Talk:Crown Heights riot/Archive 2

rh "Revert Hack"

RH to remove unsupported claims regarding the details of the accident, and anti-Semites comments about the "Hassidic community". Note that rh is not used when there is a dispute regarding facts, but it can be used when unsupported facts are claimed and in the presence of vandalism (i.e., anti-Semitic remarks. Edstat 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When you use it, please take care to restore neutral edits that get reverted as a byproduct. --Leatherstocking 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like some editors are trying to re-enact the Crown Heights Riot in the form of edit wars. I think it is very important for impartial editors to watch this article for neutrality issues. It bothers me that the article is part of the Chabad Hasidism template without corresponding input from the African-American community at Wikipedia. --Leatherstocking 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A call for neutrality is a good thing - you can begin by not taking just the 2nd half of quotations, and instead, give the full quote so the reader has the context. Edstat 01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two portions to the sentence in question: the rumor that the guy was drunk, and the fact that he was "whisked away" (according to Time.) You appear to be treating them as if they were both "rumor." In fact, my edit was correct -- there are conflicting accounts of what happened, which must be acknowledged under NPOV. Finally, your edit summary that the material from Time represents "anti-Semitism" [1] is a bit over the top, don't you think? --Leatherstocking 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit[2], the only policy I could find was Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference.--Leatherstocking 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Auto-reference: You are incorrect; Chabad Template: Most agree with you

The link you refer to is not relevant. It pertains to the use of redundant language, such as "This Wikipedia article is about...". The topic under discussion pertains to referring to, and indeed linking to, previous Wiki pages. Because this Anti-Semitic rumor was started by authors on this Wiki page, it is instructive to document it. Edstat 04:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think most authors agree this page has nothing to do with Chabad, and should not have its template on the right. If enough voices are heard, perhaps it will move a higher editor to remove it. Edstat 01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for Undo

Leatherstocking, it seems as if you are on a mission. If I understand your latest argument: (1) you found a citation that says the riot was incited by false rumors being spread and because the driver was taken away from the scene, (2) you selectively chose to only cite part of that quote, (3) you object to a full citation of that quote, (4) you then argue against the veracity of the first part of that quote from the source you selected, (5) but conclude the second part of the quote from that same source is reliable?

Second, you seem to insist on editing the entry to put in sources on the same topic out of chronological order. Is there some reason for this?

Third, if two sources conflict, the sources themselves convey that information. It is not necessary to preface that the following two sources conflict.

Fourth, of course, if you cite the entire quote from the source you gave, and the complete context is read, it is obvious that in fact there is *no* conflict between the two sources!

Fifth, (if I understand your query regarding the magazine reports) the court testimony is filled with witnesses, included witnesses for the defense, that the crowd was incited by anti-Semitic speech, so no, I don't think repeating that evidence is over the top.

Sixth, I apologize for being repetitive, but if the crowd was incited by information, some of which was rumor (drunk) and some of which was fact (an officer directed the ambulance driver to remove the driver from the scene), explain again your reason for only wanted to cite part of those reasons that the crowd was incited? Edstat 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, you do not understand my latest argument. (1) the section in question does not discuss the causes of the riot. It discusses the circumstances of the death of the kid, (2) I selectively chose to only cite the part of the quote that is presented as fact, not rumor, (3) I kept the full citation of that quote later in the paragraph, without expressing any objection, (4) I didn't argue against the veracity of the first part (see (2),) and (5) I simply noted that the second part of the quote was presented in Time as fact. I'm not "on a mission" -- it simply appears to me that there are two sides to this story, and your version of the article is unacceptably slanted toward one side. And as a postscript, it was your edit summary here that I considered over the top. It appears that you consider the Time coverage anti-Semitic. --Leatherstocking 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your latest argument is therefore false. The citation you listed indeed gave reasons why the riot got started. One reason was a rumor, the other was a fact. Your desire to cite part of the quote is slanted, as is always the case when someone tries to hide part of a quote in order to change the meaning of the sentence. You are trying to change the plain meaning of a citation you raised in order to somehow work in the fact that the responding officer instructed the ambulance driver to remove the driver from the accident site.

As regards to anti-Semitism, it is often cleverly disguised. Did the ambulance driver:

1. move with a rapid, sweeping stroke 2. sweep dust or crumbs with a broom or brush 3. draw, snatch, carry, lightly and rapidly 4. whip to a froth with a whisk or beating instrument?

No, of course not. To use the term "whisk" is to create a message, ex post facto, that the driver cared little about the victims (despite reports that when he got out the car to assist, he was accosted (one report says "mugged") by some of the "mob" according to another report), or that the police officer cared little about the victims. In fact, testimony was clear that the officer had the driver removed to protect him from the 250 bystanders who had already gathered and were threatening the driver's life. Al Sharpton and others picked up on this theme, (see, e.g, many of the earlier versions on this wiki entry where the accuasation was stated that the "entire Jewish community" ho-hummed the incident and couldn't have cared less, etc.). So no, calling the Time report anti-Semitic by using the term "whisk" is not over the top, because it helped to perpetuate support for anti-Semitic acts and hate crimes by demonizing an individual and his religion.

Perhaps more important to you, and all those who wrote above following your approach, it seems you want to either selectively quote to create a slanted message, prevent quotations from sources that you don't agree with from appearing, etc., all in the name of assuming there are two sides to a story. There was a tragic accident that was used as free period for killing Jews, as the defendant's witnesses admitted themselves in court. There was a tragic traffic accident, a crowd of bystanders who by many reports passed along many false reports of the event and as a result, became angry, then there was a private ambulance arriving first on the scene, the police officer directing the driver of the ambulance to remove the driver for his own safety, the death and serious injury of two innocent children who were pinned under the car so according to all reports couldn't have gotten into the private ambulance anyway, and the resulting riot of Anti-Semitism and hate crimes by a 80-90 percent majority on a minority population who had nothing whatsoever to do with the traffic accident, the ineffectiveness/and unwillingness of an African American mayor to have the police force respond appropriately to numerous 911 calls of rioting where dozens of Jews who did not defend themselves were hospitalized, millions of dollars in property was stolen, broken, etc., a hate crime resulting in murder with the accused who admitted to the crime celebrating with his jurors after they found him innocent, and a civil rights trial that eventually put him behind bars. I find it telling that three dozen Chassidic Jews were killed by African American drivers in the previous three years, and there was no anti-Black rioting. Those three dozen aren't imaginary, as I was a neighbor of one of them.

I apolgize for being verbose, but the above facts have been vetted in court in over a half dozen trials and have been accepted as fact by our justice system. The least authors can do when editing this entry is to not blatantly misquote, quote partial citations, or denigrate citations that, although are congruent with the facts, don't tell the type of story they wish to tell.

There are many anti-Semites who have nothing better to do than hack sites that pertain to Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Some entries were hacked so frequently, Wiki put them on a list of restricted entries where only certain authors may continue to edit them. At this pace, this entry may soon need the same protection from hackers. Your suggestion, however, to remove the Chabad Template remains an excellent solution, as there is nothing in this entry that pertains to Chabad, other than the driver was in a motorcade following Chabad's spiritual leader when the accident occurred.Edstat 03:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not knocking your POV. It's a swell POV, and vigorously argued, too. I'm not even saying that I don't prefer it to the African-American side of the story. I'm just saying that under NPOV, both sides should be represented in the article. --Leatherstocking 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be no effort to represent one "side of the story" or both "sides" for that matter. Balanced means citations from vetted sources, should they exist, may be freely added by authors where it improves the entry (e.g., it serves little purpose to repeat the same fact from multiple sources, or to structure the entry out of chronological order), regardless of which "side", if any, it represents. Whereas published opinions (e.g., causes for an event) can be cited, an encyclopedia is not the forum to publish the author's opinions on those facts, much less an author's desire to represent a specific side of the story. If the desire is to bloviate, get a blog.

Citation should be quoted sufficiently in length so as not to misconstrue the context. For example, when you partially cited the quote you added to represent a side, the context was changed. If this was unintended, then it was a good learning experience. Many authors of this and similar wiki pages, however, intend to do so because of their an agenda of anti-Semitism, which is no less a hate crime than racism.Edstat 16:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Chabad Template

I believe sufficient authors have requested the removal of the Chabad template, because this incident has nothing to do with Chabad, other than the driver was following their spiritual leader in a motorcade when the accident occurred. I agree with those who have suggested the presence of the Template leads to edits that seek to represent "one side" or the "other side", when neither is appropriate.Edstat 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Please do not be disingenuous and claim you are restoring cited material when in fact you are deleting cited material. We actually check to see what you have edited. What you did is called hacking. This time I used "undo". Next time I will us "rv" As for the change from "continued" to "sped", there was no traffic citation to that effect, and witness reports varied greatly - see previous edits. Furthermore, your rendition on "being left to die" is not factual. Finally, don't be lazy - the Washington Post date is cited - look up a reference if you are interested. Don't delete it because you haven't taken the time to do so with the excuse that it is a large newspaper and you wonder where they got their information.Edstat 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Edstat: I haven't "hacked" anything; I edited. I haven't deleted a thing — not one word — and I challenge you to show that I did or apologize.

I added sourced information, including a rumor that "the Jew had been treated and the Black boy left to die." Are they my words? No. "Word quickly spread through the crowd that the Jew was being treated while the Black boy was left to die." Am I saying that they're true? Yes and no. Yes, a rumor spread, but the rumor was untrue.

The article you'd like to WP:OWN is downright silly. Lifsh is put into an ambulance, and — out of nowhere — “More than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’ jeered the driver of the car". By adding a sourced sentence about the rumor, I helped to explain why 250 people gathered on the scene.

I'm not too lazy to look through a 100-page newspaper for an article; maybe you need to read WP:V, especially WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." (I added the boldface.)

So, Edstat, before you start a fight you can't win, read Wikipedia's policies and read the edits that I made before you blindly revert them. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You deleted citations from vetted sources. The name of the source, and date, was given, so the burden for citing the reference has been discharged - you need only to go to your local library to look up the reference. To repeatedly delete this citation is called hacking.

Do you really assume no one knows how to use the history page? You claim to be giving background from sourced material on why a crowd gathered, but then you deleted the report describing the crowd that gathered! You are free to disagree with a vetted source, and add citations that dispute it, but not simply delete it because it doesn't match the story you would like to tell. As long as you continue to do so, your edits merit a rh.

Furthermore, you have added a material that the driver "sped" - the burden of proof to cite a signed traffic report by the responding officer is on you. If you read back through the history of this entry, authors have found secondary sources (i.e., newspaper accounts of eye witnesses), some of which claim the driver was speeding (65 m/h!) and some which say he was going under the speed limit (25 m/h). Because no one was able to cite a traffic report, authors decited to use the language "continued" as a neutral term.

I suggest you read through the discussion pages, and the history pages, before you start hacking away vetted sources.

I await your apology.Edstat 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently you don't know how to read, Edstat.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

I hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, insults are no substitute for proper editing. What part of "Washington Post, September 21, 1991", which is the footnoted citation, do you not understand?

As for WP:OWN, you should be careful about acusing other authors of WP:OWN. Furthermore, you would benefit by re-reading it. "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)". Constantly deleting cited material because you don't agree with it is vandalism.Edstat 06:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to want a citation for the rumor that Lifsh fled. Please read through previous history pages on this entry. That anti-Semitic rumor was repeated many places, including previous wiki authors on this entry.

The "one word" you say you never deleted - "continued". Please reread the above, and make your apology. Then, please practice responsible editing. Thank you.Edstat 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Which part of clearly and precisely do you not understand?

2) You still have not identified a single "vetted source" that I allegedly hacked or any cited material that I've deleted.

3) You need a new pair of reading glasses if you think I "deleted the report describing the crowd that gathered". I never did any such thing. I only added a sentence that explained why they gathered, because the article makes it seem like they appeared out of think air.

4) Edit histories of a Wikipedia article are not WP:RS. If you want the article to dispel "an allegation that frequently surfaces", provide a source for that allegation. (Which shouldn't be hard, if it "frequently surfaces".) Otherwise it doesn't belong in the article. WP:V

5) Go on saying that I'm hacking the article that you WP:OWN. Repeating it doesn't make it true. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You continue to insult. Not a good characteristic for an author.

1)Regarding the sentence you have repeatedly tried to add from the Village Voice: you have plagiarized them, as you failed to use quotation marks. You have a chronology problem in wanting to cite an article from a decade after the event first.

2) If you wish to do so, it should appear last, and in full context: “The station wagon was part of Lubavitcher leader Rebbe Menachem Schneerson's motorcade. As a large crowd gathered, the uninjured driver, Yosef Lifsh, was whisked away by the Hatzolah, a Jewish ambulance service, while Gavin Cato lay trapped under the car. Later, it would be revealed that a police officer, worried for the driver's safety, had ordered Lisef's removal. None of this mattered on the warm August evening. Word quickly spread through the crowd that the Jew was being treated while the Black boy was left to die.” Then, you could point out that the Rabbi did not ask or know that Lifsh was following his return trip from the cemetery to his office, and that the streets are free to everyone. It was indeed a motorcade, and hence, had an unmarked police car leading it, but it was not “Scheernson’s motorcade”. You can point out the inaccuracy “uninjured driver, Yosef Lifsh”, as indeed he was injured (although not severely). You could point out the anti-Semitic overtone in writing the driver was “whisked away”. You could point out that “Jewish ambulance” is an anthropomorphism. You could add that the context, but what is missing from the quote, that you yourself admit to on the discussion page, was this was a false rumor, as the “Black boy” was pinned under the car and the “Jewish ambulance” didn’t have the equipment to free him”. You could point out the phrase “Black boy” is racist language.

Edstat 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

3) Among the many sources that repeated the rumor Lifsh fled: http://www.answers.com/topic/crown-heights-riotEdstat 07:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

4) and this: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WNKC78yhSZ0J:countryiworld.com/wiki-Crown_Heights_Riot+lifsh+fled&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us. Because you are trying to WP:OWN this entry, I suppose I should ask how many more citations you require. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edstat (talk • contribs) 07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

5) You seem to think that if something can't be found instantly, at the snap of the fingers, (i.e., on-line), it isn't acceptable. Although I can't go to the libary for you to look up the Washington Post article, you might start by looking here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1083487.html Edstat 07:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

6) The Village Voice article, written 11 years later, does not add anything to what the Newsweek citation already said: ""[t]heir anger was compounded by the false rumor that Lifsh was drunk and by the fact that he was immediately whisked away in a private Lubavitcher ambulance while city emergency-service members worked to free the two Cato cousins pinned under the car, which is why 250 bystanders gathered and got angry. If you feel the need to add another citation to this effect, and would like to avoid misconstruing the context, why not add it after the citations that were published more than a decade earlier, or simply add it as footnoted material?Edstat 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

7) And finally, (hopefully), virtually every page on wiki says copyrighted material will be deleted. Use quote marks if you are citing copyrighted material, in addition to the footnote.Edstat 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC doubled

RFC bot can only manage a single RFC template per article. I've nowikied the template below as there is a prior one. Observation - reason is meant to be a neutral statement, the reason in the template below doesn't look neutral to me. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Edstat 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

More on request for RFC doubled

I raised the issues that arose from Malik Shabazz's edits and reverts. I had to phrase them in the proper format for a request for comment. I restate them here for clarity:

1. Insists on saying the driver "sped" through the intersection, despite references cited that indicate witnesses say the speed was between 25 and 65 mph.

2. Insists on taking out the work "continued" through the intersection, which is a neutral term used due to the conflicting testimony of the witnesses.

3. Insists on citing a source written 11 years after the incident prior to sources written contemporaneously.

4. Refuses to consider the name, month, and year of a newspaper reference to be considered "clear and precise".

5. Repeatedly reverts edits instead of taking the time to actually look up the references cited.

Based on the language of the initial request, which was unsigned, it appears to have been suggested by lankyfool. I'm taking this opportunity to relist issues with lankyfool's edits and reverts. I'm leaving out the vitriol and expletives ("murderous", "some clown", cursing, etc) as comments on that are not necessary. Below is a list from lankyfool's entries above on this page:

1. Mainstream Jewish publications are gross, self-evidently biased, selective, and show a baslic lack of good-faith principles

2. Blame must be assigned for the accident, despite the fact that no judge or jury did so

3. Assuming there was a "high speed" collision" when witnesses’' account of the speed varied from 25 - 65 mph.

4. Assumption that the cause of a traffic accident must be because someone was driving recklessly or illegally or both and must be "Criminal negligence", despite no judge or jury determined this to be so.

5. Citing newspaper sources that the driver ran a red light, instead of the police officer's report and witnesses that say the light could have been yellow or red. (The driver of the unmarked police car testified when he went through the light it was green.)

6. Unsigned comments (forgot about the unsigned comment bot) that "jews own all the media" and are "infecting the internet"

7. Statement that the mainstream Jewish publications are only appropriate for minor incidents when no other sources could be found.

8. Moral equivalency of equating a mainstream Jewish Standard with an avowed anti-Semitic Nation of Islam publication.

9. Refuses to believe a citation where a reporter actually took statistics directly from a police blotter because the result isn't what he wants to believe, and failing to bother to look up the citation.

10. Repeated puts a PoV tag when disagrees with citations cited, instead of providing alternative citations to show some other viewpoint.

11. Refusal to look at the citations given for the sequence of events, and their details.

12. Claiming facts exist without providing any sources for them.

13. Removal of inconvenient facts. A cause of the riot was a Chassidic Jewish driver's traffic accident killed a black child, and seeking to hide the fact that in the previous 3 years, dozens of Black drivers killed Jewish people in traffic accidents in Brooklyn with no riot by Jews against blacks.

14. Promises to revert without giving a reason, and the reverting despite others giving reasons and citations.

Comments are welcome on these issues. All authors should please feel free to raise additional issues as well.Edstat 16:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

So long as Edstat is making a list of grievances...

• Edstat acts like he WP:OWNs this article.

• He is belligerent and uncivil toward other editors, and does not WP:Assume good faith. (For example, his edit summary when he reverted my first edit to this article was "Restoring material with citations - nice try, though.") He routinely refers to other editors as antisemites or hackers when he disagrees with them.

• He objected to my use of a source that was written 11 years after the incident despite the fact that it already was cited twice in the article (Kamber, "Fading Rage", The Village Voice).

• He believes that citing "Washington Post, September 21, 1991" satisfies the requirement to "clearly and precisely" cite a source, and he repeatedly called me lazy because I challenged him to meet the burden of evidence required by WP:V.

• He repeatedly reverts edits, and then accuses other editors of engaging in the same behavior.

• He is writing a personal essay, not an WP:NPOV encyclopedia article. As this Talk page indicates, he repeatedly has removed the POV banner from the article because he doesn't think the article is POV.

• By his own admission, he feels free to censor other editor's comments on this Talk page.

And Edstat acts like he is the aggrieved party. Sheesh. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A real request for comments

Shabazz doesn't want comments interspersed into his list above so he reverted my comments. Wiki rules ask not to make new sections for the same material, but I can respect that request. So I repeat his list with comments interspersed. All authors should feel free to use the colon command to interject their comments here if they so desire. Shabazz's comments are left bulleted.

So long as Edstat is making a list of grievances...

• Edstat acts like he WP:OWNs this article.

That is an opinion.

• He is belligerent and uncivil toward other editors, and does not WP:Assume good faith. (For example, his edit summary when he reverted my first edit to this article was "Restoring material with citations - nice try, though.") He routinely refers to other editors as antisemites or hackers when he disagrees with them.

give an example of being belligerent

if a comment is antisemitic, one should not hesitate to point it out.

• He objected to my use of a source that was written 11 years after the incident despite the fact that it already was cited twice in the article (Kamber, "Fading Rage", The Village Voice).

Irrelevant - you tried to do so in this particular spot to create an impression out of context. All you had to do was move it three sentences to maintain the original author's intent

• He believes that citing "Washington Post, September 21, 1991" satisfies the requirement to "clearly and precisely" cite a source, and he repeatedly called me lazy because I challenged him to meet the burden of evidence required by WP:V.

correct. All one has to do is go to their local library and look it up on microfishe

• He repeatedly reverts edits, and then accuses other editors of engaging in the same behavior.

the only edits that reverted are those without citations, or those taken out of context

• He is writing a personal essay, not an WP:NPOV encyclopedia article. As this Talk page indicates, he repeatedly has removed the POV banner from the article because he doesn't think the article is POV.

what makes this a personal essay? Have I cited any sentences that have not been given an external reference? This is a false accuasation.

The POV has been removed several times, not only by me, if you will read the *entire* discussion page, because of the mistaken impression that one need only to put the POV on the page without giving any indication of what the issue is. That is an inappropriate use of POV

• By his own admission, he feels free to censor other editor's comments on this Talk page.

The words that were censured were curse words and socially taboo antisemetic words and phrases that have no place in civil discussion (hmmm, weren't you the one raising the issue of civility a few lines up)? Are you proposing that this discussion page be used for cursing and for antisemitic insults? Are you also for racist, sexist, and homophobic language too?

And Edstat acts like he is the aggrieved party. Sheesh. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Edstat 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to the wider community who are encouraged to provide comments - note that lack of specificity with regard to the details of the Crown Heights riot, and its citations, in the above by Malik Shabazz. The purpose of the discussion page is to determine how to improve the Crown Heights Riot wiki entry.Edstat 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research in "Fallout from the riot"

This section appears to contain WP:OR. It has very few sources, and claims:

• that a speech made by Mayor Dinkins months after the riot was related to a report about the riot commissioned by Governor Cuomo

• that a 1993 City Hall riot rally led by Rudy Giuliani was related to Crown Heights

• that the 1993 mayoral election was related to Crown Heights

• that Giuliani's election was caused by a shift in Jewish votes (and that was related to Crown Heights)

Without any references, that is pure speculation and WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On < 30 blacks attacked police

The citation Shabazz gives says, "Some of the more than 30 young black Crown Heights residents interviewed on Friday said they had thrown rocks and bottles in protest over the death on Monday of Gavin Cato, the black child hit by a car driven by a Hasidic Jew. Others said they were retaliating against the police because of unfair treatment in the past. Some said it was simply something to do on a summer night." The simple tally exceeded 1,000 based on a compilation of all the reports, however, some were individuals participating in multiple attacks. It is reasonable to attempt to disentangle that aggregate number, since Shabazz raises the important issue of the magnitude of unrest displayed by Blacks toward the police force.Edstat 12:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an example of WP:SYNTH:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The Times said that some of the 30 said they were retaliating against the police. Another source said that there were more than 1,000 rioters. Edstat extrapolates from 30 to 1,000. That's WP:OR. Nice try, though. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research in "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?"

This section appears to contain WP:OR. It claims:

• that there is some relationship between traffic accidents in the three years preceding 1991 and the Crown Heights riot

• that the claims by Blacks in Crown Heights that Hasidim received preferential treatment were only made in retrospect

• that Jews in Crown Heights cited the banners at Cato's funeral as evidence of the antisemitic motivation of the riot

• that Sharpton's reference to diamond merchants, and his description of a private ambulance as an apartheid ambulance service, was an antisemitic comment, when the source clearly shows that he explicitly said the opposite ("The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid.")

• that Sharpton's comments at Cato's funeral had anything to do with the riot

• that Sharpton incited the Black community once and "re-incited" it (implicit in "re-inciting" is a first act of incitement)

• that Sharpton's comment about "yellow niggers" had anything to do with Crown Heights

• that Sharpton's comments to The Washington Post ("about his past abrasive comments") had anything to do with his comments at Cato's funeral or concerning Crown Heights

• that antisemitic remarks at Cato's funeral by Daughtry and Carson had anything to do with the riot

Without reliable sources that make those connections, they are pure speculation and WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the citations given, you will see the answers to the questions raised above.Edstat 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, if you read Sharpton's eulogy (see cites), he made references to the riot many times and encouraged youth to continue, saying that the cause was just. The yellow n* comment has to be cited, because the reporter asked Sharpton about the riot and about those "moderate" African Americans who disagreed with his incitement tactics. Sharpton's answer was as given to both questions. Each new day of the riot, Sharpton gave lengthy speeches (read the citations), and the intent was a call to action. The quotes can be added ad infinitum, but we are already at the recommended 32 kb limit. Also, your last comment regarding Daughtry - his eulogy followed Sharptons, and he agreed with Sharpton that the killing of Cato was not an accident, but rather, was murder. See p. 15 of Professor Shapiro's book, so obviously it was regarding the riot. Same with Carson. Again, you can raise endless questions, but they vanish if you first do some research.

Again, to be constructive, try reading some of the citations before raising questions.Edstat 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Try reading your own sources and learning some of the facts before you respond.

• There is no source cited for the traffic accidents preceding the Lifsh incident. There is no source cited that explains the relationship between any such accidents and the riot.

• The article doesn't say anything about speeches made by Sharpton every day of the riots.

• Cato's funeral took place on August 26. The riots had ended days earlier. Could you explain how the banners and speeches at the funeral incited the riots?

• The source for Sharpton's statements about "yellow niggers" and about his past abrasive comments is Slate. The source doesn't say that those remarks had anything to do with Crown Heights.

Sorry. The section is speculation, guesswork, innuendo, and WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I've done a cleanup of the references. The following need more info about the source to be verifiable.

• 8. and 13. Girgenti Report, 1:79-81.
• 11. WNBC-TV
• 17. http://law.jrank.org/
• 27. private link
• 39. Amsterdam News, November 28, 1992.

Enjoy from WP:WIKI CJ 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed references 8 and 13. Will tend to remaining soon.Edstat 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

"One of the earliest publications of this lie was five years later by Sharpton." Is that a joke? The only sources for the allegation that Lifsh fled to Israel are a copy of a Wikipedia article, a blog, and a five-year-after-the-fact book by Sharpton? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've requested wiki to give an opinion on citing blogs as regards false rumors. The fact that such false rumors exist is a fact, not only on blogs, but because it was repeated very early when this entry was a stub, as you discovered many copies of wiki by non-wiki sources picked it up. Thus, wiki is partly responsible for propogating this lie. The fact that Sharpton's publication of this lie five years later is not in your favor. The text does not say that his book was one of the rumors (mentioned in the article) that circulated *during* the riot. It is one of the rumors about matters relating to the riot that circulated *after* the riot. And being 5 years later, Sharpton can't say he wrote the book as the events were unfolding and was confused on the facts - he obviously was making a false allegation - perhaps he hoped no one would actually check the facts.Edstat 08:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:RS: blogs are not acceptable as sources, nor is Wikipedia. A secondary source that describes the rumors should be cited. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 08:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid village

Edstat, stop misrepresenting the sources and making up "facts". Shapiro clearly says "On September 7, Sharpton led a march ... through the quite private beach community at Breezy Point in the Rockaway section of Queens, where Hynes had a summer home. Sharpton said it was shameful for the district attorney to live in an "apartheid village."

That is not a march through Crown Heights. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Shabazz, please take the time to read the text and stop misrepresenting it. It says that Sharpton warned Hynes that if Lifsh was not indicted by the Grand Jury, he would plan and lead (which he eventually did) a protest against Hynes in Queens. The citation as written has always said that - it does *not* say or imply that Hynes lived in Crown Heights, that Sharpton marched in protest against Hynes in Crown Heights, that the protest was during the riots, or any of the other statements you have mistakely made. Please be more careful about reading into the text something that it doesn't say or imply - it is a waste of time and does not improve the article. I have no problem if you wish to put the entire quote in the text - I started some time ago trimming quotes after you began requesting citations which take up space in the requested 32 kb limit - citations that are not on contentious matters. However, if you feel the text would be more clear by putting in the full quote, please feel free to do so; in fact, any other author who wishes to do so - please do.Edstat 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm aware that this article has had several pov claims made about it. But after my run through of the article I have to say that it still needs work on it's neutrality. I understand that this is a sensitive subject especially for the Jewish community. But my primary concern is not to diminish the suffering of those involved but rather to presnt a fair examination of the facts without bias. These are my concerns:

1. Phrasing. Using the word lie to deal with rumors. It's more neutral to say that this is what someone said, but it was untrue. To repeatedly use the word lie, falsehood, etc. is not neutral. The only fact that the article needs to present is statement A said by person B is not true for reason C.
2. Rev. Sharpton claimed... This happens in a few places. I know we all have our opinions on Rev. Sharpton. But this article needs to focus on the events not discrediting Rev. Sharpton. It would be more neutral, and more on topic to list the facts and then have a secton called "Responses" that lists some of the major responses to events including claims and rumors.
3. In nearly every place where an African American claim of preferential treatment occurs, there's a rebuttal. But there are no such rebuttals regarding anti-semetic remarks. There are also references to anti-semetic remarks throughout the article. I think it would be better to pull all of that into one section detailing the violence and anti-semetic remarks.
4. I also have a concern about the "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?" section. It's original research and it's POV original research. I believe it would be better to have a section that discusses the grievances that existed on both sides prior to the riot and if it's necessary to rebut something then I think it would be better to find an actual study that rebuts it rather than an editorial in a magazine published by a private organization.
5. I was a little kid living in a different country when all this happened. Were there any responses from the Jewish community? Were there any Blacks who tried to put an end to the violence? What percentage of the Black community was directly involved in the riots? What percentage of the Jewish community was directly involved in the riots? What was the preceeding racial tension like? I feel these questions are important to presenting a clear picture of what happened.

Again I'd like to reiterate that I in no way want to diminish the wrong that was done to the Jewish community. Nothing excuses the behavior of the people involved in attacking people or shouting anti-semetic slurs. But I also don't want this to turn into a gang up and bash on the entire Black population of Crown Heights and Al Sharpton day. I want this article to tell the story clearly and honestly, without anger and with equity. CJ 14:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues of NPOV resolved and tag removed

I repeat Crownjewel182's comments here, with responses interspersed.

I'm aware that this article has had several pov claims made about it. But after my run through of the article I have to say that it still needs work on it's neutrality. I understand that this is a sensitive subject especially for the Jewish community. But my primary concern is not to diminish the suffering of those involved but rather to presnt a fair examination of the facts without bias. These are my concerns:

1. Phrasing. Using the word lie to deal with rumors. It's more neutral to say that this is what someone said, but it was untrue. To repeatedly use the word lie, falsehood, etc. is not neutral. The only fact that the article needs to present is statement A said by person B is not true for reason C.

This is not just a "rumor" - it is a false rumor. According to the wiki entry on "lie": "A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive". Because Sharpton's statement about Lifsh fleeing the country to avoid the Grand Jury was made *5* years after the fact, and Sharpton was well aware of the Grand Jury, as he organized a protest in front of Hynes house when the Grand Jury failed to indict Lifsh, Sharpton's statement is a deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive". In fact, after that point, blogs picked it up and passed it around (see Shabbazz's desire to keep that info off this page), including, and this is important, this very wiki entry! (See previous history pages). Moreover, wiki's policy on POV clearly indiates that majory factors should be given proportional coverage, and Sharpton was a major negative factor in the riot after, beginning on the 2nd day of the riot. Thus, this is not a NPOV.

1. Rev. Sharpton claimed... This happens in a few places. I know we all have our opinions on Rev. Sharpton. But this article needs to focus on the events not discrediting Rev. Sharpton. It would be more neutral, and more on topic to list the facts and then have a section called "Responses" that lists some of the major responses to events including claims and rumors.

Agreed this is not the place to discuss "opinions on Rev. Sharpton". It is the place, however, to discuss the magnitude of the riot, and the people who were most involved in it. Sharpton was one such person, and he made many, many public statements. Repeating those statements here does not make the article "un-neutral". As for reorganizing material into a new section "Responses", all authors are encouraged to rearrange material that improves the flow - please feel free to do so.

1. In nearly every place where an African American claim of preferential treatment occurs, there's a rebuttal. But there are no such rebuttals regarding anti-semetic remarks. There are also references to anti-semetic remarks throughout the article. I think it would be better to pull all of that into one section detailing the violence and anti-semetic remarks.

It seems you are asking for opinions or original research. If there are claims of preferential treatment, it should be included (it was), and if there are wiki vetted sources that confirm or disconfirm the claims, they should be cited (they were). If there are wiki-vetted sources that have rebuttals to anti-Semitic remarks, this is the place for you, or any other author, to please edit it into the article, which would of course improve it. According to your logic, if there is no rebuttal to an anti-Semitic remark, this article must always remain a negative POV, which is not logical. Of course, it isn't logical to equate rebuttals to a claim with rebuttals to a fact (e.g., words recorded by wiki-vetted sources). Again, if you think adding a new subheading on "violence" improves the article, by all means edit it in.

1. I also have a concern about the "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?" section. It's original research and it's POV original research. I believe it would be better to have a section that discusses the grievances that existed on both sides prior to the riot and if it's necessary to rebut something then I think it would be better to find an actual study that rebuts it rather than an editorial in a magazine published by a private organization.

There is no specific issue you have raised regarding this section, other than to claim that it is original research and POV. All of the material in this section has wiki-vetted sources, except the matter of traffic accidents 3 years leading up to the riot. If you please go back to the history page on June 1, 2007, under user edstat, you will see there was a citation from a major newspaper whose reporter did the actual research (went to the precinct and looked up the history in the police blotter). Subsequently, someone (for reasons unknown, removed that citation in later versions. I went back to the June 1 citation, and unfortunately, that link has been broken. I've haven't had time to fix that source yet, because Shabazz, on a passive-aggressive mission, has requested citations for almost every sentence in this entry. I have spent about 12 hours doing so (see history pages), and not only have almost all the sentences received sources, but I have added quotes in order to make sure the plain meaning of the text is not taken out of context. Therefore, the sentence about the previous traffic accidents has remained for un-sourced until I can get back to it. It is on the history page, and I have no problem with an author who wants to take it out, because as soon as I find the reference again, I'll put it back in.

1. I was a little kid living in a different country when all this happened. Were there any responses from the Jewish community? Were there any Blacks who tried to put an end to the violence? What percentage of the Black community was directly involved in the riots? What percentage of the Jewish community was directly involved in the riots? What was the preceeding racial tension like? I feel these questions are important to presenting a clear picture of what happened.

These are legitimate areas where authors who have information on them should please edit it into the article. However, in the absence of anyone having information on them, it does not make this article a NPOV.

1. Again I'd like to reiterate that I in no way want to diminish the wrong that was done to the Jewish community. Nothing excuses the behavior of the people involved in attacking people or shouting anti-semetic slurs. But I also don't want this to turn into a gang up and bash on the entire Black population of Crown Heights and Al Sharpton day. I want this article to tell the story clearly and honestly, without anger and with equity. CJ 14:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is assumed that no one wishes to diminish wrongs done to the Jewish community. That is a straw-man argument leading up to the next sentence. The facts are permitted to be cited, whether if favors a person or another, a group or another, etc. Your form of argumentation regarding "gang up and bash on the entire Black population" obviously is not based on the article, as it says nothing of the sort. The largest documented group of rioters, so far as the article is being written, is 500, and even then great pains were made to show that many were not from Crown Heights (it was Shabazz who contested that), meaning it was only a tiny fraction of the 180,000 good citizens from the Black Community who were involved. In fact, when I get time, I will be adding a reference to the 28 Black clergymen who expressed outrage at Sharpton for incitement, and who went to great pains to remind the community that Black-Jewish relations were cordial, growing positively, and productive. Everyone wants this article to tell the story clearly, honestly, and without anger. I see nothing in the article that fails that test, and if you do, or any other author does, please feel free to edit it.

Finally, with all due respect, I suggest you take a closer look at the NPOV policy.Edstat 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Edstat

Edstat, you seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV just as you misunderstand WP:OR.

These responses are numbered per CJ's original message:

2. The use of the word "claimed" is inherently POV. "Stated", "said", and "asserted" are examples of NPOV verbs.

3. Your selective rebuttals are POV. Your assertions that claims of favoritism toward Hasidim are untrue and claims of favoritism toward Blacks are true demonstrates your inability to recognize your own POV. Allocation of public housing and police actions, such as street closings for Jewish holidays, were and are clear instances of favoritism toward Hasidim.

4. I've described some of the original research in "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?" above. Changing a few words and putting quotation marks around a phrase or two doesn't elimination OR.

5. Your inability to recognize that the article is a "gang up and bash on the entire Black population of Crown Heights and Al Sharpton" essay further demonstrates your inability to recognize your own POV. Countless editors have made this same complaint, and in every instance your response has been to remove the POV banner from the article and dismiss their concerns as antisemitic.

Now a POV/OR complaint of my own:

6. Your repeated use of the word "antisemitic" as an adjective ("anti-Semitic slogans and slurs", "anti-Semitic statements", "anti-Semitic remarks", "anti-Semitic New Alliance Party") is OR and POV. Try "slogans considered antisemitic by xxx" and "the New Alliance Party, which is regarded as antisemitic by yyy".

Notwithstanding your invitation to include information to balance your POV, the historical facts are that you revert (or, in your preferred term, hack) any such contributions, then you load the article with more of your own POV. When an article has a POV problem, it keeps a POV banner until the POV problem is resolved. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

rh

2. The use of the word "claimed" is inherently POV. "Stated", "said", and "asserted" are examples of NPOV verbs.

Please read POV more carefully. For example: "we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey." Indeed, there are over 50 citations, including some many multiples of times, substantiating (thanks to you), almost every sentence.

3. Your selective rebuttals are POV. Your assertions that claims of favoritism toward Hasidim are untrue and claims of favoritism toward Blacks are true demonstrates your inability to recognize your own POV. Allocation of public housing and police actions, such as street closings for Jewish holidays, were and are clear instances of favoritism toward Hasidim.

I have never made a claim of favoritism toward Hasidim are untrue. I cited a wiki-vetted source of two investigative reporters who examained this claim two weeks after the riot, and they found little evidence to support the claim. In the next few days, thanks to you, I shall be putting in quotes of their conclusion. Your attribution of this to me, when in fact there is a cite, is false. By the way, "housing" favoritism was one of the myths busted by the citation - take the time to read it. As for closing of the streets, by all means, if you have a citation to that effect PUT IT IN! It would only serve to improve the article.

4. I've described some of the original research in "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?" above. Changing a few words and putting quotation marks around a phrase or two doesn't elimination OR.

Everything in that section is fully cited. In fact, the initial claim was cited (see history June 1, 2007). Someone came later of changed the citation, and furthermore, when I tried to reinstate it, I found the link to be broken. Notice that I did not delete your tags of uncited. As I said above, feel free to delete it. I will reinstate it WHEN I HAVE THE TIME TO RE-FIND THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. As for your original source tag, that is mistaken, as the cite in question was done by an investigative reporter for a major newspaper, *NOT ME*.

5. Your inability to recognize that the article is a "gang up and bash on the entire Black population of Crown Heights and Al Sharpton" essay further demonstrates your inability to recognize your own POV. Countless editors have made this same complaint, and in every instance your response has been to remove the POV banner from the article and dismiss their concerns as antisemitic.

Countless editors have made the complaint that says citing the facts with vetted sources tells a story that they do not wish to hear. The reasons have been many and varied. In those cases where citations were unacceptable (including to you), they were deleted. If you read the POV banner you will see it says, *even if you believed there was a NPOV (which is difficult to maintain given the quality and quantity of sources): "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete...Instead, material that balances the bias should be added."

Now a POV/OR complaint of my own: 6. Your repeated use of the word "antisemitic" as an adjective ("anti-Semitic slogans and slurs", "anti-Semitic statements", "anti-Semitic remarks", "anti-Semitic New Alliance Party") is OR and POV. Try "slogans considered antisemitic by xxx" and "the New Alliance Party, which is regarded as antisemitic by yyy".

"anti-Semitic New Alliance Party" is a direct quote from the source (Shapiro). Take up your objection with the Professor. Furthermore, it is socially less acceptable to repeat the actual language Sharpton and others used, and instead, the polite way to refer to their speech is with the phrase "anti-Semitic slogans and slurs". Of course, if you are inviting me to put in the actual quotes, you know of course how happy I would be to do so.

Notwithstanding your invitation to include information to balance your POV, the historical facts are that you revert (or, in your preferred term, hack) any such contributions, then you load the article with more of your own POV. When an article has a POV problem, it keeps a POV banner until the POV problem is resolved. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your final statement, as most of what you have written on this page, if false. I have never reverted a historical fact that has a citation for it. I had a complaint against several of your edits, because you were quoting on part of a quote, or re-arranging the chron. order of the quotes, creating a message other than that intended by the speaker. When you continually do silly things (e.g., claim text falsely indicates Sharpton planned and protested a march in Crown Heights, when it always says Queens, or when you put in a silly statement that less than 30 Blacks attached police, when the article you cited says less than 30 of *those interviewed* for the article, it is in fact you who are being loose with the facts. Yes, if a problem has a legit. POV, the tag should stay up. However, the POV tag is inappropriate just because you don't like the facts.

The NPOV says an author should not say Hitler was "evil", because citing the facts of what he did tells the story. The same applies here. I have not said Sharpton was evil, I cited the facts of what he did, which tells the story.Edstat 02:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

On Shabazz's "Claims"

Regarding your statement, "The use of the word "claimed" is inherently POV", you really should review NPOV, where it says, "By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it", IT IS NOT NPOV!!!!Edstat 03:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

On "bashing"

IMO, it is a disingenuous one-two punch for one author to ask authors for dozens and dozens of citations regarding facts, little of which could remotely be considered on contentious matters, and then have another author turn around and accuse those who have labored to research and edit in those citations and quotations with "bashing".Edstat 03:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No subtitle seems appropriate

IMO, a true NPOV is the racist statement regarding an "entire population" is that which you espouse on your talk page, Shabazz: spending "EVERY DAY BATTLING THE WHITE MAN". Perhaps, this explains why you are trying so hard to surpress wiki-vetted facts about the Crown Heights riots.Edstat 03:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Had you read the entire sentence or clicked the link (or hovered your cursor over it) to see the source, you would have learned:

• The sentence is about reading and satisfying one's curiosity.
• It is a quotation from The Autobiography of Malcolm X (which is why it's under a picture of Malcolm X).

You might also want to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). (bold in original, my underlining)

Speaking of "entire populations", you evidently missed the other quotation on my User page:

• "Above all, the prophets remind us of the moral state of a people: Few are guilty, but all are responsible." — Abraham Joshua Heschel

But since The Prophets, Heschel's book from which I quote, is about the Hebrew prophets, I suppose a statement that "all are responsible" means that I consider all Jews guilty and hence is evidence that I'm an antisemite. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrrect to assume I did not click on that link. IMO, regardless of who said it, and why they said it, you have adopted a slogan on your page that espouses "EVERY DAY BATTLING THE WHITE MAN". That speaks for itself, and that speaks for you.

I have read the NPOV. I have called, many times, for any author who has material representing another point of view to please edit it in. You seem to think that since there has been limited or no response, then the current text must be a NPOV. An alternative (and IMO more reasonable) conclusion is there isn't another point view that justifies the riots.

Quote what you will about other slogans on your page, the bottom line is a great effort was made to be precise on how many Blacks participated in the riots. It was a number large enough such that 1,200 police officers in riot gear were greatly out-manned, and only when the number was at 1,800, was the riot quelled. However, those numbers are smaller by two factors of ten from the entire population, so your accuasation was false.

As for self-reflections on whether you are an anti-Semite, I don't know you personally, so I can't say if you are or if you aren't. I know who I am, and judging by the many, many wonderful relationships, and based on what I do for a living the many, many thank you notes I've received from African Americans (probably surpassing 5,000), I know what good things I've done for the Black community.

I apolgize for the italics - I don't know how to double indent.'Edstat 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. To double indent (or triple, or whatever) just use more colons. One colon is a single indent, two is a double, etc.

My Talk page doesn't "espouse" battling the white man. The quote is a sad statement; Malcolm X is lamenting the fact that he had to be "out here every day battling the white man", because otherwise he "could spend the rest of [his] life reading, just satisfying [his] curiosity". I haven't "adopted [it as] a slogan", I added it because I often feel a similar sadness: If I didn't have to do the everyday necessities of my life, I too "could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity".

I don't need to self-reflect on whether I'm an antisemite; I'm not. When I look in the mirror, a Jew looks back at me. But since you seem determined to twist the meaning of the first quote, and since you've called past critics of the article's POV antisemitic, I thought I'd beat you to it. I'm sorry if my joke fell flat. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if you both take a step back from this article for a while until there's a mediatior. Take some time to cool off and discuss things rationally. There's more discussion on who's a racist here than discussion on the content. Seriously, just back off. CJ 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Call for authors to present wiki-vetted sourced material from the Black community's perspective

IMO, the several authors who resorted to a NPOV when they can't honestly read the sources or the text as written, or have no other device to resort to in order to surpress freedom of the press, have a common thread - that there is some extant scholarship that presents a different view from that in the current text, apparently "from the Black community's point of view". It is illogical to slap a NPOV on an article by citing negative evidence. However, if indeed such scholarship exists, and you are knowlegable in that material, PLEASE take the time to edit that material. Even if it is a radically different viewpoint from the sources currently cited and held by a very tiny minority, the NPOV policy provides proportional space to such a view. I have never edited out cited material that fails to support the Jewish viewpoint, or edited out cited material that supports the Black community viewpoint. (Once again, I have fought vigorously against citing parts of a quote to miscontrue its meaning, and to put citations out of chron. order in order to misconstrue its meaning.)Edstat 03:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Sharpton's Lie & discrediting Sharpton

Regarding Crownjewel182's "To repeatedly use the word lie", actually, the term "lie" was used only *once*, not repeatedly, so that was an exaggeration. However, I agree that the same point can be made by substituting "false statement", so I made the change. If another author can find a more *neutral* phrase, feel free, but please don't surpress facts just because you find them unpleasant. Regarding "discrediting" Sharpton - that is your (IMO unjustified) opinion of the citations. Sharpton played a large PUBLIC role, as a community activist, in the Crown Heights riot and its aftermath. To fail to cite his role is surpressing those facts. He made those statements, he did so publically, and they played a large role in the story of the Crown Heights riots, legal trials, and aftermath. If there were other public figures who made substantial statements impacting the Crown Heights riots, they should be added to this entry. If you cannot find such material, that is no reason to diminish the public role taken by Sharpton.Edstat 03:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

On archiving this discussion page

Much of this discussion page was recently archived. It seems as a result that new readers to this page are beginning to re-argue issues that have been discussed many times. IMO, it is not a profitable use of time, when that time would be better put to improving the entry. With all due respect to all authors, it is a waste of time to find clever ways to surpress facts from vetted sources that don't tell the story you want to tell, or try to tell a story that places resposiblity for the riot on the victims instead of the perpetrators, or you have an a priori desire to make a politically correct message. IMO, just cite facts with citations, and let the chips fall where they may.Edstat 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I don't think I've seen a page in more need of arbitration than this one. It looks like we have at least two editors whose beliefs about this page, while well-informed and passionate, are polar opposites. I'm just an observer making an opinion, but sheesh this page and especially this discussion needs some real help. I see a request was made and I hope some good comes out of it, good luck. -- Atamasama 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

New section on Healing in Crown Heights after riot

I've insered a new section on the above captioned topic. Obviously, it needs three or for sentences of Black initiatives / actions and Lubavicth initiatives /actions, and perhaps a couple of sentences on joint ventures on brining harmony post riot to Crown Heights. Anyone with info please edit it in.

Also, I somehow managed to mess up citation #2. I'll try and fix it later today, but if anyone gets to it first, (maybe by going back to a history page and cutting and pasting the citation), thanks in advance.Edstat 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brewcrewer, for fixing the ref! Very impressive detective work to find the error.Edstat 03:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Belarus

I'm unclear on how this article relates to Belarus, and why that tag has been added. Can anyone explain that?Edstat 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In the most indirect way: Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Lubavicher rebbe, was born in Liozna, which is in present-day Belarus. I don't know whether it's considered inappropriate to remove somebody else's WikiProject banner, but if its presence here bothers you, leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belarus. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The connection does seem rather obscure. --Leatherstocking 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note on this edit

I thought that the fact the Schneerson was regarded by many as the Messiah would be a more useful description for the layman than "7th Lubavitcher Rebbe." I won't contest it however. --Leatherstocking 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Leatherstocking, you are well known on many talk pages as being the one who works tirelessly for propagating the message that there are those who regarde(d) Schneerson as the Messiah. Only you know your agenda for doing so, but I suggest reconsider inserting this message on any wiki entry you can find that mentions Schneerson, regardless of how irrelevant it might be to the topic. Let those who believe(d) that view propagate it in whatever fashion they desire. The *many* who believe(d) that is passé; by now just about everyone who has read Berger knows he neither took a census, or conducted a replicable survey with an acknowledged random sampling plan.Edstat 04:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your accusation is downright bizarre. This is the ONLY talk page where I have ever mentioned Schneerson. I found out about the Messiah issue by following the link to the article on Schneerson, and it struck me as notable. Please explain to me how I am "well known." --Leatherstocking 02:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize Leatherstocking, you are correct! I was involved with another author on this very issue, and was spending much more time on that issue than the CH riots. This paragraph was intended for someone else who has been doing precisely what I mentioned. (Now is not the time to go into that argument, but suffice to say, Berger has held court for over a decade, and now that independent social scientists (i.e., not Jewish) have deconstructed his methodology, the use of *many* when the upper bound may have been less than 15% (back in 1996, and waning since), has been dismissed. I had written up several comments in a word processor (to try and cut down on spelling errors), and I obvious cut and paste this memo to the wrong entry, as the debate on Berger has nothing whatsoever to do with the CH discussion. We've had legitimate disagreements in the past over editing this article (see, e.g., below), but in this case, I was mistaken.Edstat 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On undo and misquoting

Leatherstocking, please do not undo another author's edits on the basis of your misquote. The citation says "Hester *and many others in the Black community* also express concern with the expansion of the Jewish community and feels that Jewish people are buying up all of the property in the neighborhood." This cite was put in on the basis on concerns mentioned on the mediation page (prior to the mediator asking not to make further changes while the mediation is on-going. The reason it was added, was the other interested parties made claims that there was not sufficient Black voices, and enumeration of Black concerns. Although the other interested parties are fond of raising issues, they rarely contribute sourced text, and hence, I did this in response to their concerns. To say only some guy named Hester says this is contrary to the quote. *NOTE to mediator* - It is for reasons such as this that I had to resort to putting in full quotes with quote marks. Furthermore, Leatherstocking, you also deleted the compensation award to the Cato family.Edstat 04:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Date

i dont know how to make a new note, but imo the date of the riots should be moved closer to the beginning. Get it in the first sentence if possible. I came to the page looking to find out what decade this happened in, and it took me a while. (its in the first paragraph, i know, but the who the what and the when should be in the first sentence i should think. 24.108.208.160 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)