802:, You seem to be coming from the secular world with only knowledge from the books written from the perspective or reform and/or non-Jewish writers (No offense if you are/aren't), but with them it is a matter of they think that a double name is stupid and that just using a single name is stam ok. In the frum world, the common name is a double name, I.E; Menachem Mendel, Yitzchok Isaac, Sholom DovBaer (Technically three names, but as with the others Dov and Baer are the same name in two different languages) Yosef Dov/Yoshe Ber (Ber here is same as Baer in relation to the R"asha"B, but common spelling differences based on normalities of Lubavitch and The centrist litvishe world) Nosson Tzvi/Nota Hirsh, ETC. They are all double names, and with exception of Sholom DovBaer (DovBaer is also a double name and can be used seperatly, Dov and Baer/Ber actually mean what the yiddish one sounds like, a bear.) Both names mean the same thing in yiddish and Hebrew.
1480:
sources are fairly unambiguous, and I always try to follow those rules. So we can quote from
Ehrlich and Berger even though you argue they are critics. The more sourced info we have the better and I encourage you to ADD properly sourced material where you have it available to you. This article is very generous to the Chabad movement and the Rebbe in my view. If it were more rigorously sourced and contained more academic commentary, as it really should, Chabad partisans would not like this article very much. You can't simply remove quotes and details that you don't like, neither can you add unsourced or poorly sourced information. This article has been improving slowly over the past year or so, and should continue to be expanded - it is not complete by any means. Any attempt to remove sourced information is unacceptable.
1891:
just too strong to rest on such a flimsy basis. And this is a very serious allegation regarding the last 15 years of the Rebbe's work, which were in many ways the peak of his productivity. One only needs to look at his actual output during that time to know that he was at full capacity. A second-hand quote like this is just not enough to support such a serious allegation. Remember that OR is not sufficient to put something in, but it is enough to take something out - WP should not contain untruths, even if they are repeated in a so-called "RS". And it should certainly not defame people, living or dead, on such a basis. --
3350:. You keep evading that point. The will is the source; the blog is simply a convenient site where one can see an image of it. If there was no online image of the will at all, it would remain a valid source. As for Lipkin and SPS, I'm not impressed; Ehrlich's book may be published by a third party, but so what? Do you imagine that the publisher checked his facts? How would it do that? What conceivable knowledge of the subject could the publisher have, beyond just relying on Ehrlich? There is no such thing as peer review on something like this. That makes SPS irrelevant in this field. --
1293:"Netanyahu is good for the Jews," which didn't happen until after the Rebbe's passing, was an unprecedented and highly controversial compaign initiated by one person within Chabad itself for naming and supporting a particular candidate, instead of supporting a general philosophy, and leaving it to the individual voter to choose which specific politician most lived up to that philosophy. This was the exception that proves the rule, an exception that has not since recurred. That is the implication of the statement (made by the Rebbe himself, by the way) that "Chabad doesn't interfere with politics."
2344:, and thus cannot be used. The most that can be said is "According to Liz Leyden of the Washington Post, the messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." or something to that effect. I've heard that theory a number of times before, so if we can find another source, we can say "A number of opinions…" or something similar, and not need to identify Ms. Leyden. But I still see no acceptable sources for the "vacantly senile stare" quotation. Thank you. --
2336:, a Professor of Early Jewish Studies and Principal of a college who has published ten or so works in the field of Second Temple Judaism and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, from his blog PaeloJudaica, a blog devoted to "ancient Judaism and its context". That is an example of a recognized expert with multiple quoted works being quoted from a self-published source that is directly related to his or her expertise. Secondly, the fact that there is "some backing" for the statement may or may not be true, but even if it is, that is your
1980:
certainly "peer review" is irrelevant, because the "peers" who reviewed them know less about the subject than he does. Further, this isn't something that could have been kept secret - anyone who heard the farbrengens would know if this were happening. So for this sort of allegation to stay we can't have one alleged quote from one chozer. (The "peer reviewers" certainly didn't call
Olidort to find out exactly what he said, and verify whether he was in a position to know it.) --
388:
whats going on, look for sources, and enhance the article. After all, this article has been built over some four years, with much effort from many wikipedians. I dont think its true that this article is the product of edit waring as David Spart says, as I've been watching this page for over a year and have seen only occasional edit waring. Also, I would suggest holding off a little bit more until all interested parties are back from holiday vacation.
299:
removing all the unforced info, even if it means we start from almost nothing. We need a rule on all Chabad articles that nothing goed in without a reliable source - there are plenty of them out there. There are currently c.75 articles on Chabad in wikipedia, most of which are links in the toobar I made. But there are only 4 main ones: This one, "Chabad-Lubatich", "Chabad messianism" and "controversies of chabad". The last two are now fixed.
3294:? Full professor of Judaic studies at the Centre of Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies at Shandong University, and honorary Professor in the Dept. of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts, at Sydney University, Australia? The one who has published two books on the Lubavitch movement, and was recently Editor-In-Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora? The guy who is already cited
31:
2318:) indicates that the "messianic belief gained speed — and voice — when Schneerson, who had no children and had not appointed a successor, suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." So that's some backing for the statement that Schneerson's less reality-based followers started to consider him the Messiah as a result of injuries sustained in the stroke.
1450:
about Chabad, please do so. If you want to have a gentlemanly discussion about this, please restore my edits and I will make my case point by point and we can discuss it. Your statement in the edit comments about scholarship not being lectures betrays your lack of familiarity with the person whom this page is about, the Rebbe wrote almost none of his talks, all of his scholarship is oral.
1667:
and linked to below. We can provide that as a source. The issue here is getting good sources, because on the one hand
Lubavitch is controversial enough that questionable biographies would be published, and on the other hand it is small enough that no one bothers to publish a counter biography. The exception has been Dr. Berger's book which was countered by Rabbi Rappaport.
3022:. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.
2657:. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.
1933:
indeed that is how the claim is presented in the book, which I don't know it to be (I don't own it and have no interest in reading it). It's an out-and-out attempt to slander the rebbe, and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the last 15 years of his work, and it doesn't belong here without STRONG sourcing. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip column. --
1866:
Olidort, or argues for example that
Erhlich has mischaracterized him. It is not even a critical statement, that old men lose some of their faculties following illness it not at attack on the man, that is just life. We are not here to enforce Chabad POV that Shneerson was a saint, and neither are we here to enforce messianist POV that BLP should apply.
1708:
general policy of wikipedia works well in other subjects and about other groups that are marginal (relative to let's say the Mormon church, Chabad is marginal). I would join if it were to have a total discussion with whoever is up in the hierarchy of wikipedia about the issues faced in writing about Chabad (do others have this problem?).
2185:
Saying that it is unsourced is a terrible understatement. The Rebbe was one of the most controversial figures in modern
Judaism, and the fact that one of his followers thinks he was the greatest doesn't justify its inclusion in Knowledge. As I said, someone will put it back, but it's wrong to do so. Consider it my protest.
1913:. This is not an allegation, it the simply a comment, a comment that you may not like given your background. However we are not here to enfrorce Chabad POV we are here to write an encycolpedia. We cannot remove the source based on the OR research of "looking at his actual output", indeed the source does not say that the
2108:
thought his information was true, which it wasn't. As for Hayek, I can certainly bring reliable sources for his decline, but I won't, out of respect. You should have some respect here and keep this out even if for some reason you believe it to be true, which it isn't. This isn't a gossip column. --
3941:
When content in
Knowledge requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist,
3899:
When content in
Knowledge requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist,
3266:
This is ridiculous. The PDF stands on its own. Who cares where it's hosted? mentalblog is not the source, the will itself is the source. The signature is clearly visible, and instantly recognisable to anyone familiar with it. If you're claiming that this will was somehow forged, then the burden
1479:
I'm sorry, I dont know which edits were yours. You are free to edit the article. All I have done it to edit the article in line with wikipedia's policies and standards. I have had to remove a small amount of info that was not sourced, and I have added some info that is sourced. Knowledge standards on
1390:
Look it goes in the article, we put all points of view with all sources just like before, but you cannot have a full 500 word section on whether they met in Berlin since it is such a trivial point, and there is no evidence that
Soloveritchik influenced Schneersohn's life in any way. Even as it stands
1091:
The article right now doesn't cover the controversy around it titular figure, as per the conflict between him and RavShach, the
Brisker Rav, and the two Satmer Admorim. Those are interesting pieces of information, particularly witht he Brisker Rav. I am not going to add anything because I do not want
3397:
And yes, SPS is irrelevant and useless. I am not impressed by your arguments from authority; this is not a sport, in which the point is to abide by arbitrary rules. Every rule, guideline, and even policy is only as good as its premise; if the premise makes no sense in some particular context, then
2184:
I've no doubt that someone will put it back, but I've removed a perfectly outrageous piece of gushing praise of the Rebbe. "The Rebbe was and is considered one of the greatest scholars and holiest men from this, past, and future generations. his holiness pervaded the entire world. it was unmatched."
1951:"STRONG sourcing". Not only is it entirely common that elderly people in poor health often experience these kinds of cognitive issues, but we have a reliable source telling us it is so. And, in any event, it's not up to you to decide that a scholar who has written a book on the subject is wrong; per
1820:
Towards the end of his life, particularly after his heart attack in 1977 his scholarship began to fade. According to Erlich, one of
Schneerson's editors, David Olidort, told how "most of Schneerson’s aides and editors adored him and saw him as virtually infallible, despite their numerous corrections
1726:
Please provide a list of such articles and books, because only Hoffman, Ehrlich and Fishkoff are sources used in this. Riggs is one more, on only one brief part of the history, and Friedman another, but again - no one has bothered to address their innacuracies. I can think of almost every subject in
1692:
to add them you owe your own "time and patience" if you want to contradict them, something that you need other sources do. "The rebbes speaches after 1977" does not constitute a source; it is the antithesis of a source since it relies on our OR interpretation that "actually they were just as good as
1583:
You changed the wording of the "Wills" section considerably, so of these changes change the meaning of the passage, which cannot be allowed to stand since the sources have not been changed. Changing sourced statement requires the removal of the sources too otherwise the actual content of the sources
1449:
Lobojo, I am vaguely aware of some wikipedia terms, but don't really care when it comes to reality. There are multiple published points of view of Kennedy's assasination, they are placed in a separate article under conspiracy theories. If you wish to create a separate page called conspiracy theories
1359:
This is slightly out of hand. Most of the info on Soloveitchik is nonsense and has no bearing on their lives. Its all nuts. It is sufficient to say that according to some they met in Berlin according to others they did not, and that the mater remains in dispute. I am going to summarise the 300 words
1013:
He was famous for this, so famous that it hardly needs a source. If you really need one it wouldn't be hard to dig up, but it's not at all controversial, and not everything needs to be sourced. Or shall we start with documenting that he was Jewish, and Orthodox, and a rabbi, and go on from there?
646:
The problem is like so: R' Soloveitchik's daughter claims that the two once briefly met at an apartment in Berlin and R' Soloveitchik's son claims they never met. I highly suspect that Kowalsky (I don't know who he is) is using the famous "We never knew what R' Soloveitchik really said" thing to his
217:
IZAK, I am not touching the article for now any more than removing the Sorbonne, which is a popular urban legend but little more. This really needs a LOT of NPOV, especially since Schneerson is still one of the most controversial figures in Orthodox Judaism. To be intellectually honest, some mention
3472:
completely. Then I added the blog as a second source (which seems reasonable to me, even though it is "only" a blog, because it says precisely the same things). Then I added the sentence "He made up two wills" and added a link to the pdf file and the book as places where these document can be found
3419:
fact-checked or reviewed by people who know anything about the subject, then they're no better on WP than they are in real life. I know who Ehrlich is and what his "research" consisted of, and that is why I regard him as no more reliable than anyone else, and the fact that KTAV published his book,
3311:
than Lipkin? A job at Shandong University?! What sort of credential is that? And yet, as you say, he is cited repeatedly in this article as some sort of authority. So where do you get off challenging Lipkin as a source? In any case, even if we had no Lipkin, the will itself stands on its own.
2279:
is a Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. To dismiss him as a "biased anti-observant Jew" is quite unfair. He tends to prefer a more low-key style of Judaism, but this doesn't make him "anti-observant," just anti-fundamentalist. This article has far too much hagiography,
2260:
I think this is rather POV, especially considering the tenor of the link provided. That article was written by a clearly biased anti-observant Jew who obviously has an axe to grind. I see no firm reference basis to support such a claim and see no reason it has a place in this article—at least not
2107:
declines in their mental capacity in their later years, and nobody dreams of putting that in their articles. No, I don't have "reliable sources" for it, because none of the authors of such "reliable sources" had the chutzpah to include this information. Erlich should have done the same even if he
2093:
to truth. True but unverifiable things may be taken out; so may "verifiable" but untrue things. Erlich cannot possibly know this first-hand, so he's only as good as his source; meanwhile this is something that it would have been impossible to cover up if it were true, since it would be obvious to
2056:
suffered serious declines in their mental capacities in later life, but this is not mentioned in their articles (and in the case of Hayek, at least, it would not be hard to find RS for it). So why did someone think to put it here, of all places? Don't you think that was done for a reason? Do you
1711:
HAÂ :-) "Chabad is on the margins of the Mormon Church", dont say to Krinsky's face! There are plenty or reliable sources published about Chabad, these include dozens of scholarly journal article, many scholarly books about the history, encylopedia articles, millions of words of newsprint and so and
1453:
It may be wikipedia policy to quote any source, but if the source itself is not NPOV perhaps that does not apply. It is very difficult to find any published source NPOV on Chabad, and some of the books quoted such as Deutsch were written by people either predisposed to dislike the Rebbe or who felt
1156:
rebbe - which could be the Kloizenburger Rebbe, Bobover Rebbe, Puppa Rebbe, Vizhnitzer Rebbe, Dushinsky Rebbe, Satmar Rebbe, Lubavitcher Rebbe, Gerrer Rebbe, Belzer Rebbe, or any of a wide range of rebbes. So to write that this one is known as "the Rebbe" is plain incorrect, unless we want to write
1012:
Most Orthodox Jews today, especially Modern Orthodox ones, believe in some form of evolution, and in treating the beginning of Genesis allegorically. The LR vehemently and repeatedly insisted that the six days of creation were to be taken literally, and argued against any acceptance of evolution.
1000:
I don't think he belongs in this category - of course, he believed that the world was created by God - that much is obvious. But so does an overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews - that doesn't mean that every Orthodox Jew who has an article should be in this category. I think that only people who
3809:
I agree with SZero. I've read much of Lipkin's book, and it's clearly well-researched. Just because he doesn't have lots of professorships next to his name, that doesn't mean it should be disqualified. Conversely, may I point out, we've seen plenty of idiotic and ignorant information on this topic
2753:
This is a fundamentally wrongheaded argument. The will itself—a primary sources—is being used as a reference. The use of primary sources is fine for certain sorts of information. WP:V is silent on the manner of republication / collection of primary documents. If the authenticity of the document is
2331:
I disagree with both statements. Firstly, Kleiman is not considered an expert on Lubavitch or Hasidic Judaism. I highly doubt he is even considered an expert on "fundamentalist Judaism" as one paper doth not an expert make. Nor is Lubavitch considered classic "fundamentalist Judaism" anyway. Thus,
1932:
And OR is only banned as a basis for putting something IN. If we know something is unlikely to be true, we don't need secondary sources before taking it out. I am challenging the truth of this section. It is a lie, and I don't care who Erlich is, or what he claims to have heard from Olidort, if
1666:
Those are small details to quibble over, I don't have the time or patience for it, I don't have the source quoted in front of me to see if he actually stated this. The most egregious error is the one in the Rebbe's scholarship, for which the source is the Rebbe's spoken words, all available online
1602:
There are many sources that say that Kahn and Krinsky were possible contendors for the leadership after 3 Tammuz, both in the article and elsewhere on wikipedia. You changed this to there were "no serious contendors" which isn't sustained by the sources but if you have such sources please add them
1167:
When a non-L chosid says "the rebbe", knowledgeable people assume he's talking about his own rebbe, whoever that may be. But in the general world, when someone who is not a chosid says "the rebbe" without qualification, this is who is meant. And even when a non-L chosid says it, many/most people
598:
claims that Rabbi Soloveitchik only saw Schneerson pass by in Berlin." I could believe that the two met and Reb Haym either forgot or never knew about it, but Kowalsky's claim is not only highly unlikely, it's sheker. That Soloveitchik conferred to Kowalsky a mythological mikvah and fast story his
3625:
the dispute is being handled? As a start, might I suggest that everyone please focus on discussing just the content of the article, and not other contributors? For example, try to write posts without using the words "you" and "your". Simply phrasing things in the third person, can often have a
3274:
Also, what makes Ehrlich's book more reliable than Lipkin's? Erlich is just some shnook who got a book published, just like Lipkin; unlike Lipkin he was never a Lubav, wasn't there during the events in question, and his entire "expertise" consists of having hung around Gershon Jacobson for a few
1890:
Erlich is hardly "a major Chabad scholar"; who ever heard of him before he wrote one book, which has been read by how many? Someone quoted it on WP and suddenly it's the definitive work on the subject? There are some things it can support, at least when it's uncontested, and some things that are
1495:
Please don't be facetious, all of the edits immediately before yours were mine. If the article were more rigorously written academically, most of the sources provided would not stand up to such a rigorous examination. The most rigorous historian on Chabad to date, Menachem Friedman, has just been
148:
I finally got round to going through the article. I tagged many (but not all) the unsourced statements with "Fact" tags. I removed the occasional line that described miracles etc. I made a few changes to the early life and removed two (out of 5) refernecs to Soloveitchik and hoe "everyone knew
1979:
In this case, the "scholar" is only as good as his source. He couldn't personally verify what his source told him without having been at the farbrengens and hearing the sichos for himself, and then fact-checking them. The fact that he's published books doesn't make their contents reliable, and
1313:
Oh, and as is famous, he held close relationships with politicians to influence them to observe Torah and use their influence to teach that to others. As for "Chabad funding of politics," nothing of the sort exists except for the one occasion when an individual used his money to fund Netanyahu's
387:
Gruber76, I totally agree the article needs good references (though I'm sure the Jesus page is over ten times more popular and viewed much more then this page), what I'm saying is that it should be done slowly, carefully, and via the talk page, to be fair and give all wikipedians a chance to see
302:
What needs to be done: (1) This article must be redone. (2) Chabad Lubatich article, I fixed the philosophy to some extent, but it could be expanded; The history section is missing and needs writing. (3) Write proper articles on the other 6 rebbes most of which are very poor. (4) Go through the
231:
Check out "Early Life": According to this article, The Rav claimed that the Rebbe got higher grades than him. Yet, I've found in another source Rav Soloveitchik's son claims they never met in Berlin! Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, super shady! And who's the "Lauffer" mentioned in this section, by the way?
3393:
is the source. The blog is simply a place where people can look it up. The will would be exactly as good a source if it weren't hosted anywhere at all, and one had to go to the office of public records or somewhere to look it up. Giving a link to the PDF scan makes it more convenient for the
3237:
The book is a reliable source because the author has studied the subject of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe extensively and brings numerous external sources. I want to point out that the website only brings a pfd copy from a few pages of the book, which are themselves only a copy of the
1865:
ArtScroll. We are here to present his life and work and contextualize it from sources. A major Chabad scholar is quoting Olidort. The quote that you keep removing is very clear and you a nerve removing it. What you could do is improve the article. An idea would be to find a scholar who disputes
1846:
It's a report of what one person allegedly told another person, as reported by a third person who's read the second person's book. It's not clear whether Olidort is the source for the "failing scholarship" claim, or only for the fact that the chozrim adored the Rebbe, which would hardly need a
1707:
If it were only a question of sensitivity. The issue is lack of reliable sources to use. At the end of the day, very few facts have been published about Chabad, a lot of noise is engendered but little investigation. Perhaps the Chabad articles need to have a separate policy issued for them. The
927:
Shuliavrumi is correct that I'm coming from an almost exclusively secular perspective. If the use of the full name is reasonably common in other sources, then either version is OK for the article, and it wouldn't need to be moved from either to the other. I don't think, though, that there's a
3606:
It doesn't matter who you were responding to. This is a public talkpage. And you have not rephrased your question in normal English. I am afraid nobody here (and elsewhere, because I asked you the same thing on the noticeboard) understands what your problem is, and what it is you want to hear.
2712:
above? I'll quote from it again: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully,
1212:
I need a source? I don't need a source for everything. I don't need to source to know that most (BUT NOT ALL) of Chabad consists of a bunch of idol-worshipping nutcases who are even more despicable than Yoshke y"sh. I don't need a source to know that I do not want this group to steal the title
831:
to argue with you then, especially when you made your unilateral change and then immediately went off to get the page protected, but you were wrong then and you're wrong now. In most L and non-L publications he was referred to as "Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson", just as the previous rebbe was
476:
I actually find the current version POV since 1) It was not "Mainly" Rashi (this is limiting) 2) They were not necessarily "Hasidic" (also limiting). I also find the line "which were annotated by his aids" unnecessary. I think (tell me if I'm wrong) what you find as a strong POV are the words
298:
That makes very good sense. The article we have today is the product of 4 years of edit warring. A battle that was eventually won by the forces of Chabad in or around December 2005 when everyone else just became exasperated at the exploits of certain editors. We should go through the article,
3562:
I never said anything about his reliabiliy as a source as understood in Knowledge. You asked who the guy is, so I told you what I could find about him. Have you read his book? If you had, you would have know that it is a serious book, involving a lot of research. More about facts, than about
853:
I don't know where you are getting your information. You're dealing with a lubav here, and what you are doing, it aint funny. I never seen "Menachem M. Schneerson" as, until you started screwing up the titles of the articles on the last two rebbeim of Lubavitch. Its Menachem Mendel and Yosef
1617:
Politics, Lubavitch may well be apolitical, but this article is about the Rebbe. It is not controversial that was politically right-wing, and I will add sources that say this soon. If you can add information to say that the Rebbe was left wing or held some left-wing positions, that would be
2535:
The information is true, and sourced by two sources now. The blog just made a pdf of a few pages from the book. While blogs may not be the best sources available, there is not discrediting information here that needs the best of sources. What I do not understand yet is whether you are just
1151:
of every Hasidic group is known within that group as "the Rebbe". I myself am a chossid (Hasid) of the Dushinsky Rebbe, so when I am talking about "the Rebbe", I am talking about Rav Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky shlita, not about Rav M. M. Schneerson zt'l. It is true that many people, particularly
1152:
non-Orthodox Jews, who cannot strictly be called "Chabad/Lubavitch Hasidim" also refer to Schneerson as "the Rebbe", but this is wide from universal. In the Orthodox world (outside from Chabad, as I mentioned previously), when a chassidic person refers to "the Rebbe", he is referring to
972:
I want to be neutral neither being Lubavitcher or particularly anti, though I am anti enough I will not edit this article; but Mendel is alsmost always used in the name in normal discource. Chiefly because that was his name. Mendel is ot a middle name but part of a two part first name.
599:
own son and daughter didn't know is a joke. So why did the editor see it fit to allow the claims of R' Zvi Kaplan, R' Haym Soloveitchik, and Dr. Atarah Twersky to remain just that--"claims"--while putting in Kowalsky's claim as a fact? I wonder what the Rebbe thought of GENEVAS DAAS! --
3699:
says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Which of these is Lipkin's book?
368:
Shlomke is correct, there have been fact tags throughout the article which have been placed even by items which are not disputed. The fact tages should be removed from those items which are not disputed, so that everyone can focus on bringing sources for the disputed items.
1847:
source. All we really have is Erlich, who has no first-hand knowledge at all, and for such an explosive claim that's just not enough. Let's not get into the question of BLP or we'll never hear the last of it :-) but even the dead have the right not to be defamed. --
1180:
I am removing this ridiculous claim again (ie, reverting back to "The Lubavitcher Rebbe"). If you revert me again, I will indeed immediately begin adding "also known as The Rebbe" to all Rebbe biographies. My point is clear and there is no compromise on this. :)
706:
I've restored the section, since there is no POV issue, it is well sourced to a reliable source and is highly biographically relevant. If his scholarship fell for the last 20 years of his life that's a) relevant and b) provides a logical closure for the section.
1568:
and spent his years in an institution for the mentally disabled near Nikolaiev. He died in 1944 at the hands of Nazi collaborators" This is problematic because that is sourced material. If you have a source that disputes this then you can add tat source in too.
2944:
I don't have the book, and it's not online. I have attempted to verify the credibility of the source, by asking the person who entered it as a citation what page number the material was on, and for a relevant quotation. I think you had better provide them, per
2094:
everyone who listened to the farbrengens, a set that does not include Erlich. In general what makes him an expert on a subject, when the "peers" who review his work know even less about the subject than he does, and the same goes for his intended audience?
149:
that there was a great presence in town". When I tag a statement it is not because a statement is untrue - but because there is no source. Really every statement of fact should be sourced - but at the very least the ones which involve others need to be.
2080:" Not only is this most likely true, but it's verifiable from an impeccable source, a respected academic whose area of expertise is, in fact, the Lubavitch movement. If you have similar verifiable information about other individuals, feel free to add it.
348:
I'm going to hold off until Monday to allow time for discussion, especially since many interested parties are not able to use computers on Saturday, but if no serious and reasonable objections are raised I'll start with the pruning and see how things go.
2607:
That is not for me to know. But the possibility exists. After all, to doubt a paper source you need some strong motives. Which remiinds me that if you will not show your rationale for having reasonable doubts about the sources you tagged with
2382:" is a direct quote, and currently, is attributed to Liz Leyden. It's hard to rephrase direct quotes unless we find an acceptable paraphrase. There still no no acceptable source for the "stare" quote and it is out of the article as of now. --
1375:
One person says that he does not know about it, and you have multiple notable individuals (non chabad) that say on video that it is true. This section is important as it speaks about his early years of which there is little information about.
466:
I'm not sure adding it furthers the entry. Perhaps it would work as an excerpt instead of as a cited part of the entry. Still, I'm not certain that modification of what's currently there is necessary. I'd love to hear a third perspective.
647:
advantage. I can't prove it so, as Kowalsky is contradicting R' Hayym and Mrs. Atarah Twersky in what the Wiki regards (correct me if I'm wrong, believe me, I'd like to be) as a reliable source (a cited book), that makes them all alternative
118:
This article lists his educational experiences, all of them being non-secular, and then in the same paragraph says that he assisted his father with communal affairs "where his secular education and knowledge of the Russian language"!!!!!!
2200:
It should not be put back, since these words - although true - are clearly overdone from an encyclopedical point of view. But you too should differentiate between the objective greatness of the Rebbe, and the controversities arond him.
1621:
Scholarship: You added "However, this position is not born out by the wealth of audio recordings and unedited transcripts of the Rebbe's talks showing if anything an increase in scholarly talks, including a series of expositions on the
3790:
Without agreeing with the indiscriminate removal of all such sources, I would like to point out that in certain cases that is precisely what needs to be done. And eh, Shlomke, I do hope you are not trying to have somebody else make a
784:
been "Menachem M." or "Menachem Mendel". And informally, back when he had people who referred to him informally, he was always "Mendel". I don't think anyone has ever referred to him, in speech or in writing, simply as "Menachem".
2928:"Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question." When have you had the time to do this? I think you had better remove those tags. Or explain why you doubt their credibility.
749:
I've always seen him referred to as "Menachem Schneerson". The Knowledge rule is that a biographical article should be located at the most common version of the subject's name. For example, the article on Bill Clinton is at
2958:
Yes I have. I have read the whole book, a few years ago. And remember this will. And for sure I recognise the signature of the LUbavitcher Rebbe. And your demand still is preposterous and outside of accepted Knowledge norms.
2636:. When someone adds as sources, a) a blog, b) an archived version of that blog, and c) a name of a book but cannot provide a page number, then there are more than reasonable doubts about the sources. I'll quote directly from
1880:
It's a reliable source, reporting on something that is hardly defamatory, and, in fact, is not at all unexpected - elderly people in poor health often experience these kinds of issues. Please come up with a better rationale.
1391:
there is too much info here. It doesn't tell us anything about his early years - it just tells us about whether two people knew each other socially or not. The matter is entirely trivial and deserves a few lines at the most.
218:
must be made of Berger's book, whether you agree with it or not. You might also want to mention the brother-in-law (the one who got the streimel) and how that threatened Lubavitch unity, and give a more thorough coverage of
3410:
says, the goal here is truth; the point of this whole enterprise is to build a better encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia that tells the truth is obviously better than one that tells lies. When "reliable sources" are in
2986:
The source is the book, not my memory. And although it says a page "should be" provided, nowhere does it say that the lack of a page turns the source into unreliable, or warrant removal. Why do you keep on wikilawyering?
446:
Redacted "He frequently used Rashi's commentary in his discorses, delving into it with sharp analasis giving it mystical meaning." at being POV. This might be a good place to discuss that edit if there is disagreement.
2297:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party
3750:
regarding reliable sources. For example, what we know about the author (Lipkin) is that at one time he was apparently the editor of a weekly haredi newspaper. Is there anything we know about the publisher of his book?
2158:
868:
fercryinoutloud. Have you ever seen letters from either of them? (I won't ask whether you ever actually received such letters, or have them in your possession.) Have you read any L publication in English from the
1626:." You are attempting to contradict a peer-reviewed source. If you want to add such an opinion to wikipedia, you need to find a high quality source to do so, as it stands this is just your personal opinion which is
2679:
Yes I do. And I have provided the source. But removing a source because it has no page numbers or quotes, desirable as they may be, is unheard of on Knowledge. So please stop quoting me things I know by heart.
2135:
3963:
When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the
3931:
When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the
3921:
When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the
3238:
original documents. So we are not questioning any conclusions drawn by the author of either website or book. So ultimately, unless we want to accuse people of falisification, there is no sources issue here.
2579:
I know of enough people who are so convinced of the fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still alive, that they would dismiss the possibility of Schneerson contemplating his possible demise as sacrilegious.
94:
I apologize for this crude edit, but I am not wholly familiar with Knowledge editing methodolgy and netiquette. I would appreciate it if someone could tactfully append this photo to this article somehow.
1429:
You repeatedly revert any and all edits I make to this page and others in good faith. Your ownership of these pages seems to be more or less complete. This just cannot be allowed to work in the long run.
1917:
went down anyway. It just argues that it was full of errors which were corrected by aides such a Olidort and others before it ever got to the "output" stage. Anyway this is moot, since it is OR anyway.
1050:
is a "creationist", by dint of both multiple external sources and self-identification as well. The Rebbe, while he certainly believed in creation, is not known as a "creationist". Have a good Shabbos,
798:
Zsero, I've only ever seen in print menachem mendel (in more contemporary books with either A"H or ZT"L next to his name.), but never Menachem M., well,that is, until I came to stumble upon wikipedia.
3760:
Jayjg, since you're adamant on not using blogs and self published material on WP, I assume you would also have no problem deleting other material of that sort from WP, like content from Gil Student
1712:
on. All such things are reliable sources. There simply isn't the shortage you describe. I cannot think about any other subject in Judaism today that has a greater availabilty of reliable sources.
571:
I have a policy of not reverting edits simply because I don't have the patience. But check out what a certain somebody did to the Rabbi Soloveitchik section since I reverted it to be appropriate:
1168:
who aren't that knowledgeable, will assume the reference is to the LR, because while they may be aware that other rebbes exist, they couldn't name any. You may not like it, but that's how it is.
407:
Yes it's better, but it still makes it sound as though there was a quest for successors, but in truth there was never a any serious search for one. Thus I dont think that should be there either.
1262:
Right, I removed that. Nothing could be more untrue, "no land for peace", "Netanyahu is good for Jews", and his close relationships with politicians and Chabad funding of politics is renowned.
1022:
I am most definitely not arguing that this is controversial or dubious. What I am arguing is that he shouldn't be called a "creationist" because he is not known specifically as such. That is
2314:
This article is primarily about the impact of fundamentalist Judaism on public policy, so it is within Dr. Kleiman's field of expertise. Furthermore, a Washington Post article (reproduced
2280:
as indicated by previous complaints, and doesn't adequately address the fringe movement surrounding the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Including this relatively mild criticism is a good step forward.
358:
I do not agree. I think we should bring each piece of info that is questionable to the talk page and give a chance for editors to find the sources. For some there wont be and they can go.
2012:
other bio of a scholar on WP that mentions such a thing, let alone devotes a whole paragraph to it? You say it's common among older people. So why don't we find a similar point made in
1340:
For some reason the entire section on America, simply argued that he was not active in politics (not the case) and then went on about Russia. I have rewritten this section with sourcing.
3575:, quoting the sections that support this contention." If we were to show this to your English teacher, you no doubt would be severely scolded. Could you start speaking normally, please?
1976:. What it means is that an unsourced truth can be deleted, not that a sourced lie can not. In other words, OR is not enough to put something in, but it is enough to take something out.
2300:" I do not think Dr. Kleiman's expertise in public policy makes him an established expert on the Lubavitch movement, or even Hasidic Judaism, so the source should not be accepted. --
2291:
I believe that samefacts.com is not considered a reliable source, but is considered "self-published" and is thus it is very uncommon to allow it. The exceptions are encapsulated in
1190:
Check the EJ reference given; if it doesn't say what it's claimed to, then you can delete it, but until then it should stay. This is how it's been for a long time, so you're the
1799:
The article gives two different spellings for the name adopted by the rebbe's brother: Mark "Gourary" or "Gurari", and two different years in which Mark died: 1951 or 1952. --
3105:. I personally hold points of view which are in some cases oposite to those brought forth by Lipkin. I just positively can't stand it when people try to censor information.
1727:
Judaism that has more sources, including beliefs, practices and history. If you mean that Satmar has less sources, that would be because Satmar didn't open to the public.
1526:
are you edits. Some of the are completly valid and remain in the article. Some of them are problematic, I will list them and explain why, and wee can work it through OK?
725:
What could be more relevant to a bio on a scholar than a discussion of his scholarship? I put that back now. Can you imagine any other scholar having such an exemption.
3860:
1290:"No land for peace" was a support of a philosophy, namely that land surrender is dangerous because security experts say so, irrelevant to the opinions of politicians.
2254:
Following the stroke, some of Schneerson's followers interpreted his "vacantly senile stare" as an indication that he had attained enlightenment and was the Messiah.
3824:
Knowledge doesn't decide whether or not sources are reliable based on whether or not Knowledge editors vouch for them. It instead relies on the requirements of its
200:
There is an inconsistency in the name of the town in which he was born: "Mykolaiv" and "Nikolaiev". They are transliterations of the Ukranian and Russian versions.
516:
Shlomke, you removed the "rumor" about Schneerson not wearing a skullcap in Berlin as an "outrageous claim." Is there only one source for this? What about this:
378:
Just as a rough comparison for another controversial topic, the Jesus page has over ten times as many references for an article a little less than twice as long.
3402:
of guidelines like the ones you're citing is that sources that fit the preferred description are fact-checked, peer-reviewed, and are therefore more likely to be
836:"Joseph I. Schneersohn". I won't speculate about your background if you won't speculate about mine, but you don't show very much knowledge about your subject.
2440:
As said before, the source is not the blog, but the document explayed there. And it is available, for all to see. And can be archieved also, if you'd care to.
2694:
Please pay attention that there is a differencebetween what is preferrable and what is reason to remove a source. this seems to be your point of confusion.
1584:
is lost forever. These is a serious problem in wikipedia and please take care not to change sourced info without changing the source. Indeed at the end you
289:
I add my agreement and concerns. Does it make sense to be diplomatic yet firm--begin removing all un-sourced info, all non-facts, and just pare it down?
1688:
Sorry, I understand that this is a sensitive subject but wikipedia is no-holds-barred. Sourcing is the back bone of wikipedia and since other editors have
3589:
I was responding to Zsero, not to you. All claims about the reliability of sources must be stated in terms of Knowledge's policies. The relevant ones are
1171:
In any case, this particular sentence is sourced to the Encyclopedia Judaica. Presumably it comes from there. Does anyone have a copy to look it up?
1037:
I'm puzzled by what you mean by "known specifically as such". By whom exactly is he not known to have been a creationist? Other than you, I suppose.
2057:
really expect us to believe that it was done without malice, just because the editor happened to believe it belonged in an encyclopaedia article? --
1073:
The Rebbe is known for having specifically promoted the literal biblical account of creation, when many or most others did not lay this emphasis. See
81:
76:
71:
59:
3950:
attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult
3908:
attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult
3438:
source provided for the text of the will. Please review the many comments from Fifelfoo, Itsmejudith, Slp1, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Nathan, and me at
1693:
before" or some such. Berger's book is a valid source since he is a scholar, Rappaports for example is not as it was self published and distributed.
906:
Look, there's no norm either way. People either write the name in full or they write an initial. Also, IMHO it's a silly thing to make a fuss over.
3364:
Of course the blog is the source. Are there any other sources with this same text? As for Ehrlich, he more than complies with the requirements for
1296:
The posthumous CGM was awarded for service to mankind, not involvement in politics, as should be obvious to anyone who read about it even briefly!
522:
232:
You're kinda supposed to let us know his first name and credentials before quoting him...sorry, but as a big fan of the Rav and an amateur at the
2380:…messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life.
102:
3204:
3164:
3146:
3142:
2889:
to provide quotations? Or page numbers, for that matter. Go look it up yourself. Your request is preposterous within accepted Knowledge norms.
246:
I couldn't agree more, this article is total crap from start to finish. There is almost no factual, sourced, valuable info in the whole thing.
1198:
his chasidim, while no other rebbe is called that except by his own chasidim. If you add the phrase to other rebbes you will need a source.
126:
1405:
This is simply a matter of trivia that is now taking up about 10% of the article. I am going to return this issue to a proportianate state.
2454:
How do you know that this material is accurate? Anyone can create a scanned PDF with anything on it they like. How does the source satisfy
2364:
I'd be against such wording because 1. many would disagree with that description 2. it is insulting, and as such simply unacceptable here.
2134:
should be merged to this page, with a re-direct left in place to bring those who search by the project name here. I say that because there
2036:(picked for no good reason - I just started with Einstein and followed links from there)? They all got pretty old, what are the odds that
1806:
1246:
928:
secular belief that the double name is "stupid". It's just a question of convention. Some people are typically referred to by full name (
3621:
Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I personally have no preference on how this article is written, but perhaps I can assist with
2973:
Memories of books read "a few years ago" by anonymous Knowledge editors aren't reliable sources, and page numbers are a requirement for
3275:
months picking his brain. Getting an academic publisher makes it "reliable"?! Who at the publisher was competent to fact-check it? --
2508:, although I recognise the signature, and know this document from other sources as well. Why do you try to discredit this information?
1764:
1734:
1674:
1503:
1464:
3001:
The source you have provided is your memory, not the book, which you do not have and haven't seen in years. I'll quote directly from
1242:"In general it is Chabad Lubavitch policy not to mix in to any politics" Well according to what follows after that clause it isn't.
889:
The 40's. Over 60 years ago, that was the norm. But in 2007/5767 the normal is to use the Hebrew Names and to write them in full. --
320:
260:
163:
3394:
reader; challenging it on the grounds that it's a blog by a mentally unstable person is nothing but wikilawyering and gamesmanship.
2913:" I have. Also, since you used the material in your citation, you need to provide the relevant information, including page number.
1001:
are publicly (and specifically) outspoken about the issue of creation vs. evolution. I don't think the Rebbe was known for that. --
2787:
2760:
956:
770:
2332:
Kleiman's self-published works on Lubavitch are not acceptable. An example of an allowed self-published source would be quoting
2426:, a blog that was apparently closed in January 2009. How can those inserting the link ensure that it meets the requirements of
1757:
The first half of the Politics sentence is about Lubavitch, not the Rebbe. And it is about politicians, not political issues.
1121:
But as you well know Pinchas, that is an outlawed POV fork unless there is a summary of the controversies in the main section.
47:
17:
2977:
on books. Your comments are preposterous and outside of accepted Knowledge norms. Provide the page number or the source goes.
1829:
534:
3316:
reason to doubt its authenticity, any reason for us to believe that some master forger fabricated it, signature and all. --
2162:
1457:
I would suggest either paring down the article to essentials, or be ready to deal with a more highly charged environment.
608:
ps see my earlier edit, found at the link above, for how this ridiculous view could be allowed to remain in the article. --
3886:
3815:
3742:
In what way does it qualify as a "reliable source"? By "reliable source", I mean a source that conforms with Knowledge's
3727:
I suspect it is neither of these. So it is not among "the most reliable sources". So it will be "just a reliable source".
1319:
1304:
3637:
3627:
2226:
2925:
2612:
2319:
2281:
2131:
633:
or you just believe it's not true. It does have a source. I dont know what the editor was thinking, but according to
864:
This is getting beyond funny. You may be a Lubav now, but where were you five years ago? Just look at the rebbes'
236:
as it relates to Acharonim, this whole section seems unreliable. Marc Shapiro, where are you? Help us, PLEASE!!! --
233:
38:
2487:
What difference if it is archived? So, it was on the blog a couple of years ago. How does that make it reliable?
755:
332:
272:
177:
1816:
User Zsero keeps removing the following section from the article, claiming it has not been well enough sourced:
1299:
Thus, the statement, "In general it is Chabad Lubavitch policy not to mix in to any politics" is quite correct.
3951:
3909:
3811:
3019:
2798:
Yes, that is the position you have advanced at RS/N. So far 7 others commenting there have disagreed with you.
2654:
1803:
1381:
1315:
1300:
1078:
1047:
907:
876:. Then look up the one for the first yortzeit in the Shevat 5711 issue. You'll find the result informative.
130:
3271:
to give some reason why that is at all likely. Simply objecting to the web site that hosts it is not enough.
2238:
2143:
1250:
827:
Um, no. You are completely wrong, just as you were wrong about Joseph Isaack Schneersohn. I didn't have the
228:
the rebbe is not "History". The rebbe's influance is still felt throughout the whole world; to say the least.
190:
2537:
1649:
Much of your editing were very constuctive, welcome to wikipedia, and please consieder creating an account!
1227:. I can now revert you in good conscience, and have ammunition to defend myself if I'm ever called on it.
1103:
575:. Note that the inserted chunk of trash contradicts the rest of the section, as well as Lubavitch lore. --
517:
2502:
2341:
2138:
no sources from which to source the project and I think it would fit well in this overall page. Thoughts?
2041:
1768:
1738:
1678:
1507:
1468:
2139:
427:
all the suggested successors such as Rabbis declined the mantle of leadership in the days after his death
3291:
314:
254:
157:
2781:
As explained at RS/N, that is not a question of reliability of sources, but authenticity of documents.
1947:
This is getting ridiculous. He's an established scholar who has written books on the subject; his book
573:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson&diff=126915653&oldid=124844980
3226:
You've also removed all the information I've added from Erlich's book. I suggest you revert yourself.
3626:
remarkable effect at de-escalating disputes. Â :) There is also a great deal of useful information at
2783:
2756:
2021:
1760:
1730:
1670:
1499:
1460:
953:
767:
457:
That is from Ehlichs book. I put the source in. Perhaps you want to change it a bit so it more NPOV?
303:
remaining 60 articles (most of which are short stubby things) cleaning them up and proving sourced.
122:
3872:
3836:
3819:
3804:
3783:
3772:
3755:
3736:
3704:
3640:
3616:
3601:
3584:
3563:
interpretations. Anyway, excuse me, but what the hell do you mean with "Explain how so, in terms of
3557:
3536:
3522:
3509:
3482:
3450:
3429:
3380:
3359:
3342:
3325:
3302:
3284:
3256:
3247:
3230:
3216:
3197:
3179:
3158:
3127:
3114:
3082:
3065:
3051:
2996:
2981:
2968:
2953:
2937:
2917:
2898:
2874:
2855:
2840:
2802:
2793:
2776:
2766:
2721:
2703:
2689:
2674:
2627:
2602:
2589:
2574:
2553:
2530:
2517:
2491:
2480:
2466:
2449:
2434:
2405:
2391:
2373:
2353:
2324:
2309:
2286:
2270:
2262:
2222:
2210:
2194:
2174:
2147:
2117:
2084:
2066:
1989:
1963:
1942:
1927:
1900:
1885:
1875:
1856:
1840:
1788:
1772:
1742:
1721:
1702:
1682:
1658:
1643:
1612:
1597:
1578:
1558:
1535:
1511:
1489:
1472:
1439:
1414:
1400:
1385:
1369:
1349:
1323:
1308:
1285:
1271:
1254:
1231:
1217:
1202:
1185:
1175:
1161:
1130:
1116:
1096:
1081:
1057:
1041:
1032:
1017:
1007:
995:
977:
960:
910:
893:
880:
858:
840:
820:
809:
789:
774:
734:
720:
711:
700:
673:
664:
655:
641:
612:
603:
589:
579:
560:
538:
503:
494:
481:
477:"delving into it with sharp analysis giving it mystical meaning", so I'll go ahead and change that.
471:
461:
451:
436:
411:
392:
382:
373:
362:
353:
343:
293:
283:
240:
204:
134:
3868:
3800:
3732:
3612:
3580:
3505:
3478:
3473:
online or inprint, but not as sources of information. I hope this is satifactory for all involved.
3243:
3212:
3203:
I have reverted your removal of the sources, pending the outcome of this discussion and the one at
3175:
3154:
3110:
3061:
2992:
2964:
2933:
2894:
2851:
2699:
2685:
2623:
2585:
2549:
2513:
2476:
2445:
2401:
2369:
2266:
2234:
2206:
2186:
2029:
1959:" That section is in bold right at the top of the policy, to deal with exactly this kind of issue.
1800:
1377:
759:
370:
3679:
noticeboard have no trouble understanding the concerns regarding Lipkin's work. See, for example,
3489:
2633:
2190:
1111:
555:
530:
1157:
exactly that same sentence ("also known as The Rebbe") at the top of every Rebbe's biography. --
872:
Here's something I'd like you to do: look up the obituary for the FR in the Adar 5710 issue of
3527:
Why not? It certainly makes him more likely than Ehrlich to know what he's talking about. --
1046:
The burden of proof is on you to show that he is known as a creationist. As a counter-example,
3768:
3696:
2387:
2349:
2315:
2305:
2276:
2045:
1826:
1588:
the meaning of a line but left the same source on the end, you must see how this is an error!
929:
595:
201:
3070:
The comments aren't identical. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book
3634:
1923:
1871:
1784:
1717:
1698:
1654:
1639:
1608:
1593:
1574:
1554:
1531:
1485:
1435:
1410:
1396:
1365:
1345:
1281:
1267:
1126:
890:
855:
806:
730:
307:
247:
150:
141:
1905:
He has writen a number of books and articles on the subject and is an established scholar.
585:
Which part in particular are you talking about? is it the "matriculation"?, "Soloveichik"?
3792:
3532:
3425:
3355:
3321:
3280:
3119:
I also "positively can't stand it when people try to censor information"; that's why I've
2825:
2337:
2113:
2062:
2049:
2013:
1985:
1938:
1896:
1852:
1093:
1055:
1030:
1005:
991:
Um, everything. This needs a citation about as much as "Einstein was a physicist" does.
974:
949:
799:
763:
696:
I find the part starting "Towards the end of his life" unnecessary and POV. I'm removing.
1518:
You are one of many anon IPs to edit the article in similar fashions, something that you
3420:
or that some university in China gave him a professorship, doesn't change anything. --
2772:
How do we know that PDF on the blog is an accurate representation of Schneerson's will?
499:
Yeah, that would make it easier to know what's been updated, wouldn't it? Point taken.
3864:
3796:
3728:
3676:
3608:
3576:
3501:
3474:
3439:
3434:
Claiming that the blog is not the source does not make it so. In fact, the blog is the
3239:
3208:
3171:
3150:
3106:
3057:
2988:
2960:
2929:
2890:
2847:
2695:
2681:
2619:
2581:
2545:
2523:
2509:
2472:
2441:
2397:
2365:
2230:
2202:
2170:
1074:
937:
933:
670:
652:
609:
600:
576:
237:
3207:. I find your behavior unbefitting. Please wait untill these discussions are closed.
1496:
found to be utterly wrong on the issue of the Rebbe attending the Sorbonne in Paris.
3373:
3331:
3102:
2910:
2906:
2882:
2595:
2567:
2541:
1224:
1107:
634:
551:
526:
500:
490:
On a side note, All new discussions should be placed on the bottom of the talk page.
468:
448:
379:
350:
290:
3829:
3764:
3747:
3594:
3564:
3542:
3515:
3369:
3190:
3186:
2867:
2863:
2829:
2563:
2559:
2459:
2383:
2345:
2333:
2301:
1627:
1623:
941:
751:
717:
708:
697:
661:
638:
586:
547:
491:
478:
458:
433:
408:
389:
359:
2261:
without much more to back it up and a bit of rewording. Your thoughts, everyone?
1092:
to take part in an edit war. I just wanted to point out these things are missing.
2103:
Meanwhile, it's widely known that R J.B. Soloveichik and Dayan Abramsky suffered
3825:
3743:
3631:
3590:
3572:
3568:
3550:
3546:
3443:
3407:
3365:
3335:
3075:
3044:
3002:
2974:
2946:
2709:
2637:
2455:
2427:
2292:
2073:
1952:
1919:
1867:
1780:
1713:
1694:
1650:
1635:
1604:
1589:
1570:
1550:
1527:
1481:
1431:
1406:
1392:
1361:
1341:
1277:
1263:
1122:
948:
preponderance of one form of the name, then that's where the article should be.
726:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3856:
3833:
3780:
3752:
3701:
3598:
3554:
3528:
3519:
3469:
3447:
3421:
3377:
3351:
3339:
3317:
3299:
3276:
3253:
3227:
3194:
3124:
3079:
3048:
2978:
2950:
2914:
2871:
2837:
2799:
2773:
2718:
2671:
2599:
2571:
2527:
2488:
2463:
2431:
2109:
2081:
2058:
2033:
2025:
2017:
1981:
1960:
1934:
1892:
1882:
1848:
1837:
1228:
1214:
1199:
1182:
1172:
1158:
1052:
1038:
1027:
1014:
1002:
992:
877:
837:
817:
786:
223:
3185:
No need, since you've given no indication as to why Lipkin's book would be a
3141:
I have mentioned our disagreement as to the reliability of these sources on
2166:
1564:
You removed the bold words from this "Schneerson’s younger brother, DovBer,
546:
An anonymous blog claiming to have an email interview with someone is not a
2229:. Isn't there a free-use image of the rebbe? Isn't it possible to get one?
1223:
Thank you for writing that. You've just given me legitimate cause to stop
3492:
written with him. It has a picture and calls him the editor of the weekly
2540:, or do you have any reason to doubt the source? Or do you perhaps have a
716:
JoshuaZ, can you explain why you think it highly biographically relevant?
3170:
Know what, give me two days to find the pagenumber in Lipkin's book, ok?
1823:
The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present
518:
http://www.mentalblog.com/2005/03/email-interview-with-dr-bryan-mark.html
3861:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blogs_used_as_references
3446:, that's what Knowledge relies on, despite personal feelings otherwise.
2225:
is not a free-use image, and has been removed by a bot from my userbox
104:
File:Http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/1735/1125200484449pm0000xd2.jpg
2159:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House
2040:
of them remained on the ball until the last? Better still, how about
660:
So lets state all of their opinions using the words "according to"...
3493:
3012:
burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material
2647:
burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material
2471:
The link is indeed archived, and I have added that to the reference.
1213:'Rebbe' and claim that only THEIR 'rebbe' is known as 'the Rebbe'. --
1194:. The fact is that the LR is known as "the Rebbe" by people who are
3761:
1026:
to say that he didn't share the beliefs of today's creationists. --
3252:
Where can we find out more information about Lipkin and his book?
2846:
Why wouldn't a published book be a reliable source, pray tell me?
1148:
3385:
How long are you going to keep evading the fact that the blog is
3143:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson
2862:
Getting something published in a book does not guarantee it is a
2836:, could you please provide a page number and relevant quotation?
3307:
Yes, that Avrum Ehrlich. What makes him more reliable a source
3039:. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book
2089:
Once again you are distorting that. Verifiability is necessary
3372:, which is what Knowledge uses to make sourcing decisions, and
3035:
when citing books, and the only person "wikilaywering" here is
1836:
Can Zsero explain what specifically is wrong with this source?
25:
3018:
must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an
2653:
must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an
2526:
in the footnote? Please provide reliable sourcing for this.
3779:
Of what relevance is this question to this article and me?
3571:. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of
3549:. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of
3497:
758:
being a redirect. I think this article should be moved to
3415:
no more reliable than "unreliable" ones, because they are
854:
Yitzchok. Period end of discussion. Have a git shabbos. --
3056:
Is there any reason you are saying the same thing twice?
1909:
may never have heard of him, but that says nothing about
1425:
Repeated complete reversions to clearly infrerior verison
3334:, and then explain again why the blog or Lipkin satisfy
3101:
BTW, just to make sure nobody can accuse me of having a
1630:
in wikipedia. To dispute strong sources you need strong
1360:
in two lines. This does not deserve 10% of the article.
3692:
3688:
3684:
3680:
3120:
2833:
2713:
providing as much publication information as possible,
2423:
1825:, M. Avrum Ehrlich, Chapter 8, notes. KTAV Publishing,
1523:
1144:
780:
I don't know where you've seen that, but in print it's
572:
429:
338:
326:
278:
266:
183:
169:
3553:, quoting the sections that support this contention.
3205:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#mentalblog.com
594:
Notice anything else in the article? How about, "Dr.
3027:
Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with
2662:
Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with
1794:
1522:
encouraged to do, so dont let my error put you off.
1276:
I mean its not everyone that gets a posthumous CGM.
1861:We are not here to write a hagiography of the man,
3488:For some information about Binyamin Lipkin. I saw
2754:questioned, that is a separate question entirely.
2076:says "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is
1618:fantastic, but please dont just blank the section.
987:What's the source that says he was a creationist?
2594:And how could this possibly be relevant to me or
2670:when citing books. Now, please abide by policy.
1795:The rebbe's brother -- contradictory information
944:). Where, as in each of those cases, there's a
3121:quoted the reliable source (Ehrlich) more fully
2562:, and Knowledge can only source information to
2422:Information in the article is being sourced to
2244:New Additions Regarding "Vacantly Senile Stare"
2130:I believe the 'content' (it's one sentence) of
1955:, "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is
3859:has forgotten to mention it, he has posted at
3810:coming forth from people with lots of titles.
3163:I have also added the source mentioned on the
3145:. I asked for input here. Just now I saw that
3442:as to why it's not a reliable source. As for
213:This article should be history, not mythology
8:
3952:Knowledge:Citing sources#How to cite sources
3910:Knowledge:Citing sources#How to cite sources
2248:The following has been repeatedly re-added:
816:You never saw MH"M after his name? I did. --
2634:"ill-considered accusations of impropriety"
2949:. Have you even seen the source yourself?
936:), some with just given name and surname (
2715:including page numbers when citing books.
1968:You've got that backwards. Truth is not
101:
3193:has been found. I've used that instead.
2924:As it says on the documentation page of
3877:
940:), and some with nickname and surname (
308:
248:
151:
3165:Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
2163:Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House
1779:This has been fixed, you are correct.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3398:it's stupid to follow it. The whole
3016:challenged or likely to be challenged
2651:challenged or likely to be challenged
2632:Please focus on article content, not
1566:was mentally disturbed from childhood
7:
2161:and if you can raise the quality of
2072:You have it backwards; I'll repeat,
637:we should not use the word "claim".
2418:mentalblog.com as a reliable source
3014:. All quotations and any material
2649:. All quotations and any material
2227:Template:User ChabadnikLubavitcher
24:
1549:These are the problematic edits:
932:), some with the middle initial (
3795:edit for you with this link. :)
2708:Did you read the paragraph from
29:
3149:as well, without informing me.
3031:, not me, and you must provide
2666:, not me, and you must provide
805:I hope that enlightened you. --
18:Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson
1821:of his failing scholarship." (
1:
3440:Knowledge:RS/N#mentalblog.com
3074:by Binyamin Lipkin satisfies
3043:by Binyamin Lipkin satisfied
2881:You really seem to have some
2195:20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2175:12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
2148:06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1807:08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1789:21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1773:21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1743:23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1722:21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1703:21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1690:"taken the time and patience"
1683:21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1659:21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1644:21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1613:21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1598:21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1579:20:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1559:20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1536:20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1512:20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1490:20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1473:20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1454:animosity towards the Rebbe.
1440:14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
1401:14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
1386:13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
1370:22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
1350:21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
1286:22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
1272:22:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
1255:21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1131:22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
735:21:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
3873:21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3837:19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3820:05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
3805:13:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
3784:19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3773:02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
3756:00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
3737:23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3705:23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3641:23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3628:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
3617:23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3602:22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3585:22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3558:21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3541:Explain how so, in terms of
3537:20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3523:19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3510:08:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3483:07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3451:21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3430:20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3381:19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3360:06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3343:05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3326:05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3303:05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3290:Wait, are you talking about
3285:05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3257:04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3248:04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3231:04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3217:04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3198:04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3180:04:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3159:04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3128:04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3115:03:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3083:04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3066:04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3052:04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2997:04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2982:03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2969:03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2954:03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2938:03:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2918:03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2899:03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2875:03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2856:03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2841:03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2803:22:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2794:06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2777:05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2767:05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2722:04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2704:04:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2690:04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2675:04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2628:04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2618:, the tags will be removed.
2603:03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2590:03:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2575:03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2554:03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2531:03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2518:02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2492:03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2481:02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2467:02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2450:02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2435:02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2118:04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
2085:22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
2067:04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
1990:03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
1964:02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
1943:15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
1928:14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
1901:13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
1886:02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
1876:14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
1857:05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
1841:03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
1415:17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
1355:Soloveitchik again and again
1324:07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
1309:07:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
114:Question about his education
2926:Template:Verify credibility
2132:My Encounter with the Rebbe
1232:14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1218:07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1203:23:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
1186:22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
1176:15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
1162:09:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
821:09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3981:
3830:reliable sources guideline
3348:The blog is not the source
2558:The blog is clearly not a
2406:22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
2392:21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
2374:19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
539:19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
504:18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
495:15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
482:01:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
472:18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
462:15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
452:13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
437:18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
417:Statements needing sources
412:18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
393:04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
284:22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
241:21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
234:Wissenschaft des Judentums
205:12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
191:18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
2570:could you possibly mean?
2354:20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
2325:20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
2310:20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
2287:20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
2271:19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
2239:00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
2211:15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2078:verifiability, not truth.
2008:One more point: Is there
1957:verifiability, not truth.
1117:11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1097:09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1082:11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1058:23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1042:22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1033:22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1018:19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1008:18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
996:14:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
978:09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
961:22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
911:11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
894:17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
881:17:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
859:17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
841:16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
810:15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
790:14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
775:07:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
756:William Jefferson Clinton
383:20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
374:19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
363:19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
354:20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
344:04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
294:04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
1445:Lobojo owns Chabad page?
721:15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
712:12:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
674:08:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
665:00:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
135:07:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
90:Append This Photo Please
3468:I restored the text by
3376:is never "irrelevant".
3312:You have not yet given
2885:here. Since when do we
2498:You are welcome to use
2216:
2180:Removing gushing praise
1104:Controversies of Chabad
701:20:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
656:12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
642:13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
613:11:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
604:11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
590:13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
580:11:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
561:04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
140:
3024:
2659:
2042:Joseph B. Soloveitchik
1834:
1147:by me, a comment: the
3689:Itsmejudiths' comment
3514:And that makes him a
3008:
2643:
1818:
1314:campaign, as above.--
525:comment was added by
42:of past discussions.
3887:"Prejudice regained"
3826:verifiability policy
3685:Fifelfoo's comment 2
3681:Fifelfoo's comment 1
3147:you had posted there
3103:conflict of interest
2909:in explaining what "
2820:What makes the book
2816:as a reliable source
2542:conflict of interest
1336:Political Activities
745:Proper article title
3942:and are acceptable
3900:and are acceptable
3885:Kleiman, Mark A.R.
3812:Yehoishophot Oliver
2030:Satyendra Nath Bose
1316:Yehoishophot Oliver
1301:Yehoishophot Oliver
1079:Yehoishophot Oliver
908:Yehoishophot Oliver
760:Menachem Schneerson
629:Can you prove it's
3292:this Avrum Ehrlich
3072:Heshbono shel olam
3041:Heshbono shel olam
2832:? Also, regarding
2822:Heshbono shel olam
2814:Heshbono shel olam
2613:Verify credibility
2153:Chabad article AFD
1113:£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€
983:No source for this
557:£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€
512:Skullcap in Berlin
306:Then we are done!
3948:clear and precise
3906:clear and precise
3726:
3298:in this article?
2792:
2785:
2765:
2758:
2277:Mark A.R. Kleiman
2052:, all of whom we
2046:Yehezkel Abramsky
2022:Erwin Schrödinger
1812:Scholarship faded
1775:
1763:comment added by
1745:
1733:comment added by
1685:
1673:comment added by
1514:
1502:comment added by
1475:
1463:comment added by
1114:
959:
930:Henry Cabot Lodge
773:
596:Haym Soloveitchik
558:
542:
137:
125:comment added by
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3972:
3965:
3961:
3955:
3939:
3933:
3929:
3923:
3919:
3913:
3897:
3891:
3890:
3882:
3724:
3693:Nathan's comment
3406:. Despite what
3389:the source, the
3189:, and an actual
2866:. Please review
2786:
2782:
2759:
2755:
2617:
2611:
2564:reliable sources
2507:
2501:
2321:*** Crotalus ***
2283:*** Crotalus ***
2007:<outdent: -->
1758:
1728:
1668:
1497:
1458:
1112:
952:
766:
556:
520:
341:
310:
281:
250:
188:
186:
172:
153:
142:User:David Spart
120:
107:
105:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3980:
3979:
3975:
3974:
3973:
3971:
3970:
3969:
3968:
3962:
3958:
3940:
3936:
3930:
3926:
3920:
3916:
3898:
3894:
3884:
3883:
3879:
3853:
3516:reliable source
3309:on this subject
3020:inline citation
2905:Please be very
2864:reliable source
2830:reliable source
2826:Binyamin Lipkin
2818:
2790:
2763:
2655:inline citation
2615:
2609:
2566:. What kind of
2505:
2499:
2420:
2396:Good riddance.
2246:
2223:Image:Rebbe.jpg
2219:
2217:Rebbe's picture
2182:
2155:
2128:
2126:Merger proposal
2050:Friedrich Hayek
2014:Albert Einstein
1814:
1797:
1547:
1447:
1427:
1357:
1338:
1240:
1192:motzi mechavero
1141:
1089:
985:
874:Talks and Tales
747:
694:
569:
548:reliable source
521:—The preceding
514:
444:
424:
419:
405:
313:
253:
215:
198:
184:
170:
156:
146:
127:146.245.161.115
116:
103:
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3978:
3976:
3967:
3966:
3956:
3934:
3924:
3914:
3892:
3876:
3852:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3788:
3787:
3786:
3722:
3721:
3720:
3719:
3718:
3717:
3716:
3715:
3714:
3713:
3712:
3711:
3710:
3709:
3708:
3707:
3658:
3657:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3649:
3648:
3647:
3646:
3645:
3644:
3643:
3466:
3465:
3464:
3463:
3462:
3461:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3457:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3453:
3395:
3330:Please review
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3201:
3200:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3131:
3130:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3025:
3006:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2817:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2788:
2761:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2660:
2641:
2524:User:Debresser
2522:So we can use
2496:
2495:
2494:
2424:mentalblog.com
2419:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2245:
2242:
2218:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2181:
2178:
2154:
2151:
2140:Travellingcari
2127:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1977:
1878:
1813:
1810:
1801:Metropolitan90
1796:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1705:
1647:
1646:
1619:
1615:
1600:
1581:
1546:
1543:
1541:
1539:
1538:
1493:
1492:
1446:
1443:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1378:Chocolatepizza
1356:
1353:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1274:
1247:194.46.239.166
1239:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1169:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1088:
1085:
1077:for instance.
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
984:
981:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
938:Britney Spears
934:George W. Bush
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
899:
898:
897:
896:
884:
883:
870:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
825:
824:
823:
803:
793:
792:
746:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
693:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
669:Fine by me. --
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
568:
565:
564:
563:
513:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
443:
440:
423:
420:
418:
415:
404:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
371:Chocolatepizza
287:
286:
222:(Messianism).
214:
211:
209:
197:
194:
145:
139:
115:
112:
110:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3977:
3960:
3957:
3953:
3949:
3946:they provide
3945:
3938:
3935:
3928:
3925:
3918:
3915:
3911:
3907:
3904:they provide
3903:
3896:
3893:
3888:
3881:
3878:
3875:
3874:
3870:
3866:
3862:
3858:
3850:
3838:
3835:
3831:
3827:
3823:
3822:
3821:
3817:
3813:
3808:
3807:
3806:
3802:
3798:
3794:
3789:
3785:
3782:
3778:
3777:
3776:
3775:
3774:
3770:
3766:
3762:
3759:
3758:
3757:
3754:
3749:
3745:
3741:
3740:
3739:
3738:
3734:
3730:
3706:
3703:
3698:
3694:
3690:
3686:
3682:
3678:
3675:Those on the
3674:
3673:
3672:
3671:
3670:
3669:
3668:
3667:
3666:
3665:
3664:
3663:
3662:
3661:
3660:
3659:
3642:
3639:
3636:
3633:
3629:
3624:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3614:
3610:
3605:
3604:
3603:
3600:
3596:
3592:
3588:
3587:
3586:
3582:
3578:
3574:
3570:
3566:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3544:
3540:
3539:
3538:
3534:
3530:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3507:
3503:
3499:
3495:
3491:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3480:
3476:
3471:
3452:
3449:
3445:
3441:
3437:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3427:
3423:
3418:
3414:
3409:
3405:
3401:
3396:
3392:
3388:
3384:
3383:
3382:
3379:
3375:
3371:
3367:
3363:
3362:
3361:
3357:
3353:
3349:
3346:
3345:
3344:
3341:
3337:
3333:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3310:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3301:
3297:
3293:
3289:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3282:
3278:
3272:
3270:
3258:
3255:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3245:
3241:
3236:
3232:
3229:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3214:
3210:
3206:
3199:
3196:
3192:
3188:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3168:
3166:
3161:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3129:
3126:
3122:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3112:
3108:
3104:
3100:
3084:
3081:
3077:
3073:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3063:
3059:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3050:
3046:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3023:
3021:
3017:
3013:
3007:
3004:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2980:
2976:
2972:
2971:
2970:
2966:
2962:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2952:
2948:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2935:
2931:
2927:
2923:
2919:
2916:
2912:
2908:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2896:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2873:
2869:
2865:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2842:
2839:
2835:
2831:
2827:
2823:
2815:
2812:
2804:
2801:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2791:
2784:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2775:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2764:
2757:
2723:
2720:
2716:
2711:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2658:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2642:
2639:
2635:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2625:
2621:
2614:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2538:wikilawyering
2534:
2533:
2532:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2504:
2503:Verify source
2497:
2493:
2490:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2417:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2330:
2326:
2323:
2322:
2317:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2298:publications.
2294:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2285:
2284:
2278:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2243:
2241:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2179:
2177:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2165:. Thank you,
2164:
2160:
2152:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2125:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2106:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2092:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1978:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1884:
1879:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1864:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1839:
1833:
1831:
1828:
1824:
1817:
1811:
1809:
1808:
1805:
1802:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1710:
1709:
1706:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1691:
1687:
1686:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1620:
1616:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1544:
1542:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1455:
1451:
1444:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1424:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1354:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1335:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1243:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1146:
1138:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1109:
1105:
1102:It is in the
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1086:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
994:
990:
989:
988:
982:
980:
979:
976:
962:
958:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
912:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
895:
892:
888:
887:
886:
885:
882:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
852:
851:Moved to left
842:
839:
835:
830:
826:
822:
819:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
804:
801:
797:
796:
795:
794:
791:
788:
783:
779:
778:
777:
776:
772:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
744:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
719:
715:
714:
713:
710:
705:
704:
703:
702:
699:
691:
675:
672:
668:
667:
666:
663:
659:
658:
657:
654:
650:
645:
644:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
614:
611:
607:
606:
605:
602:
597:
593:
592:
591:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
578:
574:
566:
562:
559:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
519:
511:
505:
502:
498:
497:
496:
493:
489:
483:
480:
475:
474:
473:
470:
465:
464:
463:
460:
456:
455:
454:
453:
450:
441:
439:
438:
435:
431:
428:
421:
416:
414:
413:
410:
402:
394:
391:
386:
385:
384:
381:
377:
376:
375:
372:
367:
366:
365:
364:
361:
356:
355:
352:
346:
345:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
319:
316:
311:
304:
300:
296:
295:
292:
285:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
256:
251:
245:
244:
243:
242:
239:
235:
229:
226:
225:
221:
212:
210:
207:
206:
203:
195:
193:
192:
187:
182:
179:
176:
173:
168:
165:
162:
159:
154:
143:
138:
136:
132:
128:
124:
113:
111:
108:
106:
99:
96:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3959:
3947:
3943:
3937:
3927:
3917:
3905:
3901:
3895:
3880:
3854:
3828:and related
3723:
3622:
3467:
3435:
3416:
3412:
3403:
3399:
3390:
3386:
3347:
3313:
3308:
3295:
3273:
3268:
3265:
3202:
3169:
3162:
3140:
3071:
3040:
3036:
3033:page numbers
3032:
3028:
3015:
3011:
3009:
2886:
2821:
2819:
2813:
2752:
2714:
2668:page numbers
2667:
2663:
2650:
2646:
2644:
2421:
2379:
2334:James Davila
2320:
2296:
2282:
2259:
2247:
2220:
2183:
2156:
2136:appear to be
2129:
2104:
2090:
2077:
2053:
2037:
2009:
2006:
1973:
1972:, but it is
1969:
1956:
1948:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1862:
1835:
1822:
1819:
1815:
1798:
1765:71.113.50.83
1756:
1735:71.113.50.83
1689:
1675:71.113.50.83
1648:
1631:
1624:Mishne Torah
1585:
1565:
1548:
1540:
1519:
1504:71.113.50.83
1494:
1465:71.113.50.83
1456:
1452:
1448:
1428:
1358:
1339:
1244:
1241:
1211:
1195:
1191:
1153:
1142:
1090:
1072:
1023:
986:
971:
945:
942:Ted Williams
873:
865:
850:
849:
833:
828:
781:
752:Bill Clinton
748:
695:
648:
630:
570:
515:
445:
442:NPOV - Rashi
426:
425:
406:
357:
347:
335:
329:
323:
317:
305:
301:
297:
288:
275:
269:
263:
257:
230:
227:
219:
216:
208:
199:
180:
174:
166:
160:
147:
117:
109:
100:
97:
93:
65:
43:
37:
2091:in addition
1759:—Preceding
1729:—Preceding
1669:—Preceding
1498:—Preceding
1459:—Preceding
1238:Definitions
1139:"The Rebbe"
1106:article. --
1087:Controversy
891:Shuliavrumi
856:Shuliavrumi
807:Shuliavrumi
692:Scholarship
309:David Spart
249:David Spart
196:Birth place
152:David Spart
121:—Preceding
98:Thank you.
36:This is an
3964:reference.
3932:reference.
3922:reference.
3748:guidelines
3697:WP:SOURCES
3498:"Bakehila"
3490:an article
2221:The image
2034:Niels Bohr
2026:Max Planck
2018:Paul Dirac
1970:sufficient
1830:0881258369
1545:Here we go
1143:Regarding
1094:Basejumper
1048:Walt Brown
975:Basejumper
950:JamesMLane
866:stationery
800:JamesMLane
764:JamesMLane
422:Succession
403:successors
333:block user
273:block user
178:block user
144:'s changes
3865:Debresser
3797:Debresser
3763:. Right?
3729:Debresser
3725:(outdent)
3609:Debresser
3577:Debresser
3502:Debresser
3475:Debresser
3240:Debresser
3209:Debresser
3172:Debresser
3151:Debresser
3107:Debresser
3058:Debresser
2989:Debresser
2961:Debresser
2930:Debresser
2891:Debresser
2848:Debresser
2834:this edit
2696:Debresser
2682:Debresser
2620:Debresser
2582:Debresser
2546:Debresser
2510:Debresser
2473:Debresser
2442:Debresser
2398:Debresser
2366:Debresser
2338:synthesis
2263:RavShimon
2231:Debresser
2203:Debresser
1974:necessary
1634:sources.
1145:this edit
671:Yodamace1
653:Yodamace1
610:Yodamace1
601:Yodamace1
577:Yodamace1
339:block log
279:block log
238:Yodamace1
220:meshichus
185:block log
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
3855:Because
3744:policies
3496:journal
3296:10 times
2907:explicit
2342:Crotalus
2187:MikeR613
1761:unsigned
1731:unsigned
1671:unsigned
1632:academic
1586:reversed
1500:unsigned
1461:unsigned
1108:PinchasC
567:Not Cool
552:PinchasC
535:contribs
527:Gruber76
523:unsigned
501:Gruber76
469:Gruber76
449:Gruber76
380:Gruber76
351:Gruber76
321:contribs
291:Gruber76
261:contribs
164:contribs
123:unsigned
3765:Shlomke
3677:WP:RS/N
2911:problem
2883:problem
2105:serious
754:, with
718:Shlomke
709:JoshuaZ
698:Shlomke
662:Shlomke
649:claims.
639:Shlomke
587:Shlomke
492:Shlomke
479:Shlomke
459:Shlomke
434:Shlomke
409:Shlomke
390:Shlomke
360:Shlomke
39:archive
3851:WP:ANI
3834:Jayjg
3793:pointy
3781:Jayjg
3753:Jayjg
3702:Jayjg
3691:, and
3599:Jayjg
3555:Jayjg
3520:Jayjg
3494:haredi
3448:Jayjg
3378:Jayjg
3374:WP:SPS
3340:Jayjg
3332:WP:SPS
3300:Jayjg
3267:is on
3254:Jayjg
3228:Jayjg
3195:Jayjg
3125:Jayjg
3080:Jayjg
3049:Jayjg
2979:Jayjg
2951:Jayjg
2915:Jayjg
2872:Jayjg
2838:Jayjg
2800:Jayjg
2774:Jayjg
2719:Jayjg
2672:Jayjg
2600:Jayjg
2596:WP:COI
2572:Jayjg
2568:WP:COI
2528:Jayjg
2489:Jayjg
2464:Jayjg
2432:Jayjg
2082:Jayjg
1961:Jayjg
1920:Lobojo
1915:output
1883:Jayjg
1868:Lobojo
1838:Jayjg
1804:(talk)
1781:Lobojo
1714:Lobojo
1695:Lobojo
1651:Lobojo
1636:Lobojo
1605:Lobojo
1590:Lobojo
1571:Lobojo
1551:Lobojo
1528:Lobojo
1482:Lobojo
1432:Lobojo
1407:Lobojo
1393:Lobojo
1362:Lobojo
1342:Lobojo
1278:Lobojo
1264:Lobojo
1225:WP:AGF
1123:Lobojo
869:1940s?
834:always
829:gedult
782:always
727:Lobojo
635:wp:wta
631:sheker
3857:Jayjg
3630:. --
3595:WP:RS
3565:WP:RS
3543:WP:RS
3529:Zsero
3470:Jayjg
3422:Zsero
3400:point
3370:WP:RS
3352:Zsero
3318:Zsero
3277:Zsero
3191:WP:RS
3187:WP:RS
2868:WP:RS
2789:matic
2762:matic
2560:WP:RS
2460:WP:RS
2110:Zsero
2059:Zsero
2048:, or
1982:Zsero
1935:Zsero
1893:Zsero
1849:Zsero
1628:WP:OR
1524:These
1229:Zsero
1215:Eidah
1200:Zsero
1183:Eidah
1173:Zsero
1159:Eidah
1149:Rebbe
1053:DLand
1039:Zsero
1028:DLand
1015:Zsero
1003:DLand
993:Zsero
946:clear
878:Zsero
838:Zsero
818:Eidah
787:Zsero
224:Danny
16:<
3869:talk
3816:talk
3801:talk
3769:talk
3746:and
3733:talk
3613:talk
3593:and
3591:WP:V
3581:talk
3573:WP:V
3569:WP:V
3567:and
3551:WP:V
3547:WP:V
3545:and
3533:talk
3506:talk
3479:talk
3444:WP:V
3436:only
3426:talk
3413:fact
3408:WP:V
3404:true
3391:will
3368:and
3366:WP:V
3356:talk
3336:WP:V
3322:talk
3281:talk
3244:talk
3213:talk
3176:talk
3155:talk
3111:talk
3076:WP:V
3062:talk
3045:WP:V
3010:The
3003:WP:V
2993:talk
2975:WP:V
2965:talk
2947:WP:V
2934:talk
2895:talk
2887:have
2852:talk
2710:WP:V
2700:talk
2686:talk
2645:The
2638:WP:V
2624:talk
2586:talk
2550:talk
2514:talk
2477:talk
2458:and
2456:WP:V
2446:talk
2428:WP:V
2402:talk
2388:talk
2370:talk
2350:talk
2316:here
2306:talk
2295:as "
2293:WP:V
2267:talk
2235:talk
2207:talk
2191:talk
2171:talk
2167:IZAK
2157:See
2144:talk
2114:talk
2074:WP:V
2063:talk
2054:know
2032:or
1986:talk
1953:WP:V
1939:talk
1924:talk
1897:talk
1872:talk
1863:a la
1853:talk
1827:ISBN
1785:talk
1769:talk
1739:talk
1718:talk
1699:talk
1679:talk
1655:talk
1640:talk
1609:talk
1603:in.
1594:talk
1575:talk
1555:talk
1532:talk
1508:talk
1486:talk
1469:talk
1436:talk
1411:talk
1397:talk
1382:talk
1366:talk
1346:talk
1320:talk
1305:talk
1282:talk
1268:talk
1251:talk
1127:talk
1075:here
731:talk
550:. --
531:talk
430:diff
327:logs
315:talk
267:logs
255:talk
171:logs
158:talk
131:talk
3623:how
3417:not
3387:not
3314:any
3269:you
3037:you
3029:you
2824:by
2664:you
2384:Avi
2346:Avi
2302:Avi
2038:all
2028:or
2024:or
2020:or
2016:or
2010:any
1911:him
1907:You
1520:are
1245:--
1196:not
1154:his
1024:not
202:Tsf
3944:if
3902:if
3871:)
3863:.
3832:.
3818:)
3803:)
3771:)
3735:)
3695:.
3687:,
3683:,
3638:ka
3635:on
3632:El
3615:)
3597:.
3583:)
3535:)
3518:?
3508:)
3500:.
3481:)
3428:)
3358:)
3338:.
3324:)
3283:)
3246:)
3215:)
3178:)
3167:.
3157:)
3123:.
3113:)
3078:.
3064:)
3047:.
2995:)
2967:)
2936:)
2897:)
2870:.
2854:)
2828:a
2717:"
2702:)
2688:)
2626:)
2616:}}
2610:{{
2598:?
2588:)
2552:)
2544:?
2516:)
2506:}}
2500:{{
2479:)
2462:?
2448:)
2430:?
2404:)
2390:)
2372:)
2352:)
2340:,
2308:)
2269:)
2237:)
2209:)
2193:)
2173:)
2146:)
2116:)
2065:)
2044:,
1988:)
1949:is
1941:)
1926:)
1899:)
1874:)
1855:)
1787:)
1771:)
1741:)
1720:)
1701:)
1681:)
1657:)
1642:)
1611:)
1596:)
1577:)
1557:)
1534:)
1510:)
1488:)
1471:)
1438:)
1413:)
1399:)
1384:)
1368:)
1348:)
1322:)
1307:)
1284:)
1270:)
1253:)
1181:--
1129:)
1110:|
762:.
733:)
651:--
554:|
537:)
533:•
432:.
342:)
282:)
189:)
133:)
3954:.
3912:.
3889:.
3867:(
3814:(
3799:(
3767:(
3731:(
3611:(
3579:(
3531:(
3504:(
3477:(
3424:(
3354:(
3320:(
3279:(
3242:(
3211:(
3174:(
3153:(
3109:(
3060:(
3005::
2991:(
2963:(
2932:(
2893:(
2850:(
2698:(
2684:(
2640::
2622:(
2584:(
2548:(
2512:(
2475:(
2444:(
2400:(
2386:(
2378:"
2368:(
2348:(
2304:(
2265:(
2233:(
2205:(
2189:(
2169:(
2142:(
2112:(
2061:(
1984:(
1937:(
1922:(
1895:(
1870:(
1851:(
1832:)
1783:(
1767:(
1737:(
1716:(
1697:(
1677:(
1653:(
1638:(
1607:(
1592:(
1573:(
1553:(
1530:(
1506:(
1484:(
1467:(
1434:(
1409:(
1395:(
1380:(
1364:(
1344:(
1318:(
1303:(
1280:(
1266:(
1249:(
1125:(
957:c
954:t
771:c
768:t
729:(
541:.
529:(
336:·
330:·
324:·
318:·
312:(
276:·
270:·
264:·
258:·
252:(
181:·
175:·
167:·
161:·
155:(
129:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.