Talk:Barry Gurary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] AfD

15:44, 11 September 2006 : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Gurary. Closed 19 September 2006: no consensus; kept. `'mikka (t) 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) poo?

  • This article is so not a NVOP article that it's an embarassment. Modus Operandi to jointly lead?

There are SEVERAL judgmental lines in this bio that it should be removed for a good cleaning.

    • To the above anon: Kindly sign your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that your comments can have greater credibility and so that it can be known who is saying what to whom. Judging from your brief comments here it's obvious that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Articles are NOT "removed for a good cleaning" (this article has survived a vote for deletion and more, and it is evolving as a fairly good introduction and summation of this complex person and controversy) and if you have factual and truthful information to add to this article feel free to do so because carping anonymously from the sides achieves nothing on Wikipedia. You are also welcome to list the "judgmental lines in this bio" that cause you pain, shame, or discomfort so that the facts can be reviewed and established as true. Thanks again. IZAK 09:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] heir or not?

From his birth he was the heir after his father of Chabd. However due to his disassociation with Chabad of his uncle he was exculuded from herldom. In the headlines of article according to my opinion the notion of Chabad line of succession should be mentioned.Narshavs 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fork removal

I noticed that several wikipedia articles tell the story differently. I replaced the texts by reference to this article and put these versions here, so that the person who knows better makes one consistent tale in this article. Tschuss. `'mikka (t) 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From Shemaryahu Gurary:

His son Barry (Shalom Dov Baer) became alienated from the Chabad movement, and later claimed that the official Chabad library was a family heirloom. As the previous Rebbe's sole grandson, he claimed ownership of it. The case was brought before a secular court. On the fifth day of the Hebrew month of Tevet, the court handed down its decision in favor of Rabbi Schneerson. The Chabad movement has since commemorated this day as "Didan Natzach" ("Victory is ours!"), a kind of "V-Day".

From Menachem Mendel Schneerson:

Gurary became a devoted follower; however, his son Barry Gurary resented what he perceived as Rabbi Schneerson's "usurpation" of what he thought should have been his father's position, and various intra-family disputes arose. For example, when invaluable books and manuscripts from the Chabad library began to disappear, Rabbi Schneerson's wife, Chaya Mushka, suspected her nephew and ordered a surveillance camera installed, which then confirmed her suspicions. This led to a protracted battle in federal court over the library's ownership. Barry Gurary claimed that the library was a family heirloom, and as the previous Rebbe's sole grandson, he claimed ownership of it. Rabbi Schneerson countered that the library was the collective property of the Chabad movement. Barry's mother, Hanna, sided with him, while his father remained staunchly devoted to Rabbi Schneerson, forming a deep rift in the Gurary family. On the fifth day of the Hebrew month of Tevet, the court handed down its decision -- an overwhelming victory for Rabbi Schneerson. His followers commemorate this day each year as Didan Notzach ("We did triumph"), a kind of "V-Day".

[edit] Deletion review: Liozna and Larger than Life (books)

Please see a vote and discussion that is similar to how this article was treated recently: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 19#Liozna and Larger than Life (books). Thank you. IZAK 06:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to the New York Times and related issues

The letter has nothing to do with why Gurary is at all notable. The letter furthermore has nothing to do with "science" or physics but is essentially a point about engineering. If he a letter to the NYT about the controversy surrounding him that would matter. This does not. On a related note, can anyone find these physics papers? I have been unable to find any in a brief search. JoshuaZ 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Errr Joshua: Do not go into reverse, meaning that now that there is an article about Barry Gurary, then it's perfectly logical to move forth and include more information about him. Wikipedia articles are not "one horse towns". Science, physics, and engineering are all connected, so stop making out that they are "disjointed" subjects. So what if the letter is not about "the" controversy, because this is not an article only about "101 views about 'the' controversy." You ask about "finding" these papers after I have just searched for them and provided the online links to summaries of each and every one of them. You will notice from the links, they can be obtained if you want to pay for the full versions of the research papers, which should prove that they are still worth something. IZAK 03:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The disputed letter

User:JoshuaZ insists on deleting the very interesting and revealing letter below and argues that it does not realte to only one topic that he deems to be the sole criterian for including anything in this article. Surely a BIOGRAPHY means just that, all aspects of the subjects. IZAK 03:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Updating 'Black Boxes'
To the Editor:
Re Searchers Find 'Black Box' in Alaska Airlines Jet Crash (news article, Feb. 3):
After every airplane crash, we keep reading about the enormous resources expended to find the two black boxes, the cockpit voice recorder, which holds the latest 30 minutes of conversation among the crew, and the flight data recorder, which holds the latest hour's worth of readings from a number of flight instruments.
In this era of rapidly advancing technology, it is puzzling why modern techniques are not used to communicate this precious stream of voice and data to a land-based network of computers, where it would be safe and readily available upon request from an authorized agency.
BARRY S. GOURARY
Montclair, N.J., Feb. 3, 2000 [1]
So then the logic is that every letter to the editor, written by anyone on whom Wiki has an article should be in the article? Uh no. And if a biography means "all aspects", where is Gourary's shoe size, favourite foods, turn-ons and turn-offs, favourite TV shows? Also, this is an encyclopedia article (although it is currently written like an essay (why the rhetorical questions? they don't belong) not a full blown biography. •Jim62sch• 09:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim62: Don't be silly! This is a serious discussion. My point is simply, that since this article has established that Barry Gurary is notable enough to deserve an article, and it has links to a number of his scientific papers, it is therefore both of interest and of note, and worthy of at least a link in the article, that since his (Barry Gurary's) mind was focused still on matters scientific of a serious nature as evidenced by this letter to the ditor of the NY Times, it's deserving of being in the article. (Who is saying that anyone who writes a letter to an editor is noteworthy? Altho I have no doubt that at some point someone may do just that on Wikipedia.) At any rate, by "all aspects" is meant NOTABLE aspects worthy of inclusion in the article, which should have been self-understood yet you have unfortunately chosen to mangle my words and my intent. At no time was anyone thinking of contemplating inserting his favorite foods or TV shows, for heaven sakes be serious man. IZAK 03:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Writing a letter about an essentially random topic that isn't even remotely related to what he did his physics research nor related to anything else the man did simply doesn't belong. JoshuaZ 03:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The topic of this article is the man, and not just his research about this or that. So if he appears to have "surfaced" somewhere outside of the usual, even if it's a place you deem to be "unimportant", it is is still nevertheless connected to our main subject here, which happens to be Barry Gurary who was more gifted than his enemies in Lubavitch would like to charicature him as having been. You are chopping-up a human into irrational parts, when the truth is that "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" and besides, his letter to the Times contains a very novel scientific idea that has still not been implemented when, as he points out, it could and should very easily be done to the benefit of many people who lose their loved ones in unfortunate plane crashes. IZAK 04:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute of content

User:PinchasC has deleted [2] an entire section Barry Gurary#Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes that was added claiming that it was "original research" without giving reasons. In order to do so one would hope that he was being a NPOV editor without any bias. Since there are identical sections in other articles about Hasidic dynsaties that faced internal diputes, as examples see Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar succession feud and Bobov (Hasidic dynasty)#Fifth rebbe(s) of Bobov, hopefully his action will not require that we bring this matter to mediation. IZAK 06:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research is one of the official policies of wikipedia. See as well WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. You may be interested in the policies of Verifiability and Reliable sources. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Pinchas: You seem to be confused. It is not "original research" to provide or add explanation to description - both of which are at the heart of the empirical method based on observation as long as the facts are not in dispute. Could you please point to the specific points that you think are not factual that disturb you so much? All good articles, and academic writing, contain both description (which you seem to tolerate), that answers the question "What?" and explanation (which you seem to dislike in this case), that answers the question: "Why?" Unless you can up with clearer and even more logical reasons that can EXPLAIN WHY Barry Gurary left Chabad and/or why he was shunned by his fellow Lubavitchers, you cannot scream "original research" at me in the hope that it will serve as some kind of red herring and smokescreen for your avoidance of including the rational, clear, objective, neutral, factual and precise information. Kindly respond to the contents, it will help the article a lot more that way, and help readers who know little about this subject get better contextual understanding of this complex subject. That is why there is quite often the need for the {{Context}} :"...The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter..." Thanks a lot. IZAK 03:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text of the disputed section

So that readers on the talk page can get a better idea of the above dispute over contents, the full passage is presented in the black box below. IZAK 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Conceptual background: Hasidic dynastic disputes

Note: This section aims to provide a wider {{context}} to this subject.

In order to appreciate the wider context of the issues surrounding the person of Barry Gurary and what he symbolized, both verbalized and unspoken, one must know something about the way Hasidic movements are born and how they function.

The Hasidic rabbis, known as Rebbes, are not "hired" or "appointed" but owe their positions to their direct ancestral family relationships to earlier Rebbes who were disciples of the founder of the Hasidic movement Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov). Essentially, all the major Hasidic dynasties and groups claim to be the heirs of earlier Rebbes by being related by birth or through marriage into the families.

Hasidic dynasties function as miniature absolute monarchies, based on the Torah and Jewish law of course, but the "mandate" to rule their followers is derived by inheritance and not by dint of pure Torah scholarship alone. The Rebbe controls every aspect of his followers' lives, sets communal policies, and controls the key educational institutions and all its charities. He does not receive a salary.

When this system runs smoothly then it has great advantages of unity and esprit de corps but if there is a problem such as unclarity about the lines of succesion or not knowing who is the heir apparent, then a form of "civil war" often breaks out as it would in a split monarchy or in a government with potential rival claimants, creating a literal constitutional crisis. It is because the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe only had two surviving daughters and only the Gurarys had a son, Barry, so that from the time Barry Gurary was born he was already a factor or a "football" in any thoughts and equations about future succesions that any ruling family would obviously think about, if not discuss, within itself.

In-house dynastic battles within Hasidic families are not uncommon. In recent times two sons of the previous Satmar Rebbe split up their father's empire of followers. When the last Bobover Rebbe passed away, his half-brother and son-in-law split up the movement. There have been similar disputes, splits and clashes over the centuries of Hasidism with various issues involved.

When the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe passed away, his two sons-in-law developed a modus operandi to share responsiblities in running the Lubavitch movement. While Rabbi Schneerson became the public leader, Rabbi Shemaryahu Gurary, Barry Gurary's father, held positions of power behind the scenes, such as running the schools, but without fanfare.

As the only grandson, Barry Gourary was a possible heir apparent at a young age, but he drifted away from this. It is not clear if over time he chose to leave Lubavitch voluntarily was somehow or other "pushed out" cannot be ignored. Often in families there can be scapegoating:

"Psychoanalytic theory holds that unwanted thoughts and feelings can be unconsciously projected onto another who becomes a scapegoat for one's own problems. This concept can be extended to projection by groups. In this case the chosen individual, or group, becomes the scapegoat for the group's problems."

His leaving the movement of his own free will and volition would be a type of "abdication," much like Edward VIII of the United Kingdom abdicated in 1936. Barry Gurary may have been not "Hasidic" enough in his way of thinking, preferring the ways of the Lithuanian Jews and the scientific method over the more intense type of anti-Misnagdim type of Hasidic mysticism that his uncle encouraged. When Barry Gurary sold books belonging to his own grandfather it unleashed a tide of pent-up fury against him, as if to validate Rabbi Schneerson's long-ago rift with his nephew.

The fact that after the last Rebbe died without having designated a successor, the frustration over Barry Gurary's life's choices, as viewed by Lubavitchers, becomes a subject for even more repression and denial to the point that he is viewed as a literal "enemy" of his own family and the movement which, under different circumstances, he may even have led.

  • Kindly add your views and comments here IZAK 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC):

IZAK: it is good information, but as it stands, it is a little too essayistic and opinionated for Wikipedia. For example, saying what would happen "under different circumstances" is certainly conjectural, and "Barry Gurary may have been not 'Hasidic' enough in his way of thinking" is sheer editorializing. All of this would be a lot better if you could cite someone else saying it.

Barring that:

  • lose the first paragraph: don't tell the user what the "must know" in order to understand.
  • If you want to say things like "When this system runs smoothly then it has great advantages of unity and esprit de corps…", you must cite someone else, not write it in Wikipedia's narrative voice without citation.
  • Still, you can, I think, make statements like "succession to the leadership of a Hasidic sect is essentially dynastic; as in some monarchic states, the choice of successor can be contentious." That seems to be a simple and accurate statement of fact. Citation still would be good.

Hope that helps a little. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The section should be included. Similar things are included about Bobov, Satmar, Belz etc also. In 'chareidi articles' you cannot avoid a certain level of OR. Enforcing the OR rule very strictly as PinchasC wants, will result in a huge loss of information, three-quarters of most 'chareidi articles' consist of OR... --Daniel575 | (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of a solid primary source this whole section qualifies as WP:NOR and doesn't belong here. If there have been academic (sociological/anthropological) studies into Hasidism (and I know at least one anthropologist who has done this) then we should cite it. JFW | T@lk 06:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The general background on Hassidic dynasties seems reasonable, might want to add that due to the tradition that the Baal Shem Tov was descended from King David, Hassidic communities regard their dynastic rebbes as potential candidates for Jewish Messiah. The "may" and "would be" lines are pretty clear giveaways that speculation is involved -- something I'd steer clear from, especially when other people's motives are involved. The pyschoanalytic part seems most clearly essay -- people involved may be projecting, but it's pure conjecture, and would definitely need the opinion sourced if it should be offered at all. I'd stick with facts on this one. It's clear that Barry ended up with interests and an outlook quite different from the Lubavitcher hassidic community, this is a fact, but how this happened -- whether he left himself or was pushed out -- I'd leave unsaid absent good sourcing. Also, how he regarded his community I'd leave unsaid (absent good sourcing). Same with his motives for taking the books. Maybe he just really needed the money. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions... First, as Shira says, stick with facts [as all articles should!]... my biggest problem with the deleted section is that it doesn't cite a single source. If I'd come across it, I'd more likely have slapped a {{fact}} on it, rather than deleting it outright. Second, this "essay", as Shira describes it, is fine [with sources!], in a more appropriate article, which I would regard as a good reason for having removed it from the article. Anything relevant to the subject of Barry Gurary can be reinserted, but the rest of it, with at least a few citations, should be included in Hassidic dynasties#Development and succession or some such similar relevant place. Kol tov, Tomertalk 22:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, the suggestions are positive, please help Wikify it. Thanks. IZAK 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, User:PinchasC keeps on deleting the section he does not like, as understandably anyone with a pro-Chabad party-line outlook would obviously do, but that is what is called POV editing on Wikipedia and it's a no-no, and so I urge PinchasC to come out and debate the issues and questions out in the open, and confirm what is factual and refute what is not, but he cannot act as the "judge" and "executioner" in an attempt to destroy what he does not like to hear. So, lets talk rather than delete on sight. There is nothing to fear: Both Barry Gurary and the Lubavitcher Rebbe are in the Olam HaEmes. IZAK 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is with every single line of it as No Original Research is one of the official policies of wikipedia. See as well WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. You may be interested in the policies of Verifiability and Reliable sources. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, Pinchas is right here, as are Shira, Tomer, and JFW. Much of the information doesn't belong in this article, and none of it is properly sourced. It may well be accurate and truthful, but it's impossible to tell, given its lack of verifiability. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the background info on dynastic succession is useful but should possibly function best as a separate article, something along the lines of Dynastic succession in Hasidism or something like that, which this article could then cite to. It would have to be sourced but that shouldn't be too much of a problem- there should be plenty of stuff in JE and other readily available sources on this phenomenon. There also must be some source discussing the reason for Gurary's separation from Chabad, and a certain amount of speculation is permissible if the sources present different views. Some of the other materials (scapegoating etc.) are a little too speculative for an encyclopedia article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Brian thank you for your thoughtful comments with which I do basically agree. At this time, and because the subject is still relatively fresh, and also because the Lubavitch organization is a behemoth that literally stradles the globe, most of the real discussions and material on the subject are readily available on blogs, that have either sceptical or antagonistic attitudes to Lubavitch. But for anyone knowledgeable enough about the issues and trying to stick to a NPOV, it is possible to extract serious and valid information on this topic from those sources at this time given the constraints. After all, kindly remember that Haredi Jews and Haredi Judaism are focused on studying and publishing Torah, Talmudic, and Halakhic works. The serious Torah scholars are mostly not academics and they are not to be found at universities and think-tanks publishing "papers" or books about themselves which they would consider to be total nonsense in any case. The other type of English language literature that comes out from most Orthodox circles is more hagiography, how this and that Rebbe were all "saints" from the time they were born, and they would never publish the truth about a subject in a biography such as of Barry Gurary. So that is the basic dilemma we face here because we are working with very limited, controlled, and essentialy censored material that might seem like no big deal to an objective scholar, but to hardcore Lubavitchers is highly toxic, for obvious reasons. But that should not stop this information from being studied and published. Lubavitch is big enough and way too strong to feel anything from this. In fact it's ultimately cathartic that this subject can be aired and see the light of day, hopefully even put it in perspective, and then we can move on to better and happier topics. The Tanakah (Hebrew Bible) never tried to hide the faults and failings of its characers. The Lubavitcher Rebbe is not "God" and Barry Guaray is not the "Devil" as Lubavitchers like to think. The Lubavitcher Rebbe and his nephew are human beings who BOTH had a case to make and being that this article is about Barry Gurary, it must convey how and why he never became the "Rebbe", regardless of if he ever stood a chance or not. The goal should be to edit it so that the truth and the facts are conveyed. IZAK 09:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While the part of this section that gives the history of disputes over leadership in Chassidic sects is potentially usefull, the rest reads like a conspiracy theory. The psychoanalysis is also a bit much. I think that this has no place in a so called encyclopedia article, and would be more at place on a blog. Sagtkd 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sagtkd: When it comes to succession struggles there is no shortage of conspiracy to be found, and that is not a "theory." Do you have a better explanation or insight or information that would shed light on this subject, by the way? IZAK 09:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not have anything new to shed on the subject, since much of what I knopw has already been said. That doesn't mean that I am trying to put a word in for an article that I have no knowledge on. I think that the consensus has been up to now that this section does not belong, and that you are ignoring that and keep fighting for something that not many of us think belongs. Sagtkd 04:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

After furthur look at the most current version of this section, I think it is very good, and I don't see why it can't stay in the article. It makes its point of the history of controversy in succesion, why it's relative to the article, and does not overdo it on the conspiracy theories of Barry's move away from Chabad. Nice job. Sagtkd 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Line by line truth

Anyone here ever heard of Self-evidence?: "In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof." Does the obvious require "verification", such is if one says that "the sun's rays are very warm" or "it is very dark at night" or "if you drink a lot of vodka you will get drunk" or such like obvious self-evidnent statement, descriptions and explanations? Here are some questions to ponder, and the answers need to be part of this article. Does anyone have a better way of providing them? I submit that there is nothing novel in the above disputed section because it can indeed all be verified from Wikipedia itself, and the Internet if need be. IZAK 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC):

The above makes it abundantly clear that thus far, the section in question fits well within Wikipedia's requirements. IZAK 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you bring is not relevant to this article as mentioned by several editors above. Furthermore, what you write here is not making any of your statements self evident and they are not reliable sources etc. as I wrote above. (I can copy/paste if you would like...) --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
PinchasC: They are all trying to be nice (to you) I think, and they have not given any serious alternatives whereas I at least try to solve a central riddle here by stating the facts, nothing more. Here is my basic question to you: (without hiding behind Wikipedia's formalities which in this case is a huge cop-out) How would you suggest an explanation should be formulated for the fact that Barry Gurary never made it to become the Rebbe of Lubavitch, for whatever reasons? After all, being both the grandson of the sixth Rebbe and the nephew of the seventh should have given him at least the potential to become Rebbe eventually, or at least a fair and legitimate open opportunity by the rules of Chasidus. For example, in similar historical circumstances, after Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum the last Satmar Rov passed away, his nephew, Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum indeed became the next Satmar Rebbe. Another example: When Rabbi Aharon Rokeach the previous and fourth Belzer Rebbe was niftar there was a serious division of opinion within Belz, but ultimately his nephew Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach the present Rebbe took over. So please, you owe it to the public to explain why and how the nephew of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe never made it in the race to be Rebbe in Lubavitch? when in other Hasidic movements it did take place, (and please don't tell me that the Rebbe was Mashiach/and or/an incarnation of the Eibishter and that he is "still" the Rebbe - this is Wikipedia, remember?) Nothing that I have written here is outside the paramaters of good logic and basic self-evident facts. The citations above stress the photos that tell it all, that Barry Guarary was held close to the bosom by his grandfather the sixth Rebbe of Lubavitch, no different to any rebbishe einikel ("[a] grandson [of] rebbes") who was being coddled and prepared to become a potential future Rebbe himself. It's just that something happened along the way that made it no so, and this article MUST address that isssue one way or another (and which you seem to be resisting tooth and nail), otherwise this article will remain like a house with its roof (Roov?) missing. IZAK 07:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yitzi, just stop it. We all understand, and indeed appreciate, that you feel annoyed or even offended about Pinny's removal of your well-written content from the article. The point remains, as I and others have told you plainly, most of the removed text doesn't belong in this article ... Referring to quibbles and squabbles in the succession among various Chasidic dynasties is fine, but the text you're arguing for, in large part, is relevant to most Chasidic dynasties, and is not of particular and special relevance to an article about Gurary specifically. Look at the text you're fighting for, and then look really closely at the name of the article. Yes, much of it applies to Gurary, but just because it applies to Gurary doesn't mean it belongs in an article about Gurary. It's just a little bit of a leap, and I hope that by saying so up front, you won't use the big leap I'm about to make as some strawman to attempt to delegitimize the very important point I'm trying to impress upon you by making this leap... Gurary is Jewish. Now, imagine someone coming along and trying to insert 4 paragraphs about Who is a Jew? into the Gurary article. Gurary is Chasidic. Now, imagine someone coming along and trying to insert 4 paragraphs about Chassidic Judaism into the article. To take it to the extreme, Gurary is [I hope] circumcised. Imagine your outrage if someone were to come along and try to insert 4 paragraphs about Circumcision. The point is, the article is ABOUT GURARY, not about "Processes of succession in Chassidic dynasties". As I said before, there's nothing wrong with the text itself, it simply, however, does not belong in this article. Yeah, it sucks that the information presented is really hard to give citations for, but one or two would be really impressive, especially in light of how hard it is to come up with such citations [keep in mind, citations are not limited to WWW URLs!]. That would be almost as impressive as including the information in a relevant article would be. I don't doubt the veracity of the information, I simply see no valid argument being made for its inclusion in Barry Gurary. Nobody's saying "IZAK! You're you're fulla crap!!!"...so a line-by-line refutation and saying "see, this too is truth" is a red herring. Nobody's accusing you of providing false information, but I think there's a strong consensus that as far as this article is concerned, what you're insisting "needs to be included", does not belong in this article. It has its place, to be sure, but this article is not its place! Alright, I think I've got so much bold and capitalization and italicization and bold italicization and bold and capital and omg, what's my name? IZAK. Keep the information. Defend it. Source it. And then include it in an article where it's actually suitable. Cheers, Chagh sameach, kol tov, etc. Tomertalk 08:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh Tomer, I am not upset, I just think that not giving a decent explanation fails simple empirical scholarship which seeks answers to the questions of "why," "how" and "what" - in this case: why did Barry Gurary fail to become an eventual rebbe in Lubavitch unlike in other dynasties where nephews did succeed to the top, what happened and how ? That's it. Why is that so hard to digest? I can understand where PinchasC is coming from, but what's your stake in this beyond trying to protect his feelings? What about Barry Gurary's honor. He has become like the proverbial "Man in the Iron Mask" of Lubavitch. I know you don't subscribe to the ArtScroll or Chabad style of studying and portraying history and biographies so why the verbose commotion? Your analogy to the Who is a Jew? article makes no sense (in any case by now so many people have added so much fluff to that article so as to make "being a Jew according to Wikipedia" almost meaningless, but we won't get into that discussion.) Wikipedia is awash with crap, some of it coming from very nice well-meaning people (yeah, well, sometimes they are not well-meaning) but if an article, in this case a biography about a controversial person, is to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion without it's core guts missing then that article MUST be edited as I have done here, provided that the information is true, logical and as I say here, self-evident. I am prepared to take as long as it takes to work this through. Let me ask you, do you have any problems with the photos serving as citations? Take a look at the links to them above. PinchasC has in the past removed them as references in the article from the "external links" yet, on technical grounds, which is why I have reproduced them here as links on the talk page as part of the discussion being links for anyone to see. Let me know. And yes, have a wonderful Chag Sameach and enjoy your Sukkah -- whose pictures will be decorating yours? IZAK 09:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion of third party

There is an old, wise, and funny Jewish tale, unfortunately I cannot render it in English it its full wit. But the story goes like this. Abram and Isaac went into a quarrel; gewalt, pieces of payot in the air... Chaim comes by: "Why so noise? Go ask rabbi to judge you". The three go to rabbi and all three start shouting there. Rebbe says: "Speak in turns. You Abram first" Abram says: "It was thus and thus, rebbe". Rabbi nodes wisely:"You are right, Abram." Issac, impatiently: "But rebbe, it fact all this is so and so!" Rabbi nodes wisely:"You are right too, Isaac." Now Chaim jumps in: "But rebbe, how can it be possible? Abram is right and Isaac is right?" -- "And you are right, too, Chaim!.."

The background is essential to establish notability of Barry beyond the petty theft issue. Otherwise we may well delete this article. At the same time some of IZAK's text goes beyond the description of the context. Things like drawing parallels or making guesses is original research. Unless really trivial and common knowledge, all work of logic must be referenced. It is not that we think that wikipedias are stupid, it is because some wikipeditors are stupid, and unfortunately in wikipedia the line between (potential) stupidity and wit is drawn right on the boundary of wikipedia. No one invented a non-controversial way to increase "expert-friendliness" of wikipedia yet. Attempts of Larry Sanger for "expert-friendly" but otherwise similar wikiprojects are of limited success so far, to put it delicately.

Concluding, I am deleting some pieces, but the section in question is relevant and useful.

On the other hand, the section could have been much shorter if we had an article Hasidic dynasty (now it is a redirect to the list). We have Hasidic philosophy, Hasidic Judaism, but the text similar to written by IZAK here seems cannot be found in wikipedia (at least not easily). I would like to encourage IZAK to start the Hasidic dynasty article by adding references to the text from "Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes". `'mikka (t) 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Mikka: Well put! IZAK 08:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • PinchasC is merely blanking a section he disagrees with while avoiding the responsibilities of editing. Wikipedia cannot reflect the Lubavitch "politically correct" view that Barry Gurary is "an enemy of the state" and hence a "non-person" and one cannot talk of Barry Gurary without his connection to the question of succession in Lubavitch and the how and why he was cut out of the equation over time. C'mon PinchasC, you can do better, this is Wikipedia after all. IZAK 07:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: The material from this article cannot go into "Hasidic dynasty" because there is no such article - that topic is in the Hasidic Judaism article. Note also that because "Hasidic dynasty" redirects to List of Hasidic dynasties it therefore does nothing to enhance the list. One should not place essay-length material into lists that do not need them especially if the list in question is doing just fine without extra stuff in it, and in that case the list has a link to Hasidic Judaism. Finally, the article Hasidic philosophy is a mess, it's basically just ideas from Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic philosophy, so what would be the point of moving Barry Gurary away from himself (such as this article about him) and into articles not related to the prolonged and agonizing succession struggle which is NOT part of "Hasidic philolosphy" ? Perhaps a better choice would be Hasidic politics ? IZAK 08:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, Once again, I will repeat what I wrote above:

No Original Research is one of the official policies of wikipedia. See as well WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. You may be interested in the policies of Verifiability and Reliable sources.

The section is still unsourced and includes wild claims (as in nearly every sentence) and does not belong here. Nearly everyone whom you requested to comment here has reinforced what I have written. If you would like, I can file a request for comment on this article. Please let me know if this will help resolve this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear PinchasC: No need. I have completely re-edited the article. Taken out the information about Hasidic dynasties and have given good references about Barry Gurary based on actual true VERIFIED photos and their related captions and comments cited only in the footnotes so as not to confuse the reader, and as they say "A picture is worth a thousand words!" Some basic information is linked to other Wikipedia articles or sections dealing with related issues. Hope you like this version a lot more. Be well. IZAK 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] controversial

Added the {{controversial}} tag. IZAK 08:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New version

This new version removed alot of the problems in the original. However there is still a problem that most of the sources are from blogs ehich is not a reliable source. The source from these blogs need to be quoted instead. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • PinchasC: Thanks. Note: A photo is a photo is a photo, and as long as they are not a forgeries they are acceptable. You are nitpicking because the blogs are not quoted in the body of the article. Rather, footnotes are provided because the photos come from some blogs and so the footnotes are merely providing a rational and acceptable context, such as captions associated with those photos. Why does that upset you so much? Finally, the photos can also be found in books and often posted on the web. Could you please list here any facts that you dispute. Thanks again. Be well, IZAK 06:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If the sources are taken from books than eventually they should be quoted from those books as they are more reliable than blogs. Please see my edit summaries for the parts that I did remove, as I listed my objections in those edit summaries, instead of mass reverting. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The blogs are backed up by books and vice versa. IZAK 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If the sources are taken from books then they should be quoted from those books as they are more reliable than blogs. Please see my edit summaries for the parts that I did remove, as I listed my objections in those edit summaries, instead of mass reverting. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarry_Gurary_a78c.html"