Talk:Chanoch Ehrentreu

The Eruv controversy
This section will be removed unless proper sources are added and a the one-sided slant is neutralised. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have edited this section, and it now only describes matters than can be independently verified by the sources quoted. Blogs are only quoted when describing claims that were made, and the text of the article makes no judgment as to the reliability of these claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.140 (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why was the section linking to various sources removed? It is undeniable that certain claims were made by both sides, and what I wrote merely linked to those claims, without passing judgment. None of this was in defiance of wikipedia rules. The link to Google books should certainly not have been vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.142 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:BLP and, with that in mind, read this alphabettyspaghetti of Wikipedia policies and guidelines: WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. If this article attracts more material that breaches BLP it will be protected. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can remember the Eruv being controversial when it was created. How much ongoing controversy is there? If there is a fair amount then it might meet the notability criteria for having its own article.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The controversy was re--awakened in 2008 when supporters of the eruv distributed and a booklet defending it, and the opposition responded in the Charedi press. It is still a controversial issue per se, but less discussed than in the past. In recent years, efforts to establish an eruv in the Charedi area of Stamford Hill have generated disagreement. It seems that the last word has not yet been heard on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.142 (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the section on the eruv controversy was removed once again? If anybody can point out signs of bias then they should be removed; apart from that I can't see what is wrong with it. It is well sourced and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.116.143 (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Because this page is about a person, not the NW London eruv. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

He’s the halachic authority behind the London eruv, and it is widely regarded as one of his most important achievements. The eruv that he was responsible for has been the catalyst for all the other community eruvin in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.116.143 (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is it with you Americans?! Chesdovi (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chanoch Ehrentreu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415051621/http://www.manchestereruv.org.uk:80/haskomos.aspx to http://www.manchestereruv.org.uk/haskomos.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)