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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph has "causing deteriorated racial relations" but no citation of who voiced this opinion in a publication. Wikipedia eschews original research. So, if you have unpublished data that show a baseline before the riot and a metric of racial relations after the riot, then publish it and then cite it in the article. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another example. Rather than say, "Some Jews feel antisemitism was behind the riots," cite http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-crown-heights-riots/# and write something like A Jewish encyclopedia attributes the riots to antisemitism. | title= The Crown Heights Riots: The outbreak of violence in 1991 was fueled by anti-Semitism. | First=Ben | Last = Havumaki MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Example #3 "actions during the rioting led Butman to say" I wrote that, but there must be a more neutral way to say it without getting inside the cause-and-effect in Rabbi Butman's head. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

When I added the Butman quotes, I played around with the Viewpoints portion a bit to include citations, so I hope that improves the readability. It's worth taking a look at a little bit at a time with a fresh eye to include a citation where I actually wrote the un-wikipedia-ish statement [Needs citation]. I can re-visit next year on the anniversary. TTFN .. oh great, Malik Shabazz cleaned up Viewpoints even more, including the needs citation blurb. I see that the "as cited in" 25th anniversary isn't necessary in the article, but perhaps it should go in the footnote?MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC) MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Michelle. Thank you for your suggestions. With respect to your first point, the opening section of an article, often called the lead section, summarizes the rest of the article and has different sourcing requirements (because what it says should be sourced in the body of the article). See WP:LEAD, especially WP:LEADCITE. We can add sources to the lead section if we think it will help readers, but they're generally not required.

Regarding your second point, another source is a welcome addition to the article, but I don't think we could write a generic sentence like you suggested ("A Jewish encyclopedia attributes the riots to antisemitism."). For one thing, MyJewishLearning disclaims the views expressed in its articles ("The opinions expressed here are the personal views of the author."). For another, our guideline WP:RSOPINION requires that we attribute opinions to their authors. Maybe we could write something like: "Ben Havumaki, author of an article about the riot at MyJewishLearning.com, attributes it to antisemitism." Except I'm not sure that's what Havumaki is saying. He writes: "What happened next remains disputed through today." He doesn't say it was all antisemitism; he writes:

If some had read intent into Lifsch’s automobile accident, the favoritism the police appeared to be showing the Lubavitch passengers was seen as yet another example of the privilege the Jewish minority enjoyed at the expense of the black majority in Crown Heights. While the Lubavitchers represented only 11% of Crown Heights’ citizenry, they were widely thought to wield great influence with the police and city government.

That sounds to me like two communities in a city competing for scarce resources, not like raw antisemitism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Should we assume that Havumaki did not write the antisemitism sub-title on his article? Thanks for clarifying wikimedia protocol.MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I cleaned up your addition to the article a little. I found a direct link to the 25th anniversary coverage, which is easier to navigate than the facsimile edition of the newspaper, and I didn't think it was necessary to say in the text of the article that our source was a 25th anniversary reprint. I think that's clear from the title of the source, "Crown Heights Riots – 25 Years Later: A Look Back at Jewish Press Coverage". Don't you? (It's also our style to refer to people only by their last names after they're mentioned the first time.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with citing a 1991 quote without mentioning that the citation comes from a 2016 publication that claims that it printed the quote in 1991. If only for that reason, it's nice to have the facsimile edition--but even with the photo of the 1991 edition inside the facs. edition, you can't find the Butman quote. Is there a way to footnote the discrepancy or is this beyond necessary care? MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2016 (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. — 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Girgenti report

Here's a citation that includes the archived URL, but I am not sure if the format should be news or journal: MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

References

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)

As Lipsh says, he believed he had the right to run the light because of the accompanying police escort. Mk17b (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2015 (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. Conaway's article also already cited. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/08/the-hard-truth-about-the-crown-heights-riots/243448/ comment added by 2601:B:3000:1013:435:4AC7:EE1E:ECF2 (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've downloaded the Conaway paper. I'll read it over the weekend. I don't have access to Shapiro's book right now. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you ever end up reading the article or accessing Shapiro's book? 16:14, 21 August 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:100:C22B:435:4AC7:EE1E:ECF2 (talk)

This quote is clearly misleading: "After episodes of rock- and bottle-throwing involving hundreds of blacks and Jews". As NY Times reporter Ari L. Goldman wrote: "In all my reporting during the riots I never saw -- or heard of -- any violence by Jews against blacks." See sources above (Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/08/the-hard-truth-about-the-crown-heights-riots/243448/ etc.) Mk17b (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ari Goldman can write what he'd like about his former newspaper, The New York Times, misrepresenting what happened, but I just cited its cross-town rival, the Daily News, saying the same thing. Are you saying the two newspapers were in cahoots to blame the Jews? And I suppose Henry Goldschmidt, author of Race and Religion Among the Chosen People of Crown Heights, is in on it too? 66.87.114.45 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim was not to blame the Jews so much as a common issue in reporting where in order to appear unbiased one must present both sides even if they don't always exist (see every news report on GOP vs. Democrats on any single issue). As we saw recently with the Washington Post's story about Muslims celebrating after 9/11 that Trump cited as proof for his libelous claims, the first reports during a developing situation can turn out not to be true. Mk17b (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If the only such reports were from 1991, that would be one thing, but Goldschmidt's book was published by an academic press in 2006. His book is only one of many that say the same thing. (By the way, according to Goldman, the point was "[t]o show Jewish culpability in the riots" -- i.e., to blame the Jews.) 66.87.115.225 (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to blame the Jews in an effort to appear evenhanded. Did you read Schapiro's "Crown Heights: Blacks, Jews, and the 1991 Brooklyn Riot"? Mk17b (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crown Heights riot. 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/20070807211916/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/news/0203,kamber,31532,1.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0203,kamber,31532,1.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Impact on 1993 mayoral race (unclear sentence)

Was Dinkins attacked by proponents of black nationalism, economic radicalism etc. or was he attacked for allegedly giving the nod to black nationalism, economic radicalism, and so on? The latter seems more likely (based on the context), but the sentence does not make this particularly clear.

"He was attacked by many political adversaries in his reelection bid, including vocal proponents of “black nationalism, back-to-Africa, economic radicalism, and racial exclusiveness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.124.248 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crown Heights riot. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/2001/08/23/2001-08-23_beep_honor_peace_coalition_c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208210636/http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1473 to http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1473
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewarticle/c343_a10086/News/New_York/Neighborhoods.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141128053006/http://gothamist.com/2011/08/21/al_sharpton_regrets_how_he_handled.php to http://gothamist.com/2011/08/21/al_sharpton_regrets_how_he_handled.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Links to photos of the deceased - in case relevant to add to article

Yankel Rosenbaum photo from geneology website November 28, 1961 - August 20, 1991 (29)

Gavin Cato photo from cemetery website 24 Nov 1983 - 19 Aug 1991 (aged 7) photo of father at grave

Anthony Graziosi was born on November 7 1923. Anthony lived in Maspeth, New York 11378, USA. Anthony passed away on September 5 1991, at age 67. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No citation refutes the claim that law enforcment favored Jews over African Americans.

In the viewpoint section:

A number of studies[citation needed] focused on the allegation that law enforcement habitually favored Jews over African Americans. City Journal refuted the allegation.[6]

There are no cited studies (as noted), nor does the city journal refute the allegation using studies or evidence. It is a commentary piece and should be referenced in the text as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of adjectives "accidentally" and term "Lisch's vehicle"

There's been some minor edit warring recently over two edits that I initiated a few weeks ago, so I thought I might establish a discussion topic. Here are the two passages and the proposed edits:

1. "The riots began on August 19, 1991, after two children of Guyanese immigrants were accidentally struck by one of the cars in the motorcade of Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of Chabad, a Jewish religious movement."

I propose that we remove the adjective "accidentally." The entire introduction establishes pretty clearly that the crash was an accident, so the adjective isn't necessary. Furthermore, this sentence functions as an explanation of why some Black residents of the neighborhood began to riot, and for this reason, I think it is important to stick to a bare description of the facts. As is, this sentence suggests that the Black rioters were upset that the crash had been "accidental," when it was the crash itself that triggered the riots. I think this risks violating NPOV.

2. "Not wishing to lose sight of Schneerson's car, Lifsh's vehicle either crossed Utica Avenue on a yellow light or ran a red light."

I think "Lifsh's vehicle" should be changed to just read "Lifsh," because vehicles do not have wishes to lose sight of cars. Only living beings have wishes, and in this situation, the living being was Lifsh. This sentence just does not make sense. The other usages of the term "Lifsh's vehicle" in this paragraph are fine, because they do not ascribe it motivation. theBOBbobato (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Re 1, removing "accidental" implies that the driver deliberately drove into the children. As the driver is named, this has WP:BLP implications. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm here 3 years later to say we should do the same. @Rockinbandit reverted my changes from "accident" to "crash" (not to mention Black to black without explanation). We should be avoiding the use of the word accident, and especially considering the motorcade ran the red light, we can and should use collision or crash here (as we have with the section header for ages). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Why should the word 'accident' be avoided? Zanahary (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a relevant entry in MOS which I can't find that specifically discourages the use of the word, but this from accident is also helpful:" "Vehicle collisions are not usually accidents; they are mostly caused by preventable causes such as drunk driving and intentionally driving too fast"

(Or in the case of this crash, intentionally speeding up to drive through a red light) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That section cites a single op-ed and has a serious NPOV issue for the big claims it makes. Zanahary (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the whole MoS and ran a Google Search and found no policy of avoiding the use of "accident". Zanahary (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I was looking too and couldn't find the page I referred to, if I'm able to turn it up I'll share it. Regardless, I think we should be using the word sparingly especially given the circumstances of the crash (there was a loss of life and subsequent major unrest, the driver did accelerate through the red light). If it was a simple fender-bender maybe accident would be fine. Crash is more neutral than accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I really disagree, I think that since this article describes retaliatory violence there is a risk of misrepresenting the collision as an intentional act of violence, which it wasn't. Emphasizing that the children were not struck by someone seeking to strike children is important, so I've altered the lede (without using the word 'accident') Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from and I'm happy to compromise in that regard. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"I think that since this article describes retaliatory violence there is a risk of misrepresenting the collision as an intentional act" - this should not be the standard of an encyclopedia. The authors should not "reverse-engineer" the readers' perceptions of the entry. This is not a propaganda project.

For example, the use of the word "accident" gives me the exact opposite implication: that the entry has been scrubbed or sterilized, such that the author(s) is trying to persuade me rather than inform me. It undermines the article's neutrality.

It is becoming standard practice for government records (such as police reports) to favor the word "collision" over "accident." Because "collision" doesnt imply intent. You are favoring "accident" explicitly because it does delve into the realm of intent, which is not possibly a NPOV.

According to the article, Lifsh's own account of the events, after the vehicle collision, was that he intentionally steered away from one group and into a wall. Therefore, he admits to having some control of the vehicle.

I propose using "collision" for the automobiles, and "crash" for the fatal striking of the two children. For the sake of neutrality. 50.230.184.226 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think "accident" has largely been removed already? There is the word "unintentionally" in the lead, which I think should be removed. Proving/disproving intent is not the job of editors. The fact is that he hit the kids with his car. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The matter of intent is not an original concern of Wikipedia editors, it’s referred to in reliable sources. Zanahary (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

From the two sources cited for that sentence in the lede:

“As he stands by his young son’s grave on a sweltering afternoon, Carmel Cato rises above private grief to issue a public warning. A message to the Hasidic Jews whose motorcade accidentally killed his boy, Gavin, two years ago, triggering New York’s worst race riots in two decades.”

“It started as an accident. A car in the motorcade of the Lubavitcher grand rebbe ran a red light, and crashed into a building at the corner of Utica Avenue and President Street, hitting Gavin Cato and his cousin, Angela.”

From NY Daily News:

“From Aug. 19 to Aug. 21, 1991, the streets of Crown Heights, Brooklyn were packed with demonstrators angered over the death of seven-year-old Gavin Cato. Cato was killed when Orthodox Jew Yosef Lifsh unintentionally struck him with his car”

From The New Yorker:

“The three-day riots had been ignited by the accidental death of a Gavin Cato”

All of these quotes come from the introductions of these articles, and most (I think all, but certainly most) are the first sentences explaining the origin of the riots. Zanahary (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)