Talk:Yechi

Peer review

• I've done my share now for a start. IZAK 10:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've added a few edits to the article and some comments below. Rooster613 18:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

Please keep comments together and sign them

Hello: The above comments look confusing. If they are from one person who is writing them, please keep the comments in a tighter formation so that they don't appear like a few people are making comments at once. If it's more than one person writing, then please use the four tildes ~~~~ after each comment that you write. Thanks for your understanding. IZAK 10:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

my changes

I have made the following changes

• "is the messiah." to "will be the messiah when he comes.", because they are saying cheskas moshiach not moshiach vadai.
• "a random, nearly tuneless, series of ai-ai-ai. Some Hasidim sing the words of the Yechi to every traditional tune." to "various songs, with some singing those songs to the tune of Yechi." because it's more NPOV, if you feel that it's tuneless that is you point of view, I feel that it's not tuneless.
• I removed the parts about those that call the Rebbe G-d, because there is no source that they insert it into the tune of Yechi.
• I have removed the external links because, the link provided (nor another link http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/262382p-224663c.html that I found on this) does not make it clear or rather mention at all that it was the Tzfatnikim were causing violence which seems to be the point of bringing the article. I have also removed the link to the recruitment poster because it is obviously a joke which I don't think belongs in an encyclopedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the section of 1985, because one cannot simply qoute only one source without letting readers know additional sources. please.

To Pinchas

• The vast majority of Meshichisten believe that the rebbe is Moshiach Vadai. Former Meshichisten who have "converted" to anti will say that the rebbe was Bechezkas Moshiach, but is now Bevadai not Moshiach. Daykart 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Based upon their published writings, an my own conversatons with them, in no place do they say Moshiach Vadai, in fact when they quote from the Rambam they use the part that says Chezkas Moshiach. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to get into a revert war over the nigun. I'm trying to come to some sort of consensus on NPOV. How does this look? Daykart 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Much better. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll leave it out for now. An issue of Sichos Hage'ula from 1996 had "Boreinu" replacing "Rabbeinu", and I've heard a small number of people use that Nusach when saying Yechi. Daykart 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I reworded the article description and put up the Daily News article instead of the one from the blog. I'm leaving the other one off for now. Daykart 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The daily news link is much better, however the relavence to this article is questionable, it was more related to the placing of Z"ia. I have not made any changes, however please respond to my comments. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also why was the words "the ancient Jewish cry of" removed? It is, as I wrote in my edit summary, from A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson pg. 399 --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

alive?

• To which published writings do you refer? I was a Meshichist at one point during my teenage years and was able to quote all the rhetoric verbatim. I distinctly recall reading essays by prominent Lubavitchers (Buttman? Wolpo?) where they "explained" that the rebbe fulfilled the RaMBaM's criteria for Moshiach Vadai. For example "Bonoh Beis Mikdosh Bimekomo" was explained to refer to "Beis Moshiach 770" and similar arguments. Al kol ponim, I think my latest edit may be NPOV regarding Chezkas vs. Vadai.
• The argument over the placing of Zi"a is part of the Yechi controversy.
• Yep, it's in Johnson's book. I replaced it. Daykart 22:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Even when they write the stuff about "Bonoh Beis Mikdosh Bimekomo" that is just to show that in part the work was started, they never write that the Beis Hamikdash will not needed to be built. However your latest edit is more accurate.

Also about your writing that "is still alive" isn't accurate, because even the Tzfatim would agree that something changed Gimmul Tzmmuz, and certainaly almost all Lubavitchers hold that the classic meaning of death does not apply to a truly righteous person such as Schneerson, as his soul was closer to God than that of an ordinary human being. Which is different than saying that he is alive. Even those that don't want to write Z"ia, it's because they say that it's not true death, but they are not saying that he is alive. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with the words "is not dead" because the average person would think that this means alive. In the main chabad article the following words are used "the classic meaning of death does not apply to a truly righteous person such as Schneerson, as his soul was closer to God than that of an ordinary human being. " but that is too long for here, I think it's enought that it's covered in the main chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• All I'm saying is that some mention of the rebbe's current thanatic state should be in the article. Don't people want to know why his followers are wishing him eternal life if he's been dead for twelve years? How about "...is not dead in the classical sense and will..."? Daykart 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well they are wishing eternal life once he is awakened from the dead and that he should be awakened to lead us out of exile, as a prayer. At least that is what most mean. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that one. When I was in Yeshivah, the Mashpi'im would constantly be hammering the point about how "Yakov Avinu Lo Meis" and "The rebbe is still with us B'gashmiyus". And I wasn't studying in Tzefat, I was in one of the mainstream Chabad Yeshivas. Daykart 03:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And if you would have asked them to clarify, most of them would have explained that we need to consider the Rebbe as being with us just like before, and act as if there was no change. But not that Gimmul Tammuz didn't change anything. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I did ask, and the response was a dogmatic "Men fregt nit kein kashes oif'n rebbe'n." I'm not implying that they claimed the rebbe is not buried in Queens; but the common viewpoint among the Meshichists is that "Gimmel Tamuz" was not a death in the traditional sense and that the rebbe is still alive.
• Completely off-topic, but have you noticed how super-bad events are euphemized with the date. Compare "Gimmel Tamuz" with "Nine-eleven". My theory is that people cannot bring themselves to mention what happened (Old man dying, planes crashing into buildings) as a kind of cultural taboo. Daykart 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting theory, probaly some truth to it. But my point about the viewpoint of those that say Yechi remains the same. This that there isn't death in a tradiional sense applies to every Tzadik as explained by the Alter Rebbe in Tanya. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Are you familiar with any other faction in Judaism that prays for a tzadik to live forever after he's already dead and buried? Or is this a phenomenon unique to Chabad? Daykart 03:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not related to the discussion at hand. However in answer to your question, all Jews pray that there should be Techiyas Hameisim. (There is also Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai V'kayam but that isn't so relevant to here). --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I feel that it is related. If Chabad is the only faction within Judaism which prays for a specific individual to live forever, then that is something that should be mentioned on the article about the prayer that they use. Unless you can show me otherwise, this remains a phenomenon unique to Chabad. Daykart 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The forever part comes from this that there will be everlasting life after Moshiach comes. Anyone praying for Moshiach is praying for the same thing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then why doesn't anyone pray for R' Moshe Feinstein or R' Yoel Teitlebaum to live forever? I've spent eighteen years of my life in Crown Heights; eight of those after the advent of messianism. I disagree with your premise that Yechi is a prayer. Daykart 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then how did you view Yechi? The Rebbe in the sicha of Beis Nissan 5748 said that Yechi Hamelech is a prayer. People that say Yechi tell me that they say it as a prayer. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is, as I initially stated in the article, a mantra. A slogan or phrase often repeated, not necessarily with a logical explanation. It is like a child plugging up his ears and saying "lalalalala, I can't hear you." Day in, day out. After davening, during Kerias Hatorah, singing it all the damn time. News flash, it's not the only damn song in the world.
• All rhetoric aside, this article is not about the rebbe and his view of "Yechi Hamelech", it's about Lubavitchers - especially meshichisen, and the manner in which they use this particular phrase. I would think it slightly odd if, despite being in Crown Heights for 18+ years, I have still not heard that Yechi is a prayer. Daykart 16:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The original Yechi was established as a prayer, and a large amount of Meshichisten still consider it as a prayer only and some as a prayer and a statement. I live in Crown Heights now, and am in 770 on a daily basis and this is what I see and hear. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• RE: peer review, basically I found the Yechi page to be very informative. Yashar koach for the idea, it will improve as it goes along, I'm sure. I just linked to it on the Na Nach Nachma page under the "See also" section. Re: NPOV, I'm not going to get into the fray about whether the Lubavitcher Rebbe is alive or dead. In my link I simply described it as "a mantra referring to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson" and left it at that, since the justification for cross-linking these pages is that both are Hasidic mantras, albeit with different intents. FYI, the Breslov Hasidim consider Rebbe Nachman to be spiritually alive but acknowledge that his body is buried in Uman, Ukraine. So the Breslov pages state that he died in 1810 even though he said "I am not leaving you!" right before his physical death. This is different from the Lubavitch idea (among some groups at least) about their Rebbe is not really physically dead. I suppose the real debate here is whether there is an eternal soul that lives on beyond the death of the body -- hence a "dead" Rebbe who is still "alive" in some sense -- and the definition of "classical death" (extinction of consciousness until resurrection? Lying in the grave waiting to resurrect? Soul waiting in limbo somewhere to be reunited with the body? Or what?) Anyway, this is a topic outside the scope of this page! Rooster613 17:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

Origin

Orgin comes from the Gemara. IIRC Rashi brings it down in Sanhedrin. There is also a story in Admur HaMahaRash, since the time of the Rebbe Maharash chosidim would say Yechi after Davening, because the Rebbe Marash had health problems. It is not new at all. 220.233.48.200 14:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me a source in TB Sanhedrin? Furthermore, please clarify whether by Marash you mean Shmuel Schneersohn or if you are talking about another Rebbe from a non-Chabad dynasty. Daykart 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Admur HaMaharash is a book, when I said Rebbe Maharash I ment (yes I made a typo, and commonly make the same one) Shmuel Schneersohn. I will try and find it in Sanhedrin, and ask around. 220.233.48.200 03:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My edits

after reading this article i think its missing some facts like the first time yechi was song befor the Rebbe. also missing is th Pesak din by Rabonim that the Rebbe is Bicheskas Moshiach (i did not add it because i'm looking for the source) also, it seems the article is very POV. I side with Pinchas in that I dont think the daily news article is relevent here. we need links explaining the Yechi, pro or against, not a story about a title ZaYa. Zalmin 01:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Zalmin

The couple of people in tzefat who actually say anything along the lines of Rebbe as G-d or creator are clearly not currently, nor have they ever been, accepted by anybody within Chabad as Lubavitchers. This is a handful of clearly troubled -- and often, as in the case of the "leader" Meir Baranes, criminally insane -- individuals, who have chosen an extreme and ridiculous position to express their need for attention. There is nobody of any type of official or even semi-official standing in Chabad anywhere that approves or agrees with any such statements.04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

I'm removing the NYT article about the "Honorifics on the stone" which is not about Yechi. There have been many disagreements between the Lubavitchers that say yechi and those against it. Theres no need to start listing them in the article about yechi.

Spelling

Shouldn't it be spelled "VOED" not "VAED"?

Edits by shlomke

Shlomke has been reverting me for no reason. I explained my edit in the edit summary. Shlomke, why are you reverting? --TrachtGut 16:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to start discussing why you are changing the article in the talk page. The edit summary's you gave do not explain your edits. saying "making intro accurate" and then changing words like many to few is misleading and not explaining. Additionally you can not just explain your edits, but they have to be NPOV. What you call "fixing description" is rather biased and POV.

As you are well aware, a number of editors here do not agree with your edits and would like the article to stay as it was. If you think something should be changed (in adherence to NPOV) you should finally start using the talk page, thats what its made for. Shlomke 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Few is accurate and npov. You need to bring a source to state otherwise. Your edits are rather biased and POV. --TrachtGut 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion. I agree with Shlomke about using the talk page to dicuss edits before editing. TrachtGut, a little explanation would go a long way. Abe Froman 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is that there are 3 editors edit warring on this article. Shlomke, TrachtGut and VelvelK. Shlomke is trying to keep it to the the version that it was until now, TrachtGut is changing some info and removing other info that he says is unsourced, and VelvelK is just blanket removing sourced material. I do not agree with VelvelK's edits as they clearly violate policy with the removal of sourced info, so I have reverted him. Although TrachtGut did not bring sources for his edits, he was just changing unsourced info for other unsourced info. Therefore if TrachtGut or Shlomke can bring Reliable Sources for their claims that would be the way to settle their edit war. moshiachlisten.com and pamphlets printed in 770 are NOT Reliable Sources. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, Trachgut had been edit waring others too. Trachgut is a relativly new editor and he started making some majer changes and deletions to this article, as well as Menachem Mendel Shneerson and Chabad-Lubavitch, sometimes without even giving an edit summary. his editds were reverted by myself and others and he was asked by numeros editors to please come to the talk page to explain those edits first. However, Trachgut just keeps on reverting the article back to his own version.

In this article, trachgut had been edit waring with Meshulam and myself. All we are doing is trying to keep the article the same.

Changes to the article are welcome, in fact this article specificly needs allt more info and work done on it. however before making such changes like those trachgut is making, he should come to the talk page and discuss it. I am glad and ready to improve this article.

For those parts in the article that do not have a source, I would like to suggest using the tag and we'll come up with those sources. This has been done in other articles and works quiet well.

Pinchas, I dont see why Moshiachlisten.com is not a Reliable source, what makes it different from other websites? as far as the Kuntres "the facts behind the psak" how do you juge it to be reliable or not? [its only being used as a source, other sources can be brought too]. Shlomke 19:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to look at the correct Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand why. Wikipedia:Verifiability will also be helpful. But basically, self published websites are clearly excluded there, and the "Kuntres" does not fit any of the criteria found on those policy pages. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will take this slowly and bring here reasons for all my edits. My changes to the first paragrapgh is based on http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9558&print=yes --TrachtGut 00:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My changes to the 4th paragraph are adding a source for the 1988 talk and giving source for 1988 and putting a fact tag for the many of his followers sentence. --TrachtGut 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I added fact tags to the "The first singing of the full version of Yechi" and "On April 29th, the Rebbe encouraged" paragraphs because they don't have reliable sources as PinchasC wrote earliar. --TrachtGut 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "While no statistics are available regarding these phenomena, both sides claim that a majority of Lubavitchers hold as they do. " that was tagged with fact and contradicts http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9558&print=yes --TrachtGut 00:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed two statements "Non-Lubavitch Orthodox Jews often frown on the recitation of Yechi during prayer" and "With few total exceptions, they at least tolerate occasional declarations of Yechi, if not actually condone them as an appropriate development in Lubavitch chassidic custom." because they were tagged with fact as they are unsourced. --TrachtGut 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed "In fact, of those opposed to Yechi (the so-called "anti" faction), many admittedly accept the message contained therein." and "Many believers, or meshichisten, say Yechi under their breath after prayer." both which were tagged with fact. --TrachtGut 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the "In the years following the death of the Rebbe," parapgraph with fact because it conradicts http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9558&print=yes --TrachtGut 00:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a link because of number 11 of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided --TrachtGut 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the description of a link as per http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9558&print=yes --TrachtGut 00:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "many" does not mean most. It vaguely connotes a large number. A few vaguely connotes a small number. Now, I'm not interested in a war about how many Mishichistim really exist. But, if you consider that there are vocal groups of mishichistim in NY, Israel, Miami, Chicago, Baltimore, London, etc., with small groups scattered elsewhere like Buffalo, New Brunswick, etc., you'll see that the word "few" is misleading if not patently incorrect. I'll let Shlomke deal with the other edits. As usual, TrachtGut unilaterally removed material despite the fact that a majority has come out against him. But this isn't my battle. --Meshulam 01:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinchas, I looked at Reliable sources. To Quote, it say's: Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).. So Moshiachlisten.com is actually reliable.

Please point out why you think The facts behind the psak book is not reliable. I do not find anything wrong with it. Shlomke 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The section you quote is used in the guideline to show how this has less reliable, and based on the rest of the guideline, it states that these less reliable and it later specifically mentions personal websites should not be used as primary sources for controversial topics. Who wrote The facts behind the psak and who published it? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason self published websites are not used is because the author is unknown. In this case however, moshiachlisten.com is:

• Clear and open about who he is;

• Well researched in his field, and his website is entirely about this Moshiach subject;

• He has conferred with Gil Student, -who is an outside and independant source- on the information in his website, and there is a whole section of information on gil student's website responding to Moshiachlisten. Shlomke 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As a source, it does not belong for the following reasons (bolding was done by me);

1. His conferring with Gil Student was regarding the claims that Gil Student had made, Gil Student disagrees with what moshiachlisten wrote and the discussion was not regarding the history of messianism that is being used as a source and link.
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability states "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)." Moshiachlisten.com has no fact checking facilities or editorial oversight.
3. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author.28s.29 states " Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. "

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. " Whoever runs this website is not a well-known professional researcher or journalist, as corresponding with Gil Student does not make one so (additionally, the name given and whois info [1] looks strange, I'm not saying that it is impossible for him to live in Chile, it just doesn't seem likely to me.) and either way it is only acceptable if is was published by reliable third-party publications.

1. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources It does not fit any of the criteria here.
2. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." Per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It should not be used as an external link for the following reasons;

1. WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided" Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See WP:Reliable sources."
2. WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided " Links to blogs and personal webpages except those written by a recognized authority." --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Trachgut, the article from the Jewish week you provide actually say's that there are two opinions about how many Meshichistim there are. And they disagree that there aren't so many.

No need for the fact tag to the "many of his followers" sentence, Since that sicha is one of the main used sources for saying Yechi.

The source for "The first singing of the full version of Yechi" is form a WLCC video.

The sentence "While no statistics are available regarding these phenomena, both sides claim that a majority of Lubavitchers hold as they do. " is true, and as pointed out, The Jewish week article itself says the same thing.

The sentence "In fact, of those opposed to Yechi (the so-called "anti" faction), many admittedly accept the message contained therein." and "Many believers, or meshichisten, say Yechi under their breath after prayer." is sourced by Moshiachlisten.com and other sources: Moshiach: setting the record straight. Shlomke 04:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will reply to each of your statements in the order that you made them.

Actually, it states that there are two opinions, one says that there are very few, and the other says that there are a few more.

There is a need for a fact tag because this sentence is stating that this was used as an argument back then when in reality it was only used much later.

That is what you say, however I have not seen this video and neither has anyone else.

The Jewish week does not say that each side claims a majority.

Moshiachlisten.com is not a valid source as explained by Pinchas above and nowhere in the Beis Moshiach article does it say what you wrote. Also The "interview" is just quoting greenber's view of what he says, not exactly reliable. --TrachtGut 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

1)Nowhere does it say very few or even a few. It first says a small group of vocal messianic activists. They are quoting Lubavitch leaders (or more acuretly the anti's. It is well known that there are lubavitch leaders who are Meshichist). Then it say's Others, however, said the messianists are more prevalent than Chabad leaders admit. Thats what it say's.

2)I'll Change the "many of his followers" sentence to reflect that it was not done then but latter on.

3)The video is available,it's not secret. There is a link to this video on 770live.com under video's. Please don't take the liberty to make statments for others.

4) The source for the sentence In fact, of those opposed to Yechi (the so-called "anti" faction), many admittedly accept the message contained therein is in the Jewish week article: Chabad members often deny being messianists when speaking with non-chasidim but are part of this faction within the community, Rigg said. (Although you may not like or trust greenberg, the Beis Moshiach is reliable). Shlomke 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"According to Halacha..."

I don't want to open a can of worms here, but... The article says that there is no problem with saying "Yechi" according to "Halacha." Besides the akwardness of that sentence, it is simply POV. Plenty of figures in the Jewish world have said exactly the opposite. If we want to be fair, we can give the variety of positions and let the readers draw their own conclusions. --Meshulam 01:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who has said it's "against Halacha"? Saying that something is a meshugaas doesn't make it a violation of Halocho. Exactly which Halocho do these "opinions" refer to? Yehoishophot Oliver 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of Litvish leaders have said that it violates halacha, that it violates one of the 13 ikkarim, etc. All I'm saying is that according to WP:POV, we probably should not state that something is fine "according to halacha" when that matter is certainly being debated. --Meshulam 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which "leaders" said so? Which halacha did they claim it violates? Yehoishophot Oliver 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Many leaders have said it violates halacha. Shach said it violated halacha even before gimel Tamuz. Levin from Telz continues to say that. Feldman from Ner Yisroel has said as much. But you miss the point: Saying that it doesn't violate halacha is an affirmative statement, that must meet Wikipedia's rules of verifiability. That statement does not. It should be removed.--Meshulam 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My, people are so zealous about rules around here. Which "halacha" did they say it violates?Yehoishophot Oliver 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are.--Meshulam 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My Changes

I added the section of 1985, because one cannot simply qoute only one source without letting readers know additional sources. please. I changed "death of the rebbe" to the third of tammuz June 12 1994, so that it fits with all positions.

I changed the translation of Yechi to be quite a bit more accurate; and added additional info on the Rebbe encoureging it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaygezunt (talk • contribs)

Yechi as a prayer

Trachgut, what is your source that yechi is said as a prayer and not a proclamation? Shlomke 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As a reference to Yechi Hamelech being used as a prayer, it is in the footnotes of the Beis Nissan Sicha. That this is why it is used nowadays, I guess there is no source for a prayer or proclamation. Although it would probably make sense that it is used now in the same way that it was intended to be used in 1988 as that Sichas is used as a reason why Yechi should be said now. Maybe TrachtGut is aware of something more. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shlomke and TrachtGut, would putting the words "pray and proclaim" be better? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Lets see if trachtgut has a source. Shlomke 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the awaited Messiah

I'm changing back to the words is the awaited Messiah, because when people say yechi that is what they are saying, and there is no reference to will be revealed in in yechi. Shlomke 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch

• Support merge. This is only a phrase and can be covered within a section on the subject in general. Shlomke 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop this silliness, these tags have been up for months, there is no consensus to merge. Indeed, this option was explicitly rejected in a number of AfDs. David Spart 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • One tag was put up last week, and the other was put up last month. That is not a long time at all. This action is actually supported in the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch by a number of editors. And please don't call my actions silly. Shlomke 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with merger. Yechi is a complicated enough issue that it deserves its own article. JoshuaZ 18:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support merge per Shlomke. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Yechi is notable and major enough to warrant its own article. Otherwise, the controversies page will get too big and have to be split anyway. Kolindigo 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kolindigo and Josh. It might be possible to merge Yechi into a Chabad Messianism article, but I doubt it. Yechi is a valuable article and is well sourced. David Spart 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Yechi

Is there any opposition to a merge and redirect of Yechi to this article? As the subjects are kind of overlapping. I have started at a discussion regarding this at Talk:Chabad_Messianism#Merge_with_Yechi, to avoid having comments in multiple places, please respond there. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no prospect of this occuring during to WP:SIZE among other reasons. David Spart 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing and continues here: Talk:Chabad messianism#Merge with Yechi. Shlomke 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unmerged

Reviewing the info here, it is clear that Yechi is substantial enough to merit its own article. Since the Chabad messianism article is already well over 60kb, I have unmerged it. This article os OK as it is, and has survived an AfD. Lobojo (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)