Talk:New York City synagogue tunnel incident

WikiProject banners

I removed the WikiProject banners for WikiProject Law and WikiProject Law Enforcement because this article appears to be outside the scope of those projects. WikiProject Law deals with article about the law itself and the justice system that administers law. WikiProject Law Enforcement specifically exclude articles about criminal acts and the wider justice system. Please discuss if you want these WikiProject banners reinstated. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Riot is OTT

I can that one source calls it a "wild riot" but that's clearly exaggerated. 62.56.16.92 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 62.56.16.92 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Change article to be about the tunnels, not the supposed riot

I agree with the above IP editor that "riot" is OTT and the matter at hand receiving coverage (and which will continue receiving coverage) is the tunnels themselves, from their construction, to their discovery, to everything that will follow. I think we should change the name and scope of the article to be about the tunnels. 'Riot' is barely used in the media for this. Zanahary (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - This article should not exclude relevant information. Clashes did occur between the denizens of the tunnel and police, as has been noted by a plethora of sources. Riposte97 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Footage Description

This seems to be more about the build-up and the aftermath rather than the initial situation of the tunnel's discovery. Footage on Twitter (X) is briefly mentioned in the end as a link towards the antisemetic remarks, but nothing is mentioned about the footage itself. Not sure which video the original text references here, probably multiple. 46.184.242.34 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

More info about the young unmarried men digging into the women's area?

If there is more info about this aspect, it seems relevant that the male tunnelers were trying to access a female safe-zone in the undermined building? 174.198.5.2 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Source for this claim? Fram (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

the tunnel went under the woman's balcony and went to a old MENS MIKVAH, not a lady's 204.128.182.15 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of innuendo on this topic, but it is all wrong. The building(s) behind include the women's prayer balcony, among other things. The bochurim (students) were not trying to get into the women's prayer balcony, they were digging underneath it in order to expand the basement-level synagogue in that direction. The fact that the women's prayer area was in the building above was irrelevant to them, they cared about what was going on down on their basement level, not what was happening upstairs. Similarly, a lot of people don't understand that Orthodox Jewish men use mikvahs too–less frequently than women, but they still use them (and in fact, Hasidic men tend to use them more frequently, due to the emphasis put on them in Hasidic traditions.) For various reasons (especially modesty), the ideal is separate mikvah for women and men in separate locations, although some smaller communities have one for both genders, albeit only ever open to one gender at a time (modesty again). In any event, the reason they dug the tunnel into the abandoned mikvah building was due to the coincidence of its location, basement, and state of abandonment - its former use as a mikvah was irrelevant to them. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Purpose of the tunnels

The stated purpose of the tunnels makes no sense. Obviously it's an "illegal expansion". That's not a purpose in and of itself. For example, adding a kosher cafe to the side of the building without planning permission would also be an "illegal expansion", but the purpose would be to sell food. What is the purpose of the tunnels?

Should we consider rewording this part of the article to reflect the fact that we don't actually know what they were using the tunnels for? 78.16.179.45 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That claim is cited to the NYT article I believe and when I read it they said they did not know and then cited two guys who said it was motivated by a desire to expand the building. I'd support cutting the reasoning till there is a more clear answer.

For context here is the quote from the cited source: It is not yet known exactly who built the tunnel, how they did so, or what they hoped to accomplish. But two men who said they spoke with some of those who broke through the synagogue wall said the motive was to hasten an expansion of 770 — a move that they say the Lubavitcher movement’s leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, known as the rebbe, called for more than three decades ago. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

An expansion was indeed the purpose in and of itself. The synagogue is too small, and plans to expand it have been on hold for decades, so these people decided to expand it unilaterally. I think they imagined that when they would finish the work and reveal what they had done the community would welcome it and laud them. -- 2001:8003:5017:1600:E173:F62B:5976:A96E (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Article in the Forward provides an explanation which makes a lot of sense to me (given what else I know about this topic): Yaacov Behrman, who functions as a public relations liaison for Chabad, said on X that “rogue individuals were attempting to excavate an area for an illegal cellar adjacent to the synagogue” and that they had dug the passageway from that area to a neighboring vacant property in order to dispose of debris.. To explain in more detail: people call this synagogue "770", but technically it is in the basement of the building next door to the original 770 Eastern Parkway building, the building on the corner with Kingston Ave, 784 Eastern Parkway (sometimes called 784-786 or even 784-788). Originally 770 and 784 were separate buildings, but extensions have effectively merged them into a single building. The upper floors of 784 contain offices used by the Chabad administration. Behind 784 is a row of four buildings on Kingston Ave, 302, 304, 306 and 308 Kingston Av. Those four buildings are owned by Chabad (including affiliated individuals and organisations). They include a women's prayer room and a senior citizen's centre. The last of those buildings, 308, on the corner of Union St, used to be used as a mikveh, a ritual bath, but is currently disused. (Some sources claim it was a women's mikveh, but it was a men's mikveh–some people wrongly assume mikveh are only for women, because Orthodox Jewish women use them much more frequently than Orthodox Jewish men do.) Anyway, they were digging under 302, 304, etc, in order to try to expand the 784 basement synagogue in that direction – excavating a new basement, joining up to existing basements. The tunnel is only big enough to crawl through, but its purpose was to have a way to remove dirt and construction debris, and bring in construction materials and equipment, without (they hoped) being noticed. A lot of the debris was dumped in 308's basement – the basement of an abandoned building is a good place to dump stuff without being noticed. The tunnel was just a means to the end of extending 784's basement into 302's. I think the idea was they'd use that tunnel to build out the "extension" under 302, and hopefully not be discovered until it was almost finished, and then they'd demolish that wall to unveil it. But, their illegal construction work was discovered before they'd got up to that point, and then when they heard their illegal extension was going to be filled with concrete, they brought forward the demolition of the wall in an attempt to save it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Expand 770

One of the reasons for this incident (although not a cause for it) has been the need to expand 770. Expanding 770 means to expand the main study/prayer hall to accommodate the growing population of Chabad who learn, pray or visit the "770" building. I would like the community at Wikipedia to write out an article either on this page, or as a page to itself, the topic of "Expand 770". (This can include the previous expansions, the current plans and more). 204.128.182.15 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think it needs its own page. The movement to expand 770 can be described in the 770 Eastern Parkway article and/or this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Tunnel not tunnels

There was only one tunnel, not multiple tunnels. They were also illegally excavating a new basement under a building, but a basement is not a tunnel – tunnels are long and thin, a basement is more box-shaped. The purpose of the tunnel was to support the illegal excavation of the basement. I think some people see the footage of the illegally excavated basement which they broke through the synagogue wall to access, and think it is a second tunnel, but it isn't a tunnel. Also the picture of the man coming out of the grate outside, but that grate doesn't go to a tunnel, it goes to a pre-existing store room (decades ago, it could have been a coal bunker-this was originally an apartment building, built in the 1920s, and was used as such for many decades, until Chabad took it over and transformed it into what it is today.) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the page accordingly. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Arrested people mostly "from Israel"

The NewsNation citation reads as follows: "Local business owners told NewsNation the community is not a violent one and that those involved were a small group of students from Israel."

This seems a little tenuous as a reliable citation. Which "local business owners," and how are we sure of their knowledge about the tunnelers' nationalities?

(It wouldnt surprise me, considering how Israeli Jews have been provocatively tunneling under Al Aqsa [which I personally deplore], but this citation seems very weak.) 50.230.184.226 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(It wouldnt surprise me, considering how Israeli Jews have been provocatively tunneling under Al Aqsa [which I personally deplore], but this citation seems very weak.)

This is a seriously dirty thing to say. Zanahary (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with what he said; if certain people are known to do things that are unethical and wrong, why wouldn't they do it again? If Hitler were alive, would you let him hold your baby? If not, why's that? because he did something wrong once? Alafeefi (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you see no difference in generalizing what a community of people do and what one specific person did? Editor8778 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I second Zanahary that the stuff you said about the Temple Mount / Al Aqsa is unjustified and deplorable. However, putting that aside, it is a well-known fact in the Crown Heights Chabad community that these were students from Israel, and we can cite that fact to community media, see for example https://collive.com/770-bochurim-breach-wall-to-prevent-tunnel-closure/ which says "Bochurim, mostly from Israel and wearing ‘Meshichist’ yarmulkas and pins, responded with fury". You will see some debate in the comments section in that article about exactly where in Israel (were they Tzfatim, meaning students from Chabad's main Israeli yeshiva in Safed, which is called Tzfat in Hebrew, or were they from smaller, more extreme/fringe Israeli yeshivas?). But everyone knows most of the instigators of this incident were Israeli. That's just a fact, but it is wrong to use that fact to attack Israelis in general, and it has nothing to do with Israel/Palestine disputes. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No Anti Semites To Edit Cultural Sensitive Sections On Wikipedia

This is a cultural sensitive section. it must not be used by anti semitic non jews to turn Wikipedia into a bloodbath of hatefully anti semitic tropes. 204.128.182.15 (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

weird flex but ok 207.38.170.136 (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I second this. It shouldn't be used by viciously antisemitic neo-Nazi non-Jews to turn Wikipedia into an Holocaust of genocidally bloodthirsty antisemitic tropes. 82.8.128.15 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all you’re almost definitely the same person as the first post secondly no shade but what are you talking about Zanahary (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Is "event" really the correct infobox template for this article? The word "venue", in reference to the location where this happened, is definitionally correct, but "venue" has the connotation of an official, planned event. "Venue" makes it sound like this was a concert or something. Is there a better infobox that could be used for this article? Smeedey (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed to a more appropriate infobox | MK17b | (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)