerson being criticized for not speaking out, what is this? We must also not forget that Menachem Mendel Schneerson's public speaking was generally on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays when microphones and video are not permitted. Therefore, after any edit that criticizes him about not speaking out publicly, I would add this information as well, which is well sourced. KamelTebaast 18:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Thanks Kamel. After seeing this clear evidence, it's clear that Schneerson spoke about the incidents and tried to calm down the situation. Any future text must mention this meeting with mayor Dinkins.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- None of this has much to do with Schneerson's biography. Schneerson wasn't in the car that had the accident. And despite the station wagon carrying four Lubavitchers following the car in which Schneerson was a passenger, the accident has nothing to do with Schneerson. A young boy and a young girl respectively, were killed and maimed, but however unfortunate that is, it has nothing to do with Schneerson. There was a "Crown Heights riot" after a station wagon carrying four Lubavitchers had a car accident that killed and maimed, respectively, a young boy and a young girl. This is a very unfortunate and sad occurrence, but the "Crown Heights riot" did not occur because of something Schneerson did. The car in which Schneerson was a passenger was not involved in any automobile accident at all. Nor did the "Crown Heights riot" occur because Schneerson failed to do something after the accident that he should have done. Schneerson was not negligent in any way. So, why are we explaining certain aspects of the "Crown Heights riot" in the Schneerson article? All of the material that we are discussing for possible inclusion in this article is extraneous to this article. We have an article on the Crown Heights riot. What we need to do in this article is alert the reader to the existence of that article. I am trying to suggest a sentence that can serve the purpose of alerting the reader to the existence of the other article. I would say "A car following Schneerson's car was involved in a fatal accident. For the next three days the Crown Heights riot took its toll claiming lives and property." That sentence (actually two sentences) serves the purpose of linking that article to this article. I would place that sentence as a freestanding, two-sentence paragraph, at the end of the New York section. I think that is the best possible placement
but I also consider placement in the lede, as the last sentence in the lede.Another possibility for linking to the other article is to use the "See also" section of this article for that purpose. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)- Bus, I'm scratching my head. First, you persuasively argue from several aspects as to why this notation is no more than a two sentence inclusion, then you add: "I also consider placement in the lede, as the last sentence in the lede." How do you jump from a non-incident regarding Menachem Mendel Schneerson to possible inclusion into the lede? KamelTebaast 03:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Kamel Tebaast—It doesn't have to be in the lede. But the purpose of anything we write in this article about the Crown Heights riots is to alert the reader to the Crown Heights riots article. That requirement calls for prominence of placement. Where is there greater prominence than in the lede? I'm less concerned with where in the article this notification is placed than what the content of that notification should be. My position is almost entirely against the inclusion in this article of material that is already in and much more appropriately belongs in the Crown Heights riot article. My only concern is that a reader should be alerted to the existence of the Crown Heights riot article. I mentioned three possible parts of the article for placement. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bus stop, please point me to the Wiki policy that calls for prominence of placement because of a linked article? KamelTebaast 05:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is a proposal: 1) this has to be placed in the controversy section. How can we argue over something this much and it not be a controversy. 2) Again Bus Stop. A biography in this encyclopedia is not what you want it to be according to your conscience. It is what reasonable, authoritative, neutral sources report it to be. I have repeatedly underscored this. Also it is not one source but multiple historical reviews that include the link of Schneerson to the events. I am not here to adjudicate innocence or blame. I am here to insert the relevant facts into the discussion. As I have stated before, other biographies and historical accounts establish this as an important event in his life, and the life of a community in Crown Heights to which he was a main leader. You bet they view it as a controversy. The sentences you propose above are not valid for this encyclopedia. First and foremost, on what neutral source do you base them? You continue to evade this important point. Second, a car following Schneerson's car could have belonged to anybody. It was a car in his police-led motorcade. While there are many questions one could raise about the entire situation? Why did he need weekly police escort? Who paid for it? How did the Black community view that? Did they view it as an example of the police protecting some in the community, and not others? Why were the men in that car under attack? Why did the ambulance initially only take the driver? Was that the police recommendation? And you could go on and on for dozens of qustions. This is a very complex issues. I think all those questions are best left to the linked article on the riot. However, the paragraph below has a balanced description of a complex event that can be well sourced. That merits a section in the controversy section of the article.
- Rabbi Schneerson and the Crown Heights riots
In August 19, 1991, a car carrying four young Lubavitchers was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy and serious injuries to his seven year old female African American cousin. The car was the tail of the three car motorcade of Schneerson, with the Rabbi in the middle car, led by a police escort vehicle. After the accident, three days of rioting ensued, costing loss of innocent life and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood.(Ref = Ari Goldman article NYT) While some leaders in the Black community, like Al Sharpton, denounced an apartheid nature of the private Hasidic ambulances, (American Voices: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Orators By Bernard K. Duffy, Richard W. Leeman, page 416 ) others, including the future mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, publicly described the riots as a modern example of a pogrom; (http://chabadinfo.com/magazine/giuliani-to-obama-crown-heights-riots-were-a-pogrom/ and http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/01/nyregion/mayor-race-focuses-on-word.html) the controversy reflected a longstanding undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood between the Black and Hasidic communities. Six days after the incident, during a meeting with mayor of the New York, David Dinkins, Rabbi Schneerson stated taht the city needed peace, not from two sides as the Mayor asked, but for all people: one people living in one city under one administration and under one God. (August 26, 1991 http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/26/nyregion/dinkins-calls-for-healing-in-brooklyn.html) Rococo1700 (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- The Crown Heights riot article and the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article are two different articles. We should not put material into this article that belongs in the other article. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
BusStop: where is your source for that? Why are the sources provided inadequate for you? Answer the question. Your complaints, biased and unsubstantiated, continue to have zero standing for this encyclopedic entry. You have to prove the other sources are either invalid, biased, or wrong, and that you have a better neutral source for important events in his life that ignores this event. Rococo1700 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, I don't have to prove the other sources are invalid. This article could optionally be burdened down with material of little relevance to this article (although arguably of relevance at another article) and I object to it being burdened down that way. You are arguing to put material in this article that has little to nothing to do with Schneerson. There exists an article appropriate for that material. We only have to link to it. The link should be prominently placed with enough context to alert the reader to its significance.
I've even suggested using the lede of this article for that purpose.Again, these are the sentences I suggested: "A car following Schneerson's car was involved in a fatal accident. For the next three days the Crown Heights riot took its toll claiming lives and property." We need not get carried away exploring nooks and crannies of material that will be explored in the "Crown Heights riot" article. Just because something is sourced does not mean that it has to be in an article. Finally, the New York Times in a print edition would not internally link to a Crown Heights riot article from a Schneerson obituary, but our electronic text allows for that and therefore we should distribute material across articles as appropriate. As I've already mentioned my suggested text could be placed at the end of the New York section of the article, possibly also in the "See also" section. I don't think all three placements are necessary but two would be OK. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
A shorter proposal
Let's see if we can get a very basic mention that just includes what's in the sources and leaves out the parts people are objecting to. We have:
But on the details of Gavin’s death, the official record is clear: On Aug. 19, 1991, at roughly 8:20 p.m., a vehicle that was part of a three-car motorcade carrying Menachem Schneerson, grand rebbe of the Lubavitch Hasidic community, struck and killed Gavin Cato and seriously injured his cousin Angela.[5]
and
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.
...In Crown Heights, as in few other places in the world, Jews and blacks live side by side on the same streets, often in the same apartment buildings. Because the groups are so different -- in history, in religion, in diet, in dress -- there has long been an undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood.
This tension broke into the open in the summer of 1991 when Rabbi Schneerson was returning to his residence after a visit to the Queens cemetery. The last car in his entourage, driven by a Hasidic man, went out of control and struck and killed a 7-year-old black child playing on the street. In the violence that followed, a 29-year-old Hasidic man was surrounded by a group of black residents and fatally stabbed. [6]
While I personally think we should include a bit more about why this event was significant, I could go along with just mentioning the crash here and linking to the riot article.
The central points seem to be:
- Summer 1991 car crash
- Schneerson's motorcade (but not his car)
- killed a child
- followed by riots
If we can agree on these points, perhaps we can construct a sentence or two? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Kendall-K1, I am sure I tried it before. I only expanded because the other editors complained, but here we go again:
- Crown Heights riots
In August 19, 1991, a car in the motorcade of Schneerson (although he was not in that car) was involved in a accident that resulted in the death of a seven year old African American boy. After the accident, three days of rioting known as the Crown Heights riots ensued, costing the death of at least two men, who had not been involved in the disturbances, and destruction of property, in Crown Heights neighborhood. There had long been an undercurrent of tension between the Black and Lubavitch community in the neighborhood.(Ref = Ari Goldman article NYT)
This needs to go in the controversy section.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Shortened it further.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- "There had long been an undercurrent of tension between the Black and Lubavitch community in the neighborhood"? What does that have to do with Schneerson? And no matter what is written, why must it go in a "controversy" section? Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Kamel Tebaast: I can not understand your statement above. Regardless, please source some neutral material that states that the events of that day were not a controversy. Even the video you posted on the confrontation between the Mayor of New York and the Rabbi was the textbook example of a controversy. It is a textbook example of an event important in the Rabbi's life and memorialized as such. It is a time when he pleaded for peace in the whole city. You seek to wash away the whole incident. You have no sources to do so.Rococo1700 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The last sentence stating an undercurrent of tension between the Black and Lubavitch community in the neighborhood derives from the Goldman biography which states in a section titled
Tension in Crown Heights
In Crown Heights, as in few other places in the world, Jews and blacks live side by side ... Because the groups are so different ... there has long been an undercurrent of tension in the neighborhood ... This tension broke into the open in the summer of 1991 when Rabbi Schneerson was returning to his residence ... Schneerson was criticized by some black and some Jewish leaders for not publicly commenting on the violence or expressing his sympathies to the family of the dead child. His defenders said the Rebbe was "an international figure" and would not comment on a local issue.
This is part of a succinct biography of the man. That is the definition of "have to do with Schneerson".
Again we argue all this time about something, and that is not a controversy? A riot between two communities, one of which had Schneerson as a major leader, and there is no controversy? The paragraphs above are a textbook definition of a controversy for which there are diverse opposing opinions. If you want, we can make it its own subsection after the Controversy section. I see no reason to change the text. Rococo1700 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I too agree with Bus Stop and others. I see no controversy that is related to the rabbi here. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, again, you fail to follow the norms of Wikipedia. You opinion to quote the an essay on sources for Wikipedia is worth between slim and none. And none left town. The reputable source on his biography disagrees with all of you. Here we are after pages of discussion and that still continues to be the point, neither you, nor BusStop dare address. It is your blind spot; you lack neutrality. I recommend the administrators of Wikipedia arbitrate this, and block you from editing this entry. You patrol it like a hagiography, not as an encyclopedic entry. My recommendation is that barring any reasonable sourced objections to this material being part of his biography. It should be entered into the text as a controversy or its own section. I am all in favor of trying to solve problems in Wikipedia by discussion, based on the principles of Wikipedia, but there are some editors, those mentioned above, that do not follow these rules. This page needs arbitrated settlement. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Rococo1700: Please explain in detail exactly what was controversial directly relating to Menachem Mendel Schneerson? (Please don't use anything related to the "stayed silent" as consensus has determined not to use that.) KamelTebaast 16:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we concentrate on writing the simplest possible sentence that contains the points above. Then we can talk about where to put it. It looks like we have a suggestion to add "undercurrent of tension" to those four points; while that's well sourced it doesn't seem to be essential. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Kendall-K1, there are those who would read the events as having only to do with one accident. The section in the biography by Goldman on Schneerson is titled Tension in Crown Heights, the paragraphs you quoted.Rococo1700 (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- What is the "controversy" vis-a-vis Schneerson? It is virtually axiomatic that if there is a riot, there must have been "tensions" that preceded it. What does this have to do with Schneerson, the subject of this article? What is the nature of this "tension" and does it trace its origin back to Schneerson in any way? If no, then it doesn't belong in this article. I'm not saying that your observations, if supported by sources, might not be appropriate for the Crown Heights riot article. But we are discussing the writing of this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point. If we leave out "undercurrent of tension" then it sounds like the crash was the cause of the riot rather than just the trigger. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal (under New York):
- In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death and injury of two immigrant children. This incident, among other factors, led to the Crown Heights riot. KamelTebaast 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- 1 Bus Stop: A riot linked to the biography of Schneerson is a controversy. And the riot is linked to the biography of Schneerson, for more than one reason, according to the sources (Ari Goldman's article). Again we are not her to do original research. All your questions are very heuristic, but have no value in determining the entry in this encyclopedia.
- 2 The tension is linked to the biography of Schneerson, as stated by the sources. Schneerson, as evident in this article, was a major leader of one of the two communities, that by any stretch would have a role in the development of these tensions. But again, the Goldman source does explicity state that some of Schneerson's actions after the incident were criticized by the Black and Jewish community. This contributes to tensions between the too communities. Again go back to the sources, facts have a stubborn-ness to them.
I think the paragraph of Kamel Tebaast needs a third sentence. I am OK with the first sentence. I do not believe we should call them just "immigrant children". For one, that term could apply to "two blond Canadian children". These children were "Black", "African-Americans" from Guyana, and were perceived by the Black community of Crown Heights as one of their own. The riot had a racial component to it as evident by Ari Goldman's use of the term Black. In addition, the phrase "among other factors" is equally vague and unacceptable. That term could apply to anything. Ari Goldman's article is more specific, and I used the term "tensions between the two communities" to refer to these factors. Goldman states there are some deeper cultural (dress and habit) that separate the two groups. For that reason, I would be ok if the phrase "among other factors" were replaced by "among other factors that had led to tensions between the local Black and Jewish communities"
Here is a rewrite for an added section in the Controversies or as an independent subsection.
- In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death of one immigrant Black child and injury of his sister. This incident, among other factors that had created an undercurrent of tensions between the local Black and Jewish communities, led to the Crown Heights riot.
Rococo1700 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be overlooking that this article is a biography of Schneerson. You say "I do not believe we should call them just 'immigrant children'. For one, that term could apply to 'two blond Canadian children'." We are not trying to establish the origins of the riot in this article. That is information of a potentially causative nature. Causative of what? Causative of the Crown Heights riot. We are, and we merely should be, linking to the Crown Heights riot article from this article in order that the reader might explore among other things the causes of the Crown Heights riot. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not in favor of adding details about tensions caused between Jews and blacks. That is in the main article and it is irrelevant to this article. (BTW, Rococo, the victims were cousins, not siblings.) If, however, Rococo continues to push to have more details added about tensions between blacks and Jews, I'll add the following: "Several hours after the accident, a group of African-Americans stabbed to death Yankel Rosenbaum, a Chasidic Jew from Australia". Here is my latest proposed rewrite:
- In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death and injury of two Guyanese immigrant children. This incident, among other factors, led to the Crown Heights riot. KamelTebaast 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Where to place Crown Heights riot edit?
The consensus in prior discussions was not to place this under the "Controversy" section. However, Rococo1700 has persisted in placing it in that section or as its own section. As has been discussed, ad nauseam, although the riot was controversial, there was no controversy related to Menachem Mendel Schneerson, not related to the accident or riots. Can we create a final consensus as to where the edit should be placed? The options so far are:
- Under the New York section
- A new section for the few sentences
- Under the Controversy section
Please weigh in. Thank you. KamelTebaast 19:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Kamel Tebaast, I have looked at two prior discussions about Crown Heights and there was no consensus, none, to not put it in the controversy section. And the first problem I have with that statement, is that any mention of this controversy was absent from the article completely (speaking of controversies). And we are talking about an item that encompassed nearly ten percent of the man's obituary, now there is a controversy if you ever wanted one. Kamel, as I have explained to you ad nauseum, your feelings, your opinions about what Schneerson's relationship to event, while you are free to voice them, do not represent well-sourced material The entry from the section titled "Tensions in Crown Heights" from a biography of Schneerson is valid sourced material. Tensions within communities, one of which has Schneerson as a leader, are a controversy. Again this is sourced material in his biography. You need to put your feelings aside, and argue with me with well sourced facts. You do not understand an encyclopedia and what its optimum standard for information is. I do not agree with just New York, since these paragraph would have nothing to do with the prior ones except "locale". The controversy in this article to date, only refers to whether he is or is not considered the messiah or not, or some teachings. This controversy of Crown Heights led to loss of life and property for a community of which he was a leader, and to the neighboring black community which had tensions with the Lubavitch community. This was a major event in the history of New York, if not of the United States, and is an example of continuing controversies in this country. We could break up Controversies as religious ones and those between the local communities. I must assume we have agreement on the text, if you want to argue on this.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
By they way, until March 12, 2013, this article for years had a subsection titled Crown Height riot, within the section of Final Years, just before a section titled Final illness. It was deleted, without explanation by an editor titled Obama is the Lord. These were his only edits. It was never restored. Rococo1700 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Rococo, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're having a difficult time understanding what editors have written many times: here, here, here, and here. Even Kendall-K1 dropped his desire to add the one item that could have made this controversial. Yes, the riots had controversy, and it was a controversial part of New York's history, but that doesn't make it controversial in terms of Menachem Mendel Schneerson and his article. Your continuous WP:WOTs will not change that. This section's heading was very simple: Where to place it. Yet, you continued with your pontificating and WOTs. Pick where you would like it, let others do the same, and hopefully we'll build a consensus and move on. At one point, and that time is nearing, you will simply be considered a disruptive editor. Again, your options are:
- Under the New York section
- A new section (Crown Heights riot)
- Under the Controversy section
- Please choose one or another that you would like. KamelTebaast 20:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Kamel, none of what you states, I repeat none, constitutes "consensus". Sorry to be blunt but you have a difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works. Again, the episode is not controversial because I think so, but because the sources think it emerges from controversy, which the biography links to Schneerson. Again my opinion, like yours counts little. My sources count a lot, and far more than your biased opinion. See below for my choice for site.
- Rococo1700—there is no controversy vis-a-vis Schneerson concerning the riot. If you disagree the burden is on you to at least articulate the case for that controversy. Our sentence alerting the reader to the existence of a separate article on the riot should be placed in the New York section because Schneerson resided in the Crown Heights section of New York at the time of the riots. Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- In previous discussion two editors said they prefer the "New York" section. That makes sense to me; the incident happened in New York, during the time covered by that section. I dislike "Controversy" sections and would like to see that go away. All great men have controversy in their lives, and it is better to weave those in to the text of the article. If it were up to me, I would make it a subsection; but I don't feel strongly about that. As to whether this is a "controversy": That is not up to us to decide. It is not called a "controversy" in either of the sources I consulted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
This information had its own subsection in his biography. We are already limiting the content to a minuscule portion of his life, when a biography dedicated nearly ten percent of the paragraphs to the Tensions in Crown Heights. I would be ok if we restore it to a subsection titled Crown Heights riots; this would mirror the article as it was in 2013. With regard to the controversy justification that Bus Stop is asking, again I refer him to the source which has a heading Tensions in Crown Height: that is the part of the controversy. The issue is not only the riots but that the riots emerged at all, is a reflection, according to the sources of the events. I disagree with Kendall-K1 in that I am not sure what he would define the situation in Crown Heights, if not a controversy? The word uses for the section was "tension" leading to riots, that to me speaks for controversy, which is defined as disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. Riots kind of fit that definition. In addition, the Goldman article speaks of disagreements between leaders of the Black and Jewish communities with Schneerson and his family and vice versa. These arguments persist to this day. If you want we can make a section titled Tensions in his Community. But in the spirit of compromise, I would agree to my entry above in the New York section with its own heading.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have not seen any source saying that any "tensions" are directly attributable to Schneerson. The term "tensions" is used by a source. So what? A riot took place. It is axiomatic that a riot takes place in the presence of "tensions". Is a riot going to take place amidst calmness? Did Schneerson do anything to exacerbate "tensions"? We don't need to burden a biography of Schneerson with concerns taken up in the "Crown Heights riot" article. Our main aim in this discussion should be arriving at the most appropriate way to alert the reader of the "Crown Heights riot" article. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bus Stop, none of the sources say the tensions are directly attributable to Schneerson, but neither does the proposed entry. Thus that seems a straw man argument. The tensions were forces emerging from two groups, the Goldman's New York Times article implies that the differences between the two groups had something to do with it. But this is not a "burden" in Schneerson's biography in the New York Times, it is an important segment of his life. When you say: So what? A riot took place. - you may want to rethink your phrasing. People died. Again, I do not want to be pulled into arguing Schneerson said this, or didn't say that, or nothing at all. The source on his biography mentions tensions both in a heading and in a sentence, for a section reflecting a major event in his life. Of course, there is a back story, a story during the riots, and later events, but the goal here is how to maintain reliably sourced material about the event into the biography. I have made a proposal above. Kamel Teebast stated that if the sentence including tensions were kept, then he wanted a sentence about Yankel Rosenbaum. OK there it is. I even changed the paragraph to reflect that he was a student returning home from studies when he was killed. Kendall-K1 and others can we agree insert this into a subsection titled Crown Heights riot (as the subsection in this article from about 2003 to 2013 had been titled) into the section of New York of this present article. I would reference the New York Times obituary for Schneerson.
In August 1991, Schneerson was a passenger in a police-led motorcade. A car in the motorcade had an accident that resulted in the death of one immigrant Black child and injury of his sister. This incident, among other factors that had created an undercurrent of tensions between the local Black and Jewish communities, led to the Crown Heights riot. Several hours after the accident, a group of African-Americans stabbed to death Yankel Rosenbaum, a Chasidic doctoral student returning home that night.
- The above blockquote by Rococo is not in the correct thread for that discussion. This thread was created only to establish as to where the edit will reside within the article. KamelTebaast 01:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bus stop, have you read the sources? Are you following the discussion? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- We should not have in this article a subsection titled "Crown Heights riot" as suggested by Rococo1700. The relationship between Schneerson and the "Crown Heights riot" is too tenuous to justify a subsection heading. In the context of this article such a subsection heading would not be justified. Schneerson had little to nothing to do with the "Crown Heights riot"—other than being present when it transpired. Schneerson did not play a role in igniting the riot and he did not play a role in extinguishing it nor did he play any other role in it. Our goal here should be simply to alert the reader to the article titled Crown Heights riot. This is justified because it was a significant event that occurred during the time Schneerson resided in New York, and that is the reason that the New York section is probably most appropriate for placement. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I am OK with the article as it now stands today according to Debresser's last edit. I am also OK if anyone wants to substitute the paragraph above that also has Kemal Tebaast's recommendation, adding mention of the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum. If there are additional reliable sources that change the history of the event as stated, the text can be modified. It has its own section at the end of the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rococo1700—you say that you are "OK with the article as it now stands" as of the last edit by Debresser but this is a collaborative project and we are discussing this on the article's Talk page. Yes, you are "OK with the article as it now stands" but you have not addressed my objections raised immediately above. The "article as it now stands" is substantially as you edited it despite the minor alteration made by Debresser. Would you care to respond to the objections that I raise immediately above your most recent comment? This Talk page is comparable to a two-way street. Dialogue is the way we resolve differences of opinion at Wikipedia. That involves addressing each other's concerns. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Bus Stop, I will answer your objection the same way I have done time and time again. The entry reflects well sourced material of his biography that disagrees with you opinion that Schneerson had little to nothing to do with the "Crown Heights riot". I respect your opinion. You have a right to your opinion. Having opinions is good. But it does not justify keeping well sourced, relevant material that disagrees with your opinion out of the biography. Again, I am not just saying that the information is in the source (and I can find other sources if you want), but that it is an important chapter in his life. We could debate whether you and I agree on the importance. But that is not the issue. I do not want to go there. It would be a delight for you and me and others to argue the details of the events of that week. But that would completely miss the point of the encyclopedia. Again, I think it is a valid debate, and would encourage you to start forums in The issue is whether what is in the article is based on the sources and relevant. My finding is that it is; your dissenting opinion carries little weight unless we can substantiate that with well-sourced material. I have. You continue to complain.
Second, I think you have a second quibble about where to place this information. The article, for years, have a paragraph on these events in a subsection titled Crown Height riots; I would prefer it to be in the controversy section, others want it in other parts of the article. I am ok where it is now, a subsection, but in a separate from other ideas, and with a minimum of background(all relevantly sourced), which is similar to its situation for years. Again, mos maiorum is not absolute in its application, but can serve as an initial guide.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rococo, if you add your own version again into the article while this is being discussed in Talk, I'll report you to AE. I'll place a warning on your Talk page as well. KamelTebaast 19:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Kamel, there is a open debate about the neutrality of this article, by all means report me to AE. Threats mean little in Wikipedia if they are not backed by substantive contributions. And you are not providing any well-sourced material to counter the last entry by Debresser. And again, I ask you not to delete well sourced, relative material from the entry. Remember we are talking of material that was part of this article for years before it was deleted without any discussion in 2013. But again, that is not the reason, that it should be placed in the article; the reason it should be inserted is that it is well-sourced, relevant material. It is a substantial part of his biography in the New York Times obituary summarizing Schneerson's life. It is a controversy mentioned in histories of the events as linked to him. Kamel, this circle of argument has to end somewhere, if not it is merely your whim, your opinions against the sources. That is why I went before the neutrality committee. I have argued here repeatedly with well-sourced material. All you say is that you don't like it. That does not suffice. The failure by you and Bus Stop, and Debresser to support your position with reliable sources, or the counter what is stated in the reliable source material in the article. Again, my recommendation is that the solution here needs to be arbitrated, not mediated, because as your most recent post suggests, all you wish to do is argue based on your fancy, not focus on the subject on hand using well-sourced material. I am going to revert your deletion of Debresser.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)