Talk:2017–2018 Bergen County eruv controversy

Legality and circumstance of initial eruv installation

A number of recent edits involve labeling the initial installation of the eruv as a violation of the law and a covert operation. Some things to consider while incorporating these ideas:

• There are two points of view here: the towns claiming that an eruv was a violation of various ordinances and the eruv association claiming that said ordinances are not applicable or not enforceable.

• While this was settled before a court could decide the ultimate legality of the eruv, it's worth noting that summons were never issued to the eruv association in any town.

• In terms of needing permission to install items on utility poles (sign ordinance aside), the mayor of Mahwah is quoted as saying that permission from the town was not needed.

• As to contentions that the installation was done in secret, the Mahwah police chief town and administration were notified in May 2017, before construction began. Meanwhile, the mayor and council of Upper Saddle River and Montvale were aware of the eruv as early as 2015. The mayor of Montvale at the time even made a public announcement about the eruv. On the other hand, from the point of view of the citizens of these towns, the eruv may have seemed to have sprung up unannounced.

Ayid7891 (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC); edited 12:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with those points. I will admit, during the controversy itself, I was concerned that the eruv association seemed to be acting in a less than open way. But with the disclosures from the various lawsuits, this does not seem to be so. I tried very hard while writing it to be fair to everyone, but I am limited by what is in the secondary sources I used.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Neutral Point of View Issues

This article as originally written appears to explicitly side with those in favor of the eruv expansion. As per WP: Neutral , articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. To avoid warring edits, discussion on this page is warranted to address these issues so that consensus may be reached. HudsonValley (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is where the sources led us. Are there, specifically, news articles that are being ignored? Or items that are being ignored within existing news items? Please be specific.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I would note that the neutrality tag was added in the face of the fact that this article was found just ten days ago to meet the featured article criteria, including 1(d), neutrality. Since the tag does not represent what the recent consensus found, I suggest it be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In reading the peer review the focus appears to have been on grammatical form and sentence structure rather than on editorial bias, which would be difficult for editors without direct knowledge of the issues to recognize. It is my view that seeking peer review on a brand new article edited by only one person is premature and an attempt to make the content appear to be settled fact without receiving true consensus from the Wikipedia community. Articles explaining the other side and/or full context of the issue appear to have been ignored. For starters, the page includes the following:

During the controversy, many Mahwah residents angrily protested against Orthodox Jews from Rockland County, New York , who might use local parks or seek to buy homes there.

Referring to the response of Mahwah residents as 'angry protest against Orthodox Jews' is an unfair generalization that ignores the concerns Mahwah residents (and residents of other municipalities in North Bergan) have expressed. To ensure a neutral point of view I would suggest the page characterize the response the way the cited news article does, as follows:

The issue led to outcry among residents, who voiced concerns over a possible population explosion — as seen in some Rockland County towns where there are ultra-Orthodox communities — that could lead to issues with the school system, high-density housing and overcrowding. (The eruv association has dismissed these concerns.)

There are several other issues that should be discussed in more detail, including but not limited to the proper context of the park ban(s), efforts to keep the eruv expansion a secret from existing residents and campaign donations by ultra-Orthodox groups to Phil Murphy, which may have influenced his position on this issue. Until the article reflects a truly balanced perspective, the neutrality tag should remain. HudsonValley (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree about "many Mahwah residents angrily protested" not being balanced, this paints a picture of a mob, but news reports seem to show that while a large number of people did get involved, things remained relatively civil. It would also be good to mention residents' concerns in the same thought (rather than just that they were protesting "Orthodox Jews"), though the concerns are detailed later in the article.

What did you have in mind for the parks ordinance? Right now it says:

On June 29, the Mahwah Township Council had passed an ordinance, effective July 27, barring nonresidents of New Jersey from its parks. Residents had complained that out-of-staters were flooding Mahwah's parks, sometimes by the busload. After the ordinance passed, but before it went into effect, Mahwah police chief James Batelli received many phone calls from residents asking that it be enforced against Orthodox Jews.

This could use a citation for the phone calls targeting Orthodox Jews, but is there more context than complaints of large numbers of non-residents using Mahwah's parks?

As for the rest, can you please provide sources? If you have a reliable source for the corruption of Phil Murphy by the Bergen Rockland Eruv Association, I think this would definitely warrant mentioning in the article. Ayid7891 (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC); edited 16:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to removing "angrily" (though I did not mean at the park protest, but rather what was said at council meetings) and providing a different summary of residents' concerns, but we must remain within what is contained in secondary sources. I cited Murphy, but as I recall the local congressman and Senator Booker also had things to say on the subject, and I was concerned that citing all of them was a bit piling on. If the eruv association contributed to all their campaigns, well and good, but if a secondary, reliable source has not made the connection, it's WP:OR. Probably the coverage was unfavorable, from one perspective, but we're a tertiary source that has to rely on such accounts. As for the sourcing on the calls to the police, it's sourced to the next footnote. It is not required that you end every sentence with a footnote, if several consecutive sentences within a paragraph are from the same source, a footnote at the end of the passage is all that is required. Again, the key point is that we have to rely on the secondary sources, the newspaper accounts. With that in mind, how would you like how the residents' concerns are summarized in the lede?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake, I missed the mention of calls to the Mahwah police in the source you had there already. I have edited my comment to remove this suggestion. And I absolutely agree, a source showing corruption would need to do more than just attest that contributions were made, it would have to come to the conclusion that this may have influenced Phil Murphy with respect to his decision to speak out in support of the eruv. Ayid7891 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)"

It appears we've reached consensus regarding removing the "angrily protested" characterization. I'll edit accordingly on the main page. If there are any issues with the edit, please discuss here before reversing it entirely (as opposed to changing a word or two of the sentence).

Re: Phil Murphy - While no news articles appear to have discussed Phil Murphy's political aims in the specific context of his support of the eruv expansion, this controversy took place during an election year, and support from the ultra-Orthodox community in Lakewood and surrounding areas were instrumental in getting him elected (if you'd like citations for that, take your pick). Mentioning those facts therefore seems relevant to any discussion of the political context of this controversy. That said, there are larger issues to be dealt with first, so I'd be willing to table that discussion.

Re: Parks Ban - First, in discussing the parks ban, it would be relevant to mention that in park bans are hardly unusual in the region. In fact within Rockland county, where some of the influx of park users into Mahwah come from, Clarkstown has a longstanding residents only policy for all parks not supported by state funding. Secondly, multiple news articles have mentioned the issues of Ultra-Orthodox groups crowding Mahwah parks to the point where area residents are unable to use the parks themselves. Local residents have complained about increased trash and in August local police responded to calls that an Orthodox Jewish resident from New Yok used a picnic table at Winter's Park to barbecue, causing fire damage .

Although this should be alluded to in the first paragraph as well as casual visitors may not read beyond the first paragraph at all, I propose a new article section to discuss concerns raised by residents.

I would also like to discuss re-framing the first sentence of the page to be more neutral. It states

In July 2017, a controversy began when the municipalities of Mahwah, Upper Saddle River and Montvale in Bergen County, New Jersey, in the United States, began efforts to prevent the completion of an eruv within their borders.

The page makes it appear as though these municipalities instigated the controversy when what actually happened is that news coverage of the eruv expansion began. The view of the eruv proponents was that they received the necessary permissions from the utility company, whereas local residents perceived that the eruv was built in secrecy and sprung on them without warning. Again, this is not about which side is right or wrong, it's about presenting both sides in a balanced way. HudsonValley (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, what about "In 2017 and 2018, there was controversy in the New Jersey municipalities of Mahwah, Upper Saddle River and Montvale revolving around the construction of an eruv within their borders." That is close to the language we had in there formerly, it appears to have been modified recently.

I was unable to find any coverage of the Mahwah parks ban that preceded July. If there are WP:RS that preceded that, I would be glad to see more context added on that. A source from June explaining what led the Mahwah council to pass the ordinance, from before the eruv controversy, would be welcome. But the picnic table incident was in August and it is hard to see how it affected a ban already passed (and suspended). It did result in the council passing a long list of prohibitions on uses of parks that the papers got rather sarcastic about, and I suppose we'd have to include. I do not think the Clarkstown matter relevant because that is not in New Jersey. Such bans have constitutional problems; I think the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down efforts to reserve beaches for residents in a case involving one of the shore boroughs some years ago. If we are going to that level of context, we would have to discuss those things. We should keep the discussion focused on New Jersey, lest we descend into whataboutism.

I do not think a new article section would be helpful. First, I'm not aware that there are concerns that we are not setting forth. Second, where are the sources for same? Third, I fear that it would become a walled garden for proponents of the eruv ban. Fourth, we really don't go into the reasons why the proponents feel there should be an eruv. We'd have to have it to balance. And lastly, if we go into lengthy discussions about opponents' reasons, surely we have to include what opinion pieces have said about them? A lot of the opinion pieces I've read on the eruv were rather scathing about the positions taken by opponents.

Again, I ask you for WP:RS concerning what you would like to see in the article.

I would rather that we wait to make any changes to the article, until we have a full agreement.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: First sentence - I support Wehwalt's proposed language although would like to add "by a group from neighboring Rockland County, New York". The fact that the group constructing the eruv is from a county in New York that borders the Bergan County municipalities where the eruvs are being expanded/constructed is important to understanding the controversy as a whole and is a fact not in dispute.

The parks ban news coverage did start in July 2017; the ban was issued on June 29, 2017. The picnic table incident is relevant not because it was the cause of the parks ban but because it adds context to the overall controversy; specifically why residents felt that the parks ban should stand, and to help explain why residents felt the eruv was part of a hostile takeover of their towns. Please see my previous citation. As for Clarkstown, I contend that the Clarkstown matter is directly relevant given that this issue is about a Rockland County group building an Eruv in Bergan county. This is not an article exclusively about New Jersey. Clarkstown is a town within Rockland County that is very close to Bergan County, and like Bergan County, neighbors Ramapo, the town within Rockland County with the largest Orthodox Jewish population.

Let's take a moment to review replacement language for the last sentence of the first paragraph. Instead of "During the controversy, many Mahwah residents angrily protested against Orthodox Jews from Rockland County, New York , who might use local parks or seek to buy homes there." Perhaps we could use: "The issue led to outcry among residents, who voiced concerns over a possible population explosion — as seen in some Rockland County towns as well as Lakewood township in Ocean County, New Jersey where there are Orthodox Jewish communities — that could lead to issues with the school system, high-density housing and overcrowding."

I would concede that a new article section is not needed.

For simplicity's sake, I'd like to move through the article in chronological order. Do we have agreement on the proposed language for the first paragraph? If so, I'll edit accordingly and move on to the second paragraph. HudsonValley (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to cite a RS tying Clarkstown to the eruv controversy, or it's OR. And as for your proposed language, I would say that we don't give reasons for why the Orthodox might be entitled to an eruv, why should we give reasons why they should not be entitled to one? If we are going to have language such as you propose, though we should say that the residents feared that Orthodox Jews moving into their town would cause the problems. You omit that part of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me expand on that a bit. The article lede, per WP:LEDE, is to reflect the article body. You are trying to add things to the lede which are not in the body of the article. It may be best to revisit the lede later. We heed to have those RS, remember WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] "--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully differ on the point about Clarkstown. It doesn't break new news as the information is cited and it is relevant information for a reader to have in the context of this controversy.

The lede does give information about why an eruv should be built - so that Jewish sabbath observers may carry items in a way normally forbidden on the Jewish Sabbath. The article gives more reasons later on.

Can you please clarify what you mean about my proposed changes including information not in the rest of the article? The Municipal & Public opinion section already includes the following:

Municipal officials stated that this was being done because of the concerns of residents, who feared the Orthodox moving in would result in a population explosion, that the schools would suffer, and high-density housing built. Residents cited Lakewood in Ocean County as an example of such problems.

Although I do think that more information should be included, particularly about what has happened in Ramapo and the East Ramapo school district, which has been discussed in articles about this issue. I'm citing one example, but there are others.

As for WP:UNDUE, WP: RSUW, an explanatory supplement to the WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies, includes that Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Doing so here would be an appropriate way to present the controversy in a neutral manner. HudsonValley (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@HudsonValley: can you please address the WP:OR (particularly WP:SYNTH) issues with mentioning Clarkstown and campaign contributions to Phil Murphy in this article? That is, unless there a WP:RS discussing either of these in the context of the eruv controversy or Mahwah parks ordinance, don't guidelines prevent making such a connection here? I have my own arguments against making such a connection beyond that, but I don't think this is the forum to argue them. Incidentally, I do think it's worth noting that Wehwalt (talk · contribs) is correct about residents-only parks ordinances in NJ, see Barkawi v Borough of Haledon.. Ayid7891 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR does not require that the specific information be cited in news article in relation to that specific subject matter. However, if we are adopting that as our consistent standard as it relates to that page, I am on board with following it. As for Phil Murphy, I agreed to table that discussion (which means avoiding edits with respect to that subject).

Neither of those things affect the first paragraph, though. We did agree that the way Mahwah residents were essentially characterized as an angry mob needed to be addressed. My goal is to add neutrality and balance, not undertake a top to bottom rewrite. We discussed proposed language which Wehwalt seemed to be in agreement with, and then backtracked on. What are the specific objections with the language we worked on for the first paragraph? HudsonValley (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

HudsonValley, the reason there are no citations in the lede is that everything in the lede is mentioned (or is a summary of) cited material in the body of the article. We never mention Clarkstown. We would have to have something relating Clarkstown (or the local school districts in Rockland County that have been the source of controversy) to the eruv dispute, and we could add something then. I would be willing to see a brief statement of both pro- and anti- eruv made in the first or second paragraph of the lede. Say, "Supporters of the eruv stated that it would ease the lives of Orthodox Jews near the state line who would be enclosed by it; opponents warned that an eruv would allow Orthodox Jews to move into the three municipalities, leading to a population explosion in which the schools would suffer." Something like that anyway, possibly that could be a replacement last sentence to the first paragraph of the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Wehwalt's proposed change as a replacement for the last sentence of the first paragraph is reasonable, would just change "allow Orthodox Jews" to "encourage Orthodox Jews" for accuracy and clarity.

To clarify my previous comment: I am concerned about synthesizing sources that may imply a conclusion together, thus constituting WP:SYNTH, in some of the new topics that were suggested for inclusion in this article. For example, Clarkstown is not in the area of eruv expansion, not home to the users of the expanded eruv or the plaintiffs (they live in the Ramapo villages of Airmont, Chestnut Ridge and Suffern), in a different state and court system, and their parks law was passed far before the eruv controversy (in 1975). Putting mention of a seemingly unconnected residents-only parks law next to that of Mahwah's parks ordinance to show that such laws are common implicitly makes a case (to me at least) that Mahwah's ordinance should therefore be unremarkable or legal. Such conclusions should come from an WP:RS, lest we start trying to create a legal analysis of the ordinance here (which would surely include relevant caselaw like Barkawi v. Borough of Haledon).

HudsonValley, given your last reply, are you okay with tabling mention of Clarkstown as well? Then, aside from the issue being addressed in the first paragraph, are there any other outstanding issues before removing the NPOV tag? Ayid7891 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Eruv Details

The background section dedicates two paragraphs to a detailed explanation of what an eruv is. It seems that the information in the first paragraph provides sufficient information for a reader who wants to understand the eruv in the context of the controversy that is the subject of this article. Further, the introduction includes a link to the WIki Eruv page which seems a more appropriate location for more comprehensive details. I welcome discussion by other editors on this subject. HudsonValley (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That surely is a matter within the remit of WP:FAC, and indeed the proper way to set forth what an eruv is was discussed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FAC does not preclude future page improvement, and is not intended to discourage future editing. Given that the article is focused primarily on the controversy itself with lengthy explanations of legal battles, it seems the eruv background information could be trimmed substantially with readers free to read the eruv article for further details. The specifics don't seem directly relevant to the subject matter. HudsonValley (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a community consensus project. You seem to be casting existing consensus aside, and wanting a complete article rewrite. You need consensus, and the consensus needs to be particularly strong simply because there has been a recent consensus. Only you want this. Regarding the question of the eruv definition in particular, I feel the existing text is needed for the reader to understand the matter at controversy.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think without the second paragraph, the reader may be at something of a loss to understand why the Orthodox want an eruv, thus making them looking less reasonable in their actions in securing one. The affect on their daily life (or Shabbat life) by being able to push strollers and the like was something stressed repeatedly by the plaintiffs and their counsel, and we would be ill-advised to delete.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First, the line in the third paragraph that states:

An operating eruv allows observant Jews to carry prayer books from home to synagogue on Shabbat, or to push strollers or baby carriages."

is an important one and should remain for the reason you mention. It's the rest of that paragraph that I question the need for in the specific context of understanding the controversy, as well as shortening the preceding paragraph. So that the focus is on why the eruv is important to those who practice Orthodox Judaism rather than on the granular details of how an eruv works.

As for existing consensus, editors can not be expected to vet an article for bias in a peer review on an issue this regional. Further, I question why there was no consideration of the opening comment on the featured article discussion which stated

This article is about... a controversy that it's something of a shock to have happening in the present day. Still, Bergen County, the county that brought you boroughitis, the Meadowlands, The Sopranos and me, for I grew up there, has been known for such things in the past, regrettably.

Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a soapbox for one's personal opinions or biases but rather as a repository of unbiased, 'bird's eye' information about any particular subject one might want to know about. And as previously mentioned, peer review and featured article status are not intended to be used as shields against future edits or discussion. Each argument should be considered purely on its own merits.

As for mine being a lone voice, others have attempted to edit this article and had their edits reversed. Being heard on Wikipedia is not always as easy as it may seem.

My intent is to add balance - not a full rewrite. If all involved are prepared to move forward in good faith - and I certainly am - I'm sure the result will be a page that is accurate, useful to Wiki readers and neutral in its perspective. HudsonValley (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I remind you again of WP:UNDUE. Our articles are to represent the sources, with different positions given the approximate coverage they receive in the sources. This does. As for my opinion, it was formed by writing the article and going where the sources took me. My opinion before that was that the eruv association had acted a bit too much in a clandestine manner. I am not certain which positions against the eruv are not set forth in the article. So far you have mentioned that Governor Murphy may have been influenced on this issue by contributions allegedly given by other Jews someplace else, that no source speaks to (you have withdrawn that now) and a parks ban in another state, that was not subject to New Jersey law. Also, you've mentioned the picnic table fire, that happened in August; I said that we'd need to include the "laundry list" of prohibited activities Mahwah council passed after that, and possibly the opinion pieces that were written in The Record about that. Possibly one way to proceed is to ask you to come up with other items that you feel need to be included and we can see if there are sources out there that can justify it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no need to ping me each time you mention my name. I have the page watchlisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

On the background section eruv discussion: I think the sentence about walled cities and the one about items forbidden on Shabbat could be deleted without harming what the reader needs to know.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Eruv location in NJ

Hi. I don't seem to find the general locations of the lechis constructed in New Jersey on utility poles in 2017. The text in the Construction and controversy section only says that the eruv "was intended to run through Mahwah, Upper Saddle River and Montvale". "Through" can mean many things. A reader could quite reasonably conclude that the eruv was intended to enclose all or most of those three municipalities.

My guess is that the eruv enclosed only the northernmost portions of the three towns. For example: the lechis starting in Mahwah going south from NY on Franklin Turnpike to east on Miller Road to south on East Mahwah Road to east on Airmont Avenue etc. Or maybe the eruv extends only small, discontinuous sections into NJ, like: Mahwah south on Franklin Turnpike to north on Maplewood Boulevard back into NY.

Couldn't you draw a map of the streets on which the lechis were installed? If that is not possible, couldn't you say something like: The updated eruv, as defined by the new lechis in NJ, took up less than X percent of the land in Mahwah, Upper Saddle River and Montvale and, in general, followed the streets closest to the NY border." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a map, but all I know of for a source is some google maps overlays, and I'm not convinced that satisfies WP:V ... and the route of the eruv has changed due to the settlements. I wouldn't object to a map ... but I think it is going to take someone some work.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Have the borders of the eruv been settled? The official map (here) only includes areas from 2009. Some of the maps I've found were tentative presentations for a town meeting. I have looked here, here (both maps) and here and there seems to be slight differences. Do you know of any map (or equivalent, like a directed path of street names) that's up to date? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No I don't. I try to keep up to date with press accounts. I don't know of final maps.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no skill at map-making, but here are the eruv maps as filed in court.

• Mahwah (planned and settled): http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/17cv6054_1-11.pdf
• Upper Saddle River (planned): http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/17cv5512_22.pdf, page 5
• Upper Saddle River (settlement): http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/17cv05512_54-1.pdf, page 22
• Montvale (planned): http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17cv8632_1.pdf, page 5
• Montvale (settlement): http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/17cv8632_15.pdf, page 12

Ayid7891 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The official Monsey Eruv map is a good source as well, it shows the current position of the eruv as installed through Mahwah, Upper Saddle River and Montvale (notice the New York/New Jersey line that runs through the bottom section). Note that the Upper Saddle River segment is supposed to be moved as per the settlement. Ayid7891 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Settlement incomplete

Does anyone know why the eruv association still posts the old map rather than the new eruv with Airmont and slivers of the three NJ towns? Would it normally take three months to put up the lechis for the USR and the Montvale sections?

Maybe we should add a sentence to the article, something like this:

The map of the eruv last published in 2009 by the Rockland Eruv has not been changed to include Airmont and the three NJ towns, as of July 2018.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why there are two websites, but the Monsey Eruv website shows the current location of the boundaries including USR and Montvale, while the Rockland Eruv does not appear to have been updated. The eruv was live in Upper Saddle River as of last year, but is supposed to be moved closer to the border as per the settlement. Ayid7891 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Roy's proposal would run afoul of WP:SYNTH.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The Monsey website shows the planned borders of the USR and Montvale eruv sections, not the settled borders here, page 22 and here, page 5.

@Wehwalt: I don't understand why my sentence is against WP:SYNTH. I originally started with "The map of the eruv that many people consult, last published in 2009 by the Rockland Eruv, has not been..." but I thought that the addition (in italics) might be SYNTH. Certainly it's possible to say in WP something is not published, when you talking about the publication itself and you give the source. It may not be necessary but that's another argument.

So the question becomes (in my opinion), why are we (as editors) permitting that sentence to appear in Wikipedia? What does it add? I say it shows that the 2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy article is not finished. Not in the Wikipedia editing but in the final resolution of the eruv matter. I tried to find it expressed as a positive in the sources but failed. This negative was the nearest thing that I could find. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith:, I believe the Monsey website is intended to show the current location of the eruv, which consists of the planned borders in USR and the settled borders in Mahwah and Montvale. In Montvale, both the map and the settlement show the eruv going down Upper Saddle River Road to Fox Hill Road to Lark Lane to an existing fence. In Upper Saddle River, the eruv was initially built along the planned borders on Old Stone Church Road , but according to the settlement must be now moved to the settled borders. Ayid7891 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ayid7891: I believe that the Monsey website (eruvmonsey.com) is an abandoned startup. It hasn't been touched since 2017 and some links (for example, the "Read more"s on the home page) don't go anywhere. The Monsey Eruv map is difficult to read and, as near as I can tell, wrong when compared to any of the planned or settled maps in any of the news sources.

For example, in the Monsey map, the Mahwah section contains the area between E Mahwah and Airmont Road, the settled area starts at Airmont. Also in the Monsey map, the southern border of USR section runs along Weiss Road, the settled border runs along Hillside and Brook. According to the Montvale settled map, a separate segment where the southern border runs along North and Summit {southeast of the fence and the GSP) is totally missing on the Monsey map.

Ayid7891, can't we agree that the following are the settled maps for all three municipalities (since you provided them in your 7/5 posting up above):

• Mahwah: http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/17cv6054_1-11.pdf
• Upper Saddle River: http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/17cv05512_54-1.pdf, page 22
• Montvale: http://www.eruvlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/17cv8632_15.pdf, page 12

Certainly, the Rockland eruv map has far more detail than the Monsey map. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: agreed those are the settled boundaries which should comprise the final eruv. Given that the Rockland and Monsey maps conflict, I guess the maps filed in court are the best source? Maybe the current status doesn't matter for the article as much as the planned and settled routes? Ayid7891 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I only reference the Rockville map because the job of extending the eruv is not finished. Does anyone know what the holdup is? The USR section should have been complete by around the end of May (April 19 + 45 days).

Eruv Litigation says in this that "Montvale will have 45 days to get necessary permissions to use the path identified in the accompanying map. If they cannot get the required permission from private property owners, the BREA may use the map included in the original complaint". If Montvale failed to get necessary permissions within 45 days then we are back to the plan that didn't use a fence to cross the GSP. And was built by O&RU in 2017. Right? However, the current Montvale webpage here, last updated June 5 (according to Google), still lists the borders that need a fence. Did Montvale get the permissions? Was the eruv association late in rerouting the USR section? If not, has the judge scheduled a hearing?

Because of all this, I still think we need some citable reference in the article that the eruv dispute is not finished. Currently, the last sentence in the lead says "The three municipalities have settled with the eruv association, allowing the eruv to remain...". In my opinion, that implies that the matter is complete. What do all of you say? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest putting after remain, "with the details of the route to be settled" or some such thing. It's supported and vague enough to cover all contigencies while we look for final infomration.(Wehwalt)--17:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Upper Saddle River has updated its site and added maps. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there have been some recent filings in court regarding the Upper Saddle River eruv. The most recent was on July 18th, which details the ongoing process to complete the agreed upon eruv ("the Exhibit A Eruv"). It says that construction will "begin the week of July 16, 2018 and continue until such time as it is complete". Ayid7891 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Change in first paragraph

I've changed or added three sentences to the first paragraph in the article because:

1. An eruv is an area, not the border that surrounds it.
2. I believed that the explanation of an eruv in the lead was not enough to clarify what the article was talking about. Yes, the explanation is gone over in greater detail in section 1. But I felt we should have more context in the lead because many readers do not read any further than the introduction; see WP:LEAD which says "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic".

There are many other mentions of the word "eruv" in the article when what the editor meant was "eruv boundary" or "border", not the area surrounded. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I've worked through those now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Change to lead in today's featured article

The last two sentences in the first paragraph say "This clear demarcation permits Orthodox Jews to carry or transport items (like prayer books or baby strollers) within the eruv on the Jewish Sabbath in a way normally forbidden under Orthodox Jewish law. In other Jewish denominations, such as Reform or Conservative, it is not forbidden." In this case, the "it" in "it is not forbidden" is ambiguous and may lead to confusion. And it's not the denomination per se but the interpretation of the Halakha that controls.

I intend to change the last sentence to (italics added) "...in a way normally forbidden under Orthodox Jewish law. Under other Jewish law, such as that practiced by Reform or Conservative Judaism, the transport of items on the Sabbath is not forbidden."

I intend to make this change at about 16:00 UTC (that's noon EDT). Does anyone have any objections? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about whether to eliminate the sentence about other denominations entirely. It is not sourced anywhere in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Guido5567 made a change that cured the ambiguous "it". By itself, I do not think that the law vs. denomination change is enough to add right now. And about it not being sourced, I'm sure we could find (attributable, if not attributed, see WP:OR) a reference (or twenty) explaining the difference between Orthodox and other Jews when building an eruv. As a matter of fact, I was going to find sources that explained that the bulk of Orthodox Jews (wear skullcaps all the time) in Rockland county are Hasidic (with long beards) and it is they who maintain the Rockland Eruv. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This change puts the article in conflict with Eruv#Eruv_in_Conservative_and_Reform_Judaism, which states that Conservative Judaism does require an eruv. Ayid7891 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have cut it as unsourced and reasonably challenged.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I apologize about the ambiguous "it". What I meant by "it" is carrying or transporting items which is forbidden under Orthodox Jewish law on the Sabbath. But Mr. Wehwalt, I think we should discuss it more. Mr. Ayid7891 might be correct by asserting that Conservative Jews require an eruv too. Although that's entirely up to debate. But that wasn't the point of that particular sentence. We can easily modify it to just Reform Jews, or a combination of another denomination such as Reconstructionist Jews instead. I'm positive we can come up here with a source to validate that claim that an eruv is not binding on Reform Jews. I thought it was very important to include this critical piece of information within those sentences because amongst Jews, they understand the differences between certain denominations. But people not affiliated with Judaism might not necessarily relate to the different streams of Jewish law. I thought it was important to denote that this issue was in relation to almost entirely Orthodox Jewish law in particular, and not to other streams of Judaism such as Reform, or perhaps Reconstructionist. Guido5567 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We must distinguish between eruvin in general (the Eruv article) and this eruv, the Rockland Eruv, in particular. Yes, some Conservative Jews in America do observe the prohibition of hotzaah mereshut lereshut‬. And so do some Reform, Reconstructionist and even Humanistic Jews. And so do some non-Jews. For example, in Israel, it's practically impossible not to observe hotzaah, especially in the Jewish areas. And if a gentile visits his wife's Orthodox uncle on Friday night, he'll almost certainly observe, if for no other reason than just to be polite.

This is why the article uses the term "observant Jew". Remember, the Jews have no equivalent of a biblical hell. Someone who does not observe the prohibition might have to endure the derision of his neighbors but the neighbors will be the first to say that he's within his rights. The transport of items during Sabbath, with or without an eruv, is never forbidden; it's just that some people prefer it.

The Rockland Eruv was originally set up by Hasidic Jews (a sub-group of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism) in South Monsey and expanded from there. This eruv is used by Hasidim, Ultras, Orthodox and some Conservative and Reform Jews. (And a sprinkling of gentiles.)

In this sentence, we are trying to distinguish between observant (mostly Hasidic and Orthodox Jews) and non-observant (everybody else). How about "...in a way that is otherwise considered by them to be forbidden. Under other Jewish tenets, such as those practiced by some Reform or Conservative congregations, the transport of items on the Sabbath is allowed."? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with that type of a modification. It's fine to make a minor edit noting different streams of Judaism and their inherent observance or non-observance with an eruv. Guido5567 (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that most other sects of Judaism don't use an eruv already implied by the fact that the qualifier "Orthodox" is there?

Also, there is a sourced statement in Eruv#Eruv_in_Conservative_and_Reform_Judaism that Conservative Jewish authorities forbid carrying without an eruv. ^{relevant section quoted here} RoyGoldsmith, when you say the eruv is "used", I think that is implying "used for religious purposes", which would not be true of Reform or Reconstructionist Jews, at least those following their respective authorities. If a non-Jew was said to "use" the eruv, that must embody some entirely different meaning of the word. I don't know if its important to have this level of detail about eruvin in the article here, my goal is simply that this article shouldn't conflict with Eruv. Ayid7891 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well again, this article is not in a Jewish magazine, or Jewish newspaper. The people reading it, are not exclusively Jewish. A guy living in Nebraska, or someone residing in Iceland may not fully understand the cultural differences between Orthodox Jews, and other liberal streams of Judaism like Reform, or Humanistic. This is to denote that carrying objects without an eruv is generally forbidden under Orthodox Jewish law, but not necessarily under Reform Jewish law. The way that particular paragraph reads, is that Orthodox Jewish law is sort of the only binding Jewish law out there. Guido5567 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so the concern is that people might not realize that "Orthodox" is a qualifier. No objection to adding something then, as long as it doesn't conflict with Eruv#Eruv_in_Conservative_and_Reform_Judaism. Maybe just refer to "other sects" that don't use one? Ayid7891 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have two intuitive separate sentences that say the following:

• The demarcation permits Orthodox Jews to carry or transport items (like prayer books or baby strollers) within the eruv on the Jewish Sabbath, in a way that is otherwise considered forbidden under Orthodox Jewish law.

• Although other Jewish denominations such as Reform or Conservative, do not deem the action of carrying objects to be prohibitive without an eruv.

We should just bring back those two sentences. Why be less intuitive with vague phrasing like "other sects" ? Guido5567 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Because your second sentence contradicts Eruv#Eruv_in_Conservative_and_Reform_Judaism and the sources there. Just trying to provide a path forward without going into the weeds here on specific denominations. Ayid7891 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I had previously mentioned, Conservative Judaism in itself is subject to different factions. Some Conservative Jews follow liberalism, being more close to Reform Judaism ideals, and some follow more politically conservative ideals being more closer to Orthodox Judaism. I don't think it can be summed up with a few isolated sources.But anyhow, we can alter the sentence to Reform or Reconstructionist, or perhaps Reform and Humanistic. These streams of Judaism do not follow eruvim. I'm just trying to make the subject matter more perceptive and more visceral to non-Jewish readers. Guido5567 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, *in the lead*, we would need or want to confuse the reader by talking about what other Jewish denominations do. If we stipulate "Orthodox" Jews do something, the clear implication is that other Jews do not. If you feel the need to go into more detail, do so in the body copy, where you have more room and where it doesn't disrupt the flow of getting to the nub of the story, which is what the lead should be for. Whatever option we go for, a single sentence should not include the word "considered" twice, unless it's a direct quote, it's just bad copywriting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

While we have been discussing saying anything about non-Orthodox Jews at the end of the first paragraph, Wehwalt, Duranged, Dweller and Ironman1104 have been having a minor edit war over the last several sentences. During the time I've been adding this blub, they have reinserted the part about Reform and Reconstructionist. Regardless what we decide here, they or other editors will change it, if not today then within a few days or a week at most.

I recommend that we let the lead sit a month or two and then revisit. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Be fair. When someone makes a reasonable edit to an article and explains themselves in an edit summary and is then reverted without comment, that does sort of encourage them to re-revert, rather than visit here to discuss. Which is what happened, eventually. I would not characterise what I did as "edit warring". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is more important to me to have all the fine points of halacha settled, than to have any particular version prevail, after which this article can more forward in a reasonably stable version, allowing for new events.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What's left there now seems like a sentence fragment to me, it begins "Although" but has no main clause going on to say what this is in spite of. Also, there is a lot of nuance on the Jewish Law side (particularly Conservative), as is coming up on this talk page. I'm still left wondering if actually going into such detail should be left to Eruv (particularly Eruv#Eruv_in_Conservative_and_Reform_Judaism). Ayid7891 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the point can be made any more clearer than what's being written. It sounds like your nitpicking a nitpick. The "Although" is in spite of the Orthodox viewpoint in religious law. What else would it allude to? Is there a more appropriate phrase to use like, "However" instead of "Although"? If that floats your boat, we can change it. The purpose of the lead is not to go in-depth into the subject matter. It serves a purpose to make an introduction for the article. And in this particular case, a lot of people who read the article, and who are not Jewish, find those two sentences to be informative and enlightening. We are not touching on the viewpoint of every single Jewish denomination out there. Were just giving a mild introduction to the fact that some large denominations don't view the eruv as something binding within their viewpoint of Judaism. If you feel it necessary to delve into the mechanics of Judasim in relation to non-orthodox Jewish law, such as with Conservative Judaism; in which some Liberal Conservative don't interpret the eruv to be binding, and some Politically Conservative who do view it as binding, then it should be done with a separate section within the article. Duranged (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to nitpick, I just thought it was grammatically incorrect. I changed it to "however". Ayid7891 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem, buddy. Good job. Duranged (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Emphasis on PVC pipe

This article and eruv should be harmonized. The other article emphasizes the horizontal wires; this one appears to emphasize the vertcal PVC on the utility poles. In fact eruv only mentions PVC once, in the caption for an image contributed by Wehwalt, which may have been taken for this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like someone more knowledgeable than me to respond, but yes, the photos were taken with intent to use them in this article, as part of my background work to write it. I spent a very cold morning up there looking at lechis. PVC is certainly mentioned in the sources, which we can add if it's wanted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Basically an eruv boundary is enclosed by doorways ("tsurat hapetach") consisting of two doorposts ("lechi") on each side and a lintel ("korah") across the top. These need not be actual doorways capable of being closed with a door, but constructs that meet the requirements of being technical doorways. In many cases, the doorways needed to bound an eruv can be conveniently made using pre-existing electrical wire, where the wire itself is considered the koreh and PVC pipe (or any solid material) run from the wire to the ground the lechi. The utility pole itself cannot be used as the lintel must be across the top of the doorposts, while electrical wire is usually attached to the middle of the pole.

Eruv#Eruv_chatzerot mentions such a construct using electrical wires, but doesn't go into depth about why an extra PVC pipe is needed in most cases. However, in the controversy detailed by this page, the PVC pipe was the most visible part of the eruv and became the target of people's ire. I guess Eruv could use a mention of the need for additional material on utility poles, such as PVC pipes. Ayid7891 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like someone updated Eruv with a bit more detail, is it clearer now? Ayid7891 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

References

NPOV revisited

I'd never heard of this story until I landed here from the MP yesterday. Good article, but I was left wondering why there was so much objection to this. Jews want to do something that has virtually zero impact on a community but is meaningful to them, and community goes nuts in opposition. Why? This article would have you believe its antisemitism, a word use 4 times (it's even in a category). There is a clear, non-bigoted objection to this, buried in paragraph 4 of the fourth section: "Orthodox moving in would result in a population explosion, that the schools would suffer, and high-density housing built." But before we even get there we are told that objectors had petitions and Facebook pages shut down for inappropriate and hateful comments. We are given a juicy quote from their leader, "We do not not want these people living in our neighborhoods." One could debate the merits of this argument, but there is historical evidence that Orthodox moving into a community can be harmful to prior residents in the way described. So here we have a completely reasonable public action (regulating construction/signage in the public right-of-way) for what could be completely reasonable rationale (protecting property values and schools), but because the target of this action are Jewish, it must be antisemitism. It's absolutely true that the objectors are grasping at straws legally, and their rationale could be described as "keep the Jews out," but the article goes to far in framing the objections as antisemitic and dismissing the stated rationale. ghost 11:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The article does not, in editorial voice, call the objectors anti-semitic. Several people are quoted as such, and others are quoted saying other things about it. I think we are fairly characterizing and using the sources, and as a tertiary source, that is all we can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Rabbi, a question...

I've had a look at this 50Kb featured article, and I'm still at a loss to know: Who is this eruv for? If it is for Orthodox living in these three townships, then these actions do seem a bit mean-spirited (not to mention anti-Semitic). OTOH, if it is for people in a different county, and few if any Orthodox (or Jews of any kind) live in these towns, then these actions seem a bit less unreasonable: Whatever the theological explanations for it, to a non-Jew an eruv looks like staking a claim. So which is it?
Also, as a matter of interest, what about the population within the eruv itself? Is the population mostly Jewish (in which case, fair enough)? Or are they a minority even there (which makes it a concession by the majority)?
I'd be interested to know (and I suspect others would also); anyone? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The article addresses this: "According to Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz, head of the eruv association, the purpose was to accommodate those living in Rockland County close to the border, near New York State Route 59. The boundaries had to be run through New Jersey due to the lack of a road along the state line".

Basically the New York/New Jersey border is an arbitrarily line that runs through water, private property, impassable land, etc. To practically complete an eruv that includes New York residents who live right at the border, you must dip into New Jersey, at least according the the rabbi. Ayid7891 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So, who in these townships lives inside the eruv line? Jews? Non-Jews? Chipmunks? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably a lot of chipmunks, but it's hard to ascertain whether they are Jewish or not. :)

But seriously, I haven't seen too many sources discussing the exact demographic of these areas with regard to the eruv. What they do reflect is that the plaintiffs are Orthodox Jews living near the border in New York who contend that the only way to construct an eruv that covers them is for it to run through the three townships in New Jersey. Ayid7891 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)