Talk:770 Eastern Parkway

Daykart

Totally not NPOV, I am extremely biased with regards to this community, but someone had to write it. Daykart 13:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What part of NPOV? I think this is fine. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The intial article said things like "the rebbe allegedly did not live to..." PinchasC has since gone through and revised it. The Yechi article is definitely not NPOV, though. Daykart 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I must comment on a number of inaccuracies in this article. As I see, the author takes great pride in the article I will post my comments here.

1. The building “770” is not on the corner of Kingston and Eastern Parkway. The corner buildings were purchased 25 years after the purchase of the original building.

2. No one “bought it for” the Previous Rebbe, His Organization "Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the Unites States" purchased the property directly from the bank "Nassau Savings and Loan" that owned it.

3. Mr. Lieberman may have contributed to the organization, but never owned the property or was involved in the actual purchase.

4. Rabbi Shlomo Aharon Kazarnovsky a”h, was involved in all aspects of the purchase, on behalf of “Agudas Chasidei Chabad”.

5. The congregation’s full name is “Congregation Lubavitch of Agudas Chasidei Chabad” as it appears on the receipts of the organization. Scholom 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections. Although you are I do take great pride in the article, I do not have issue with others editing it. In the future, please feel free to make any changes that you feel are necessary. Remember, the encyclopedia is a group effort. Daykart 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Scholom 20:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to unprotect?

I think it's time to unprotect this article. Enough time has gone by and the vandals are gone. Shlomke 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical mentions of 770 in the NY Times

New York Times (1857-Current file); Jan 14, 1892; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 3: Patrick McMahon of "770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn" calls the Health Dept. the day before to complain that his son has been poisoned by a drug prescribed by Dr. George Law and sold by R.C. Werner (containing "two ounces of lacto peptine and sixteen drops of Fowler's solution of arsenic"), which the Times considers safe if "properly put up".

Display Ad 27 -- No Title New York Times (1857-Current file); Jun 5, 1935; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 26: A 1928 Rolls-Royce is put on sale at 770 Eastern Parkway, possibly the first mention of the current building, although it consists merely of the address. The car "originally cost $20,000", but the owner "will sacrifice". It is listed under "Chauffeur driven" at the far right of the page.

New York Times (1857-Current file); Jun 6, 1935; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 30: same classified ad, which also presumably runs on June 8 and 9, 1935.

BROOKLYN PHYSICIAN ADMITS U.S. TAX GUILT New York Times (1857-Current file); Mar 14, 1939; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 22: "Dr. S. Robert Kahn, of 770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, ... pled guilty yesterday... to an indictment alleging failure to pay adequate taxes on an income of $389,800 between 1930 and 1934 inclusive ... Assistant United States Attorney James D. Saver told the court Dr. Kahn owed the government $74,000 in income taxes, interest, and penalties for the five-year period and that he had paid only $53 in income taxes for that period. The indictment did not mention the sources of the physician's large income. On Feb. 15 the extraordinary grand jury investigating law enforcement in Brooklyn under the guidance of John Harlan Amen, special assistant attorney general, filed charges against Magistrate Rudich, one of which alleged that he had released Dr. Kahn in bail while knowing that the bond in the case was deficient... Last August Dr. Kahn was cleared of homicide charges in connection with the death of a woman, who, according to the police, died after an illegal operation."

DOCTOR SENT TO PRISON New York Times (1857-Current file); Mar 28, 1939; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 14: The aforementioned doctor was sentenced to two and a half years behind bars for his tax evasion, which is counted in the article as being $74,008, while his income was allegedly more than $389,000.

The very next historical mention in the NY Times is about a Hasidic rabbi: Rabbi Back From Israel New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 5, 1949; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 14: Samiraus Gourary, who is mentioned as being of 770 Eastern Parkway, is back from Israel after having arranged an aliyah for 2000 Eastern European Jews on behalf of the "United Lubovitcher Yeshivas".

and it's Hasidic from there on. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Architecture Reproduction

Is the section in parentheses at the end really necessary? It detracts from the focus of the article and adds nothing really relevent. I wil remove it now, but I am still posting this here so that, if someone reverts the edit they will hopefully provide a reason. Harel Newman 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Abortion clinic reference

There is no reference to 770 Eastern Parkway having been an abortion clinic in the attached article. Where does that information come from?--Lastexpofan (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It was never an abortion clinic but the private office and house of a gynecologist. A clinic often refers to the office of general practitioners. (clerk22) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerk22 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Beis Rabbenu ShebeBovel...

...means "our Rebbe's house in Babylon", not "Babylonian house of our teacher". 178.201.17.154 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Previous Rebbe

Reference to Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok as 'the Previous Rebbe', without prior introduction to or explanation of the usage, doesn't well serve an encyclopedia's readers, not all of whom will be Chabad or otherwise familiar with the nomenclature. Irish Melkite (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

congregation lubavitch

The name Congregation Lubavitch is a name that was given to the synagogue that is located in the adjacent building. Given in the mid 1990's, for tax and legal purposes.Yogo770 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 770 Eastern Parkway Yechi.jpg
• Chabad hasidim in 770.jpg
• Lubavitcher Rebbe's Place.jpg
• Partial view of synagogue at 770 eastern parkway.jpg
• Synagogue curtain.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Tunnel

According to Chabadinfo, on December 22 a tunnel was found under the building. On January 8th, 2024, a riot broke out with several arrested when a construction company was attempting to fill the tunnel with cement.

The tunnels were part of recent, unauthorized excavations by individuals claiming to expand the building from the old Union Street mikvah. The Gabbaim of 770 addressed this by closing the Kingston Ave. A structural engineer confirmed no danger to the building, and the Gabbaim await further results to reopen the closed areas. This incident sparked concern and controversy in the community, emphasizing the need for unity and caution against baseless rumors. 174.23.159.195 (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of New York synagogue tunnels incident into 770 Eastern Parkway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This incident does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT. Ten people were arrested, there were no injuries, and the "riot" seems to have been limited to a few dozen people being disorderly in one building. Epicgenius (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom Zanahary (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support merge This event is largely about the building structure and the damage done to it by tunneling. The "riot" is not notable beyond the structure of the building. It should be included here not as a standalone article. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The incident has international coverage and probably meets WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEVENT requires that coverage be sustained. Having international coverage is not enough to meet NEVENT; the event also needs to have a WP:LASTING impact, and i somehow doubt that an incident that resulted in exactly zero injuries will have a lasting impact.

As for GNG, two out of three sections in the incident article are actually about 770, not the incident. The third section can just be merged here per WP:NOPAGE. Epicgenius (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You have a solid argument for merging, the summary in this article is well written, and I may change my vote in a week or so, but I'm still leaning oppose. There is starting to be news articles on the aftermath and effect (specifically on social media and the incident sparking antisemitic reactions) that could be LASTING. I'd like to give the page a week to develop before reconsidering my vote.

Plus, less policy focused, with the antisemitic conspiracy theories on social media having an article that describes what actually happened without the non-sense from social media strikes me as good. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be best if we waited a week or so before deciding whether to go through with a merge. Ironically, since I posted this, additional news articles about the incident have been posted, which may bring this into LASTING territory if it turns out to be sustained and significant coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Support At this point it's an improper spinoff. It can better be covered in context here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge There is so much content in both the tunnels article and the building article that merging them would create undue weight in the building article. The tunnels article already has coverage in multiple international newspapers and passes WP:GNG. For reasons including the arrests, the extent to which NYC real estate gets media attention, the activism and protests which seek media attention, and the general media attractiveness of the whole story, it is reasonable to expect that there will be follow up media coverage of this event in the coming months. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  At the risk of sounding like I'm specifically replying only to the oppose comments, which I am not, I agree regarding coverage of NYC real estate (as I know all too well ). However, I am questioning the need for a standalone article because much of the context is related to the building itself—I've already incorporated a lot of the info from the incident article into the building's page. It only takes up two paragraphs on the building's page; one of these paragraphs is about a long-running ownership dispute that predates the tunnel incident by about 20 years. While it's true that the tunnels have gained international coverage, the tunnels are only relevant because of the building itself, which is why I thought it was a good idea to merge the two articles. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Of course I cannot see the future, but this is highly unusual and the discovery of the tunnels will likely effect something. I would be astounded if this did not have future, continuing coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support The discovery of the excavated area is part of a long saga within Chabad that does not seem to justify its own article aside from the inordinate amount of news coverage it received given the bizarre nature of the whole thing. This can easily be concisely covered in the main article. | MK17b | (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons mentioned by Bluerasberry and PARAKANYAA. Definitely seems like it’s worth an article.

Slamforeman (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above reasons GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. ~ HAL333 04:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.