Talk:Crown Heights riot

On mixing scholars with opinions of the community

Wikipedia's charge is to cite scholarly evidence first, especially as it pertains to material in peer-reviewed journals and periodicals. Therefore, the moving of material from the 2nd scholar who was making a different point than the first scholar under a footnote to an opinion of the community is preferring secondary evidence over primary evidence. I have no problem with the opinion of the community being cited, so I have attempted to group the material together as the previous editor intended, but left the best evidence first. 68.43.236.4 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to combine the two academic references. I don't see any good reason why the lede needs to cite two professors and their lengthy titles. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and it looks better.68.43.236.4 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on Aftermath

In my view, this section should remain. It serves two purposes: (1) One of the primary slogans during the riots was that Jews are not allowed to buy property and move into the Crown Heights. This demonstrates the riots failed to promote that cause. (2) Most Jewish groups left Crown Heights as immigrants moved in, with the notable exception of the Lubavitchers. The fact that they remained, even after the riots, indicates their desire to live peacefully with all their neighbors, even those who don't desire their presence.

I am uncomfortable with an editor who decides unilaterally that a section is irrelevant. IMO, after someone has added material, there should be a discussion on this page first prior to deleting it.68.43.236.4 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that I was mistaken, please restore the section. In this instance, Yehoishophot Oliver has already done so.

Here's why I think the section is irrelevant:

• The article already had a section about "Relations between Blacks and Jews in Crown Heights" after the riot. Relevant information, if any, belongs in that section ("Healing in Crown Heights", which maybe should be renamed "Aftermath" or something similar) instead of a new section.
• The article says that Black residents of Crown Heights were concerned about Hasidim expanding into the neighborhood and buying all the property. It's inconsistent to say in one place that Jews in Crown Heights viewed Black complaints as attempts to hide antisemitism and in another that after the riot Hasidim kept expanding and buying property.
• Property values all over the United States, but especially in New York, have "risen dramatically" since 1991. Does any reliable source say that the increase in property values in Crown Heights is related to the riots?

I just discovered that the section is a word-for-word cut-and-paste from Shapiro. Regardless of our views of the subject matter, copyright violation is a serious problem: If it stays, the section has to be revised to paraphrase what Shapiro says, not quote him verbatim.

Anyway, that's what I think. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Request to archive

If someone knows how to Archive this page (to "Archive 2", please do so up to but not including the section "On mixing scholars with opinions of the community", which is where the discussion resumes after the mediation. Thank you.68.43.236.4 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I archived the messages as you requested. For future reference, click on the word "Archives" to get help on archiving a talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems to be a rather complicated procedure.68.43.236.4 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

67.189.242.42

The statements added by this editor are false.Edstat (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Death of child not mentioned until 5th paragraph of second section

The article overview / lead paragraph mentions that the child was "struck", and the next mention tells us that the child was "injured", and it's lmost in passing in the 5th paragraph that we learn the child died. It seems like the overview paragraph could mention that the child was "struck by the car and subsequently died from the injuries" or something. I know that this article is politically charged, and however the story is told will be controversial. But the boys death does seem almost willfully buried here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.248.1 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll take a stab at fixing it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable tone...

Though, I find nothing discernibly wrong with the facts of this article, I do find the tone a bit biased. As stated above, this article is very much politically/racially charged, and it would be a shame to seem one-sided. Example: the opening which states one historian's account of this incident as "the most serious anti-Semitic incident of in American History" and the event is viewed as an example of yet another "pogrom", are, quite simply, opinions. These perhaps do not belong in the general description which heads this piece. Also, contrasting quotes in the "Impact of the riot on the 1993 mayoral race" section like, " '...offical indifference to the plight of Jews, contributed to the defeat of incumbent mayor of New York' ", with "...vocal proponents of 'black nationalism, back-to-Africa, economic radicalism, and racial exclusiveness' " suggests an opinion of the articles author. Please consider --Jesse.parnell (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Those statements are in quotation marks because they are direct quotations from sources. One approach to dealing with contentious issues is to quote directly from sources instead of trying to summarize them (and risk inserting one's own POV). If you feel that other points of view aren't being reflected properly, find reliable sources and let's add them to the article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the banner on behalf of Jesse.parnell. He's a friend of mine; I was showing him how to edit articles, add templates, etc., and that seemed the most appropriate, based on his qualms. I have no real stake in this. --Grahamdubya (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article will never have a NPOV because certain wikipedia users want to alter and rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.124.156 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

since no of us were there we can ever have a true npov. nut i read it and it seems a bit anti semetic now. i think if we add more info about the icedent it self we can even it out a little bit more

Firl21 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you offer some specific suggestions to the article? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Let them vent"

I can't find an article online where David Dinkins gave Lee Brown that particular command. Maybe the author of the sentence might be confused with another controversial Brooklyn incident at the Walt Whitman projects where, after a series of gunshots aimed at the police, residents were withheld from leaving their homes by the NYPD in search of the suspects. Responding to the turmoil, James Davis, a councilman, advised police officers to attend a meeting discussing the incident and to "Let them vent.", referring to outraged tenants and community leaders. (For some reason, my footnote link doesn't work. So here it is again: http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-07-29/news/the-visible-man/. )Winstonwolf33 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Winstonwolf33 (talk) 14:37, 17 Aug 2009

I'm also unable to find a source that supports that assertion. The statement has been tagged as "citation needed" in this article since October 2008. I'm going to look for sources for the entire paragraph and remove it if I can't find any. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Anthony Graziosi

I've deleted the following paragraph from the article:

On September 5th, after the main riots had been controlled, Anthony Graziosi, an Italian salesrep dressed in dark business attire, was driving in the neighborhood. As he stopped at a traffic light at 11 pm, a crowd surrounded his car and one of the group fired a gun at him, leading to his death.

The section isn't sourced, and without a source it isn't clear that a shooting on September 5 was related to the three-day-long riot that took place two weeks earlier. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Girgenti report

This article nowhere relies on the Girgenti report. Is there a reason why?

15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.141.2 (talk)

Proposed Gavin Cato merge to Crown Heights riot

It seems this subject is only notable for the role he played in sparking the Crown Heights Riot, so I'm proposed it be merged there, and that this article be redirected to that one. Any objections? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

None. In fact, Cato's article had nothing of value, so I was BOLD and turned it into a redirect myself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fine by me. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Event immediately precipitating the riot"

This is not a big deal, but this is a weird headline. Saying that some event "precipitated" a riot doesn't imply that it was the sole cause, and this section is only about the car accident and its immediate aftermath, it doesn't mention any longstanding community tensions. It isn't necessary to say "immediately."Prezbo (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Your change is better. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lemrick Nelson

Maybe another redirect? --68.9.117.21 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

His nearly 2,000 gnews hits over the last two decades suggests that he has had ongoing coverage and is not, as you suggested on his talk page, subject to blp1e.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not. IronDuke 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yankel Rosenbaum vs Lemrick Nelson

Isn't it a travesty of our society (wikipedia including) that Lemrick Nelson has an article as large as this one and Yankel Rosenbaum has none? I know, I know, you will readily tell me that Yankel did nothing notable but getting killed while Lemrick was a noticeable bad bro. <Sigh> ... Loew Galitz (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, but unfortunately, Yankel never had a chance to do anything else with his life, while Lemrick did. IronDuke 19:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

dangerous driving ? compensation ?

It seems remarkable that a driver breaking a traffic light at speed, striking a legitimate cross traffic car, mounting the pavement, taking out a half ton pillar and then a wall and then killing a child should escape any conviction ? In Europe a dangerous driving charge or a manslaughter charge would have been likely. Is there any record of the driver or his employer paying compensation to the parents of the dead child and of the severely injured child ? Any info on the life of the severely injured child today ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Pogrom

The lead says "Some prominent members of the Jewish community still view the events of August 1991 as the "worst pogrom against Jews in United States history.""

What is not said is that media use of the term pogrom caused public controversy. See eg:

• [1]
• The Jewish Week, August 9, 2011 "A divisive debate over the meaning of pogrom, lasting for more than two years, could have easily been ended if the mayor simply said to the victims of Crown Heights, yes, I understand why you experienced it as a pogrom.")
• Joyce Purnick of The New York Times wrote in 1993 that usage of the word pogrom was "inflammatory"; she accused politicians of "trying to enlarge and twist the word" in order to "pander for Jewish voters"

So was it a pogrom or not? That's not for us to decide. We should just show both sides, in equal balance.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lede—"Some prominent members of the Jewish community still view the events of August 1991 as the 'worst pogrom against Jews in United States history.'"—is weaselly and unsupported by its source. It doesn't summarize the article (see WP:LEDE) and doesn't belong in the lede.

The question of whether the riot was a pogrom should be discussed in the "Impact of the riot on the 1993 mayoral race" section, the only section of the article (beside the lede) where the word "pogrom" appears, or in a section of its own about the historiography of the riot. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And if there is to be such a discussion in the article, it should be sourced to historians and similar experts, not reporters writing op-eds. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Addressing it in the context of the 1993 mayoral race makes good sense. Zad68 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree also. There is a very detailed discussion of this in Shapiro, spread over six pages (p144-149). Does anyone have a copy of the book to hand? For his part, Shapiro believes it was not a pogrom (p146 and p149), but believes the controversy over the name was very important - "not merely an issue of semantics". Oncenawhile (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

At first look this does seem like a good source. Consider emailing the author. Zad68 02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a version of another of Shapiro's work available in full here [2], which was published in the Journal of American Jewish History in 2002. I have done my best to summarize the relevant parts. If anyone has access to this additional source [3] by Carol Conaway, it would be great if some further detail could be added. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have Conaway's article. If anybody would like a copy, e-mail me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Once, overall, I like the new section, good work. Zad68 20:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

recent retrospective articles -useful ? details not in WP article

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/timeline-1991-crown-heights-riots-unfolded-article-1.945012. http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-01-15/news/the-crown-heights-quiets/ The death of the mob victim Mr. Rosenbaum being due (at least in part) to an overlooked wound is new, to this WP article at any rate.

Here is an article http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-01-15/news/the-crown-heights-quiets/ that mentions also that it was the city of NY rather than the offending driver or his organization, who paid out the 400,000 dollar compensation for the death of child victim Gavin Cato and also references the reversals of the federal convictions of Lemrick Nelson jr. and of Charles Price on the charge of violating the rights of mob victim Yankel Rosenbaum. It also references the Cato father and his more recent expressions on the deaths of and of seeking justice for his son and niece. Should we include this?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The introduction is misleading

Almost all of the violence was directed from African Americans at Orthodox Jews during the riot. The introduction appears to be using intentionally misleading language to make the reader not aware of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:3000:1013:435:4AC7:EE1E:ECF2 (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say. According to The New York Times, "There were scattered clashes in the surrounding streets, with blacks and Hasidim throwing bottles and rocks at each other, and both sides tussling with the police."[4] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Those sources you are sighting were pretty much proven to have been intentionally fabricated by the New York Times. Read this Atlantic article for more information on that or read Edward Shapiro's book already cited or Carol B. Conway's article also already cited. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/08/the-hard-truth-about-the-crown-heights-riots/243448/