Talk:Ohel (Chabad-Lubavitch)

Suggest merge

Since I expanded the Ohel article last year, it seems to me that this stub belongs in its own paragraph in that article, and the external links will also fit in the external links section of that article. Otherwise, this article is somewhat of an orphan; the Pages that link to "Ohel (Chabad)" are all pages that have the Chabad template on it, not any mention of the Rebbe's Ohel. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, this article needs to be greatly expanded. This particular ohel has had significant coverage in reliable sources, its own issues, and there's a lot to say about it; someone with more specific knowledge than I do will eventually take up that task, but I don't feel up to it. Meanwhile, Ohel seems to me to be a mishmash of an article, dealing with several different topics that are united only by sharing a title; it's really a sort of combination of a disambiguation page with the sub-articles that are normally linked from one. Or perhaps a dictionary entry with examples. Perhaps it should be broken up into several stubs, some of which would remain stubs and others would eventually be expanded. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I agree with Zsero in this case because it is obvious that the burial site of the 6th and 7th Lubavitcher Rebbes, with their wives and many other family members has become a holy place and place of pilgrimage for Jews from all walks of life from all over the world, is very important in the pantheon of not just Chabad but of all Jewry. The numbers of Jews who visit there DAILY is staggering! I have been there myself and seen it. It's sort of surprising that Yoninah has issues with this, because she is an expert on Breslov and the Rosh Hashana kibbutz#Pilgrimage established by Reb Noson to the grave of Rebbe Nachman at Uman, would she merge that into Ohel as well? Obviously not. IZAK (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IZAK and Zsero: Thank you for your comments. I was only pointing out that this page has been sitting at two paragraphs for two years, with no references, so I thought it could be merged to Ohel. I'm happy to leave it if someone will expand it.

Re Zsero's comment on Ohel: Should I make Ohel into a discussion of just shelters over graves, and then put the other definitions lower down in the article? There doesn't seem to be enough to say about each section to make each one even a stub. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a dictionary, and it's certainly not a Hebrew dictionary. The origin of the term can be described in a section, because that's relevant to this usage, but other uses aren't really relevant. But there is also the Ohel social services agency, which for some reason is at OHEL. What I think we really need is to make Ohel a dab page, with links to Ohel (grave), Ohel (Chabad) and perhaps Ohel (Breslov) if they can be expanded, Ohel (social services), and a See Also section to list the various shuls and institutions that are named "Ohel X".

Another point: if Ohel (Chabad) is to be merged, it should be not to Ohel (grave) but to Menachem Mendel Schneerson. And if I thought the article would stay as short as it is forever, I would advocate that. But the proper solution is to put an {{expand}} tag on it and give people time. People are busy, and collecting sources can be tedious, and the Wiki will not collapse if a short article remains short for a few years. -- Zsero (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Zsero: Thanks for the tips. I'm going to go ahead and prepare that dab page. And maybe I'll be the one to expand this page! Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kohen visitors

I deleted this section because it is a general description of Kohanim at gravesites and better belongs on the Kohen page. If you have something sourced specifically to the Chabad Ohel, please add it with a cite. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah, The deleted content relates to the Chabad Ohel as kohen visitors are likely to use the "kohen box" (not being aware of the 4 tefachim requirement even with the kohen box) at the ohel, (ive added in as you've requested, a pic of the kohen boxes and "kever clutter" near the entrance to the tziyon (btw, this is more clutter than any other tziyon that kohanim visit) is forthcoming..), thanks.--108.21.119.56 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the material you're adding is quite generalized and is appropriate for any page about a gravesite or ohel. Do you have a reference that talks about the challenges of Kohen visitors at the Chabad Ohel specifically? Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your idea of starting a page on the "kohen box", I have never heard of such a term and cannot find anything resembling it on Google Search or Google Books. Perhaps you could write up the information you have, with reliable sources, on the Kohen or Tumah and taharah pages. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The kohen box may be an invention invented at the rebbe's ohel..i mean, im not sure but it may be?--96.57.76.230 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any references to the "kohen box" and the Chabad Ohel, and the generality of the information included here, I'm going ahead and deleting the section again. Yoninah (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

measurement

At least from going out of the ohel house (where information desk is located), it really does look to be too narrow to fit those measurements of 53+ in (i.e. enough space on both sides of the adult kohen attempting passage).

pathway measurement less than adequate for kohen to pass

--FrenkelP42 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

too, the article cites an approximate figure, and doesn't relate that the figure decreases when there is a partition of ten tefachs high, should we change this?--FrenkelP42 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The numbers wont allow passage..

Image depiction of minimal four tefach requirement at pathway entry to ohel

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenkelP42 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Kohanim" section that you added to the article is completely unreferenced. Could you provide sources to back up these statements? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request consensus for page move

I don't understand why DreamOutLoud moved this page to Ohel (Chabad-Lubavitch). The new name doesn't appear in any published source. I request consensus to move it back to the original name. Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the http://www.ohelchabad.org/ website uses the name "Ohel Chabad Lubavitch" (but without the dash). Debresser (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So why aren't we renaming Chabad as Chabad Lubavitch? Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It is all very simple. The official name of the Ohel, as it appears from the website, is "Ohel Chabad-Lubavitch". Period. Why Chabad is Chabad and not Chabad-Lubavitch or just Lubavitch, those are unrelated questions. Debresser (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do note that as per WP:COMMONNAME the "official name" of something is often not preferred if that is not its most commonly used and known name. I came her from the Help desk and have no knowledge or opinion about the specific merits of this issue. DES ^(talk) 00:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello DESiegel. Yes, I was aware ofthat. The reason I didn't mention it is that the common name is just "the Ohel", without anything more, so that is not the issue here. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:COMMON NAME, and the fact that we have chosen to name the Chabad page that way and not Chabad Lubavitch, it looks like this page should be named Ohel (Chabad). Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed, and that is what I tried to explain above. Yes, "Chabad" is the common name for the Hasidic movement, rather than "Chabad Lubavitch". But that is not necessarily true for other objects that contain the name "Chabad Lubavitch". For them, the common name may still be the full version. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw the post at the help desk. "Ohel" by itself is out due to the dab page, so we need more for the title. When you look at the sources having Ohel and Chabad, most of them use Ohel Chabad-Lubavitch. However, that seems to be in the context of "Ohel Chabad-Lubavitch, a ramshackle building next to the burial site"[1] and "the Ohel Chabad Lubavitch Center"[2] which do not seem to be about the religious shrine itself. One reference refers to "the Ohel-Chabad, the Queens resting place of the sixth and seventh Lubavitcher rebbes."[3] Per Parenthetical disambiguation, I think Ohel (shrine) or Ohel (religious shrine) or Ohel (Queens, New York) would be more appropriate. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ohel (Chabad-Lubavitch). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120125005705/http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/36247/jewish/Overview.htm to http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/36247/jewish/Overview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)