Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2018 [1].

2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should "local authories" should be " local authorities"?
Fixed.
Image review
All looks good to me. What year is it again? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1492, I gather. All done. Thanks Hawkeye!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from FunksBrother

  • Hello. I noticed in the article's talk page that there weren't any Wikiprojects related to the article. I went ahead and added three Wikiprojects: Judaism, Urban Planning, and New Jersey. Also I noticed this article wasn't mentioned in the eruv article. Maybe you could add a summary that links that article to the eruv article. FunksBrother (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it as a see also even though I see there is a pipe to the article in the controversies section. I hate to add text to the eruv article on this controversy, as there have been other controversies, and the Tenafly one went to the Third Circuit.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing much to say, except that paras towards the end of the article start to run rather long. Interesting & well written, though the later sections inevitably get a bit dense as matters reach the courts. The eruv context is well-explained. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I will look at the paragraph length and legalese issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reviewed this at PR and was satisfied with the responses there. Ceoil (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments there and here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Another happy camper from the PR. Another subsequent read through shows the article has strengthened since then to the point of firmly meeting all FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

TL;DR: The prose is a little buggy and it seems the event is still ongoing. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there is one major issue. Per WP:FACR 1(e), wouldn't the article only be stable after the lawsuit and settlement have been definitively decided? This doesn't seem to be a crucial point of failure, but New Jersey Attorney General's lawsuit against Mahwah remains pending doesn't instill confidence of this article's stability.

I wouldn't say that. Clearly a small amount of updating may be needed to show the outcome of the AG"s suit vs. Mahwah, but that's a relatively minor detail. Most of this controversy is past tense. At some point they will settle the AG suit or bring it to trial and we'll record the result. Articles have passed FA many times even though there's a bit more to be done in the events.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, here are my prose reviews:

  • Lead:
    • An eruv is used by Orthodox Jews as a ritual boundary within which they can carry items in a way normally forbidden on the Jewish Sabbath, and was marked by plastic pipes attached to utility poles. - "Is" and "was" are of two different tenses, since we're talking about the eruv. You should pick one tense and stick with it. Also, is there a way to integrate this with the preceding sentence? This sounds like it could be the first sentence in the "eruv" article.
"Was" is correct because it refers to this specific eruv, which is marked with plastic pipes. Another eruv might not be; we know twine is sometimes used. I've clarified we're talking about the one in Bergen County but don't entirely feel the change is an improvement. I think it important to have a basic definition of eruv in both lede and body.
    • Rockland County, New York should have a comma after it.
I'm not convinced it's necessary and it slows down the prose. Can you explain why it is needed?
@Wehwalt: The comma acts like a parenthesis here. For example, "I traveled to Rockland County, New York, and went camping." versus "I traveled to Rockland County and went camping". epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I think "New York" or "New York State" needs to be in there, adding a comma seems the best alternative and I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • and the boroughs of Upper Saddle River and Montvale should also be followed by a comma, since this is a comma-separated clause.
Very well.
    • All three are adjacent to the state line with New York, which is to the northeast of these New Jersey municipalities, but this is not made clear in the article. Parts of New York are also to the southeast of New Jersey, so mentioning that Rockland County is to the northeast would clarify things.
If you assume that the state line runs northwest-southeast, that is true to a limited extent, but as Rockland County continues to the northwest of Mahwah, I'm not convinced this helps the reader. And the line really runs about ESE. Is the image of the map not satisfactory here?
No, it only shows the New Jersey side. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a second map.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally, on Shabbat, an object cannot be taken from a private domain, like a house, into a public one, such as a street or sidewalk, or moved, in a public area, more than 4 cubits (about 6 feet; 1.7 meters). However, objects can be moved freely if they remain within a private domain, and an eruv effectively extends the private domain through the area it encloses. So basically, this article is implying that the sidewalk or street can also be part of the private domain. This should be clarified.
I've added a bit.
    • The poles are regarded as doorposts, and are marked by lechis (singular: lechi), solid objects such as twine or plastic pipe, which run from near the ground to just below the wires. - While we're on the subject of eruvim, would all telephone posts attached to an eruv be marked with a lechi, or would observant Jews only be able to go through certain pairs of poles with lechi on them? If the article is going into this level of detail about eruv, this should at least be clarified.
I haven't the faintest idea. This strikes me as beyond the basic information we are providing the reader. I would hesitate even to add it if I could find it on one of the Judaism sites I use because unless it is a matter of halachah, the local rabbis may be interpreting things differently. When I did the fieldwork for this article in February, every pole on one side of the road did seem to have lechis, but I'm in no position to judge from this.
Fair enough. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction and controversy:
    • Mahwah police noted construction being done on utility poles in May and made inquiries, on learning that Orange and Rockland had authorized the work, they provided police protection, for which the department was paid about $2,000 by the eruv fund. is a run-on sentence.
Split.
    • "firestorm of opposition" - this quotation's source should be attributed in the article prose.
Done, reluctantly. I think the quote more than sufficient. Indeed, I put it that way because however I put it, someone would ask for a change. If I paraphrased, they'd ask for a quote, etc. I think it is somewhat ungainly, and without need.
    • inappropriate comments made by some signers - This would be unclear on its own since "inappropriate" can encompass a wide variety of things, like being anti-Semitic or using profanities. However, the source mentions that these comments are "inappropriate comments made on the web page", using these exact words. Either this should be paraphrased even more, or the source should be quoted.
The specific comments are not mentioned. I don't see how we are better off going with a quote, there is no information being lost by paraphrasing.
Paraphrasing is fine. My quibble is with the "inappropriate comments" phrasing, as it's too vague. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quandary is, it's attributed to John Roth, but it is not a direct quote. Thus I am reluctant to use quotation marks. The reporter may have paraphrased, we don't know. I've said he called them that, without quotation marks.
  • Attempted enforcement:
    • The heading should be changed because the enforcement is of the town's laws, not the eruv.
I am open to suggestions, but I think it is clear from context.
How about "Attempted eruv ban"? epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if that would work. I've put in "Municipal and public reaction".
Fine with me. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • the eruv became complete in part of Upper Saddle River → "the eruv was completed in part of Upper Saddle River"
Fine.
    • On July 18, Upper Saddle River's attorney sent a letter demanding the removal of the lechis that had been erected there, with a deadline of July 26, but the borough agreed to let them remain for the time being after two New York State residents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark, requesting a temporary restraining order against the borough and Mayor Joanne Minichetti. - This is a very long, bordering on run-on, sentence. I suggest putting a period after "with a deadline of July 26" and splitting the rest into a new sentence.
But it isn't a run-on sentence. Much of the length is supplied by my giving the full name and vicinage of the court. I could shorten it to "federal court in Newark" or similar.
    • The borough agreed to allow the existing eruv to remain temporarily in exchange for an undertaking from the eruv association not to expand it, and the motion for a restraining order was withdrawn. - The first part of the sentence is redundant, in light of what the previous sentence says. How about, "In exchange, the eruv association agreed not to expand the eruv, and the motion for a restraining order was withdrawn."
I've changed it not too dissimilarly, I hope, from what you are proposing.
    • Out-of-staters, residents had complained, were flooding Mahwah's parks, sometimes by the busload - This is a convoluted sentence structure. I suggest "Residents had complained that out-of-staters were flooding Mahwah's parks, sometimes by the busload"
    • Prior to the ordinance going into effect, the Mahwah police chief, James Batelli, having received many phone calls from residents asking that it be enforced against Orthodox Jews, contacted the Bergen County Prosecutor, Gurbir Grewal, for advice. - Again, convoluted sentence structure with too many commas. Having so many commas makes this into a run-on. How about: "Before the ordinance went into effect, Mahwah police chief James Batelli contacted Bergen County Prosecutor Gurbir Grewal for advice, having received many phone calls from residents asking that it be enforced against Orthodox Jews."
No, I think the events need to be presented in chronological order. I'll cut a couple of commas
If that's the case, then this happens after the ordinance passed but before it went into effect. I thought it was before the ordinance passed. It would be good to clarify it. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the eruv controversy heated up, Mahwah and Montvale, together with neighboring boroughs such as Ramsey and Woodcliff Lake
      1. "heated up" is too colloquial.
        • I don't think so, but am open to alternatives. I would not have used a fairly colloquial term had I been able to find an effective alternative.
          • I mentioned an alternative below, "intensified". epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems OK. I've put it up and will see if I can come up with anything better.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I'm pretty sure more than four boroughs enacted these restrictive ordinances. This article implies otherwise by singling out Ramsey and Woodcliff Lake. How about, "As the eruv controversy intensified, Mahwah and Montvale, along with neighboring boroughs"?
I've cut them.
    • Residents of Teaneck and Englewood, in southeastern Bergen County, where there are large communities of Orthodox Jews, had gone to Mahwah and Upper Saddle River to make known their views at council meetings; in return Citizens for a Better Upper Saddle River, which opposed the eruv, posted a screenshot of the Teaneck council schedule online.
      1. This could be a run-on sentence, which should be split at the semicolon. Run-ons aren't exclusive to sentences with too many commas.
      2. The first part of this sentence is particularly bad construction: Residents of Teaneck and Englewood, in southeastern Bergen County, where there are large communities of Orthodox Jews should be reworded to "Residents of Teaneck, as well as those of Englewood in southeastern Bergen County, where there are large communities of Orthodox Jews"
I don't think such a major restructuring as you propose is needed, but I've tweaked later in the sentence and split it.
      1. in return Citizens for a Better Upper Saddle River - the sentence structure makes it sound like retaliation, when it really isn't. I think you should drop "in return" altogether.
To my eyes, it is retaliation. They wanted USR residents to go to Teaneck and Englewood and criticize.
Oh. I thought the Teaneck and Englewood residents were the ones who were in support of the eruv ban. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. I've added material to clarify.
  • Litigation:
    • 2nd paragraph: though he declined to comment on the additional lawsuit facing his township - is this necessary?
I suppose not.
    • federal constitution is called the United States Constitution.
    • a new, more comprehensive, sign ordinance, thus acting in a discriminatory matter
      1. The second comma is unnecessary: "a new, more comprehensive sign ordinance"
      2. The correct phrase is "discriminatory manner".
  • Settlements:
    • With Murphy elected governor in November and designating Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General, opponents of Mahwah's position would hold powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton - This is jumping too far ahead, and I think this should be reworded. First, "Murphy was elected governor in November, and he designated Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General." Second, "Opponents of Mahwah's position began holding powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton"
I think you misunderstand. Murphy and Grewal are the Mahwah opponents being spoken of. Thus, your solution would have the reader thinking that there were other opponents getting office. And November is hardly too far ahead, we're basically there. They did not hold them until later, thus the "would" which you advocated for above. This is something that happened (Murphy's swearing in and Grewal's confirmation) after a past event.
OK, that makes sense. What I meant by "getting too far ahead" was that you mentioned that Murphy was elected governor in November, but as somewhat of an afterthought. How about this: "By November, two opponents of Mahwah's position would hold powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton, with Murphy being elected governor and designating Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General." epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like putting the facts first, so I've changed to "Murphy was elected governor in November and designated Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General. Thus, once they took office, opponents of Mahwah's position would hold powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton, and municipal officials began to have second thoughts about whether to fight the eruv."
OK, that is much better. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • on January 9, 2018 needs a comma afterward.
I'd rather not, so I've rephrased around it.
    • the Mahwah council voted, 5–2, - neither comma is needed.
    • The eruv will remain, but the lechis will be painted to match the pole, or replaced with ones of that color, and the township will pay the association $10,000 or such other sum as is agreed for legal fees - "will" should be changed to "would". These are future terms that have been agreed on in the past, and therefore you would use "would". Similarly, "as is agreed" should be "as was agreed".
I have rephrased around that, I hope, as I think doing as you suggest might create ambiguity.
    • The association may expand the eruv, but is to consult with the council before doing so - Same problems as above. "The association was allowed to expand the eruv, but was to consult with the council before doing so."
My concern there is that may suggest to the reader that the eruv has been further expanded when that has not happened.
    • On February 21, the borough announced over its emergency notification system - Not a problem with the article itself, but why would they broadcast over an emergency notification system if it's clearly not an emergency?
I don't think I can find a reliable source on this. I could enquire of a resident I'm in touch with but I think the answer really is "It's a small town and they do stuff like that to get news spread."
Hmm, interesting. Anyway, it's not a issue with the article itself, I was just wondering as a Regular FA Reader. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He will retain continuing jurisdiction over the matters, and they can be re-opened if a dispute arises. - Same as above. "He retains continuing jurisdiction over the matters, and they can be re-opened if a dispute arises."

Although this article is very detailed, it needs a little work to get it up to the prose quality of an FA. While I'm neither opposing or supporting at this time, I believe any potential reviewers should examine this article's prose in depth. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review. I'm not sure the situation is quite as drastic as you suggest. While you have made quite valid points, some of yours seem to be more personal preference, or in some cases based on a misunderstanding of the facts. If I haven't addressed a point, I've done it, along with many of the ones that you've mentioned, and I will be happy to engage with you where we disagree.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. Maybe I performed a little harsher of a review than everyone else, but it looks like a lot of the issues I've raised have been responded to. I posted responses to your questions above. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the remaining points, I hope. Thank you for your work on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I now support this nomination. Best of luck. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I greatly appreciate it, as well as your thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • About half of the citations are to northjersey.com, but from 23 onwards I was blocked by a paywall so was unable to verify individually 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41.
  • Is there a distinction between "northjersey.com" and "nj.com"? In ref 6 the publisher is given as newjersey.com but the link goes to a nj.com site. See also ref 20.
Yes, they are different. Northjersey.com publishes the Bergen Record and nj.com the Newark Star-Ledger, where most of these articles would have been published.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: presumably someone or some body is responsible for the online publication of this letter?
Added.
  • Ref 29: the link is to an 85-page document – shouldn't a p. ref be given?
Done.
  • Ref 44 appears to be unverifiable
Replaced. It was a placeholder until something web-based became available.
  • In general, the sources are what you would expect for a relatively low-key recent event: local news reports, statements from public bodies, legal documents etc. I have a few possible quality issues:
  • Ref 4 Greater Boston Eruv Corporation. It's a pretty tatty website for so imposing a name, and the "about" link provides no useful information as to who or what they are. Can you enlighten?
Per their website, they run one of the largest eruvin in the United States, and a web search gives me no reason to doubt that. To perform their function, they necessarily are authorities regarding eruvin.
  • Ref 26: Who/what is "Mahwah Patch"?
Local newspaper.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, unless published somewhere, the email source is unverifiable.
It is a placeholder pending a better source which I am expecting in a day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All online links are working. Subject to the above, the sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've taken care of all of those issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2017–18_Bergen_County_eruv_controversy/archive1&oldid=835822013"