Talk:Huguenot, Staten Island

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Huguenot, Staten Island article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

No source to prove that large number of Brooklyn residents transformed Huguenot

Long noted for the beauty of its woodlands, Huguenot began to be transformed soon after the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge opened in 1964, leading to a large number of Brooklyn residents relocating to Staten Island.

Where is the source or evidence that shows a large number of Brooklyn residents relocating to Staten Island. What we know is that Huguenot's population has risen, particularly in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. That can be said to lots of neighborhoods on Staten Island. So I'll be revising the statement to say this:

Long noted for the beauty of its woodlands, Huguenot had a transformation that'd lead to a significant rise on the population of the neighborhood.

There's no reason to believe why Staten Islander's, from older neighborhoods that didn't grow at the same rates they could, largely because they were overpopulated, like Port Richmond, couldn't have populated Huguenot. It would make more sense for North Shore and older Mid-Island neighborhoods to have populated these towns because they're more demographically similar. In 1950, the U.S. had 151 million and rose to 302 million by mid-2007. Staten Island had over 191,000 people in 1950 and rose to around 478,000 by 2007. The explanation for that is Staten Island has a higher rate of immigration than the average of the country. Staten Island's over 19 percent foreign-born, meanwhile the U.S. is approximately 11 percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The words richest and prosperous are misleading

However, the region is one of the richest on Staten Island, and one of the borough's most well maintained neighborhoods. It is highly prosperous based on per capita income and similar economic measures.

This statement would contradict the previous statement of vandalism, which is usually a trait experienced in impoverished zones. The problem is one word: richest. I'm going to replace this with mainstream. Although there are a few rich people there, as there are everywhere, the overwhelming majority of the population is middle-class. It has a very suburban environment that's primarily residential, so it's explain why there's not much poverty. The south shore, which would include Huguenot, actually has a high population of civil servants. Civil servants are middle-class individuals, and sometimes, may even appear to be working class. So I don't know how this could be associated to the words rich or prosperous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]