Talk:Crown Heights Riot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV Complaint

Ok, I see that the nutrality of the article has been questioned and some people don't like it in general, think it is racist in POV, etc, but I don't see any suggestions of what in particular needs to be changed/added/removed and why. As an outsider who doesn't really know much about the subject I don't see anything in the article that jumps out at me as being incorrect/offensive/whatever, but maybe I just don't know the facts.

So please, lets have a list of specific items that need to be changed in order to get this article out of NPOV dispute.Bdrasin 16:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV dispute pending specific information describing what needs to be changed and why. If you dispute the NPOV of the article please give a list of specific items that need to be removed/changed/added and why, not general comments such as "this is too pro-side A", or "this makes side B look bad, you must be racist" Bdrasin 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Article

There are two articles that cover this event -- Crown Heights Riot and Crown Heights riots. Both articles should be merged and NPOV'd. --Micahbrwn 18:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I've merged them both into this article, but someone wit more knowledge of the event should NPOV Saberwyn 03:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al Sharpton

What was Al Sharpton's role in the riots? I read that he started the riots, but in the article on Sharpton it only mentions his eulogy at Gavin Cato's funeral.Ortho 01:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Horrid

Not only does this article try to portray blacks as instinct driven aggressive animals rather then emotional human beings who decided to revolt against what they saw as injustice (which does seem valid.) it also puts the "victims" on this ground that makes it seem as if they were attacked for no reason by these vicious dogs, played of course by the blacks.

This article seriously needs to be fixed up, it is almost as bad as the euro centric histories on other Wikipedia pages.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

I lived in the area, am neither black nor Jewish, and find this article to be almost ludicrously biased. It makes it sound as if the blacks in the neighborhood , who are primarily Caribbean-American, had no grievances with the Jewish community beyond the fact that they're Jews, which was certainly not the case. There was deep conflict in the area over real estate, police treatment, city policies that were viewed as preferential, and things as simple as conflicting modes of interpersonal interaction and mutual cultural incomprehension that created significant tension, which came to the fore due to the way the central incident (the accident that killed Gavin Cato) was handled. But then I guess when one has 2 competing historical victimization narratives, both of which have much deeper and wider roots and implications than this little incident, every occurrence of conflict must be inflated to epic proportions of victimization ("Crown Heights pogrom"... please) and neither side will rest until they control the message completely and can use it as part of a larger agenda. It would be nice if this article just talked about the incident as it happened, without all of the victimization hyperbole, but I guess that's too much to ask for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.216.115 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I tried to clean this up a little and make it read less like a moral condemnation of African Americans. What happened in Crown Heights was tragic, but we need to do the best we can to present both sides of the story. Was Anti-Semitism an aspect of the riot? Yes, certainly it was, and that has been left in the article. But I've tried to pay a little more attention has been paid to the other side of the story.

[edit] Spelling

There is no "edit" button next to the first paragraph, but "anti-Semitic" is spelled as I just spelled it, not as "Anti-Semetic." The "anti" isn't capitalized, and there are two "i's", not two "e's." I agree that those who have criticisms of the article involving information that is supposedly missing should offer that information, not just throw stones. I believe the author has made a sincere effort to write a balanced article, and it's easier to attribute ill motives and throw stones than to participate and collaborate.

[edit] Fixing things

I made a couple of edits today that rearranged some sentences for better syntax and readability. I also named Cato's "sister" (apparently actually his cousin), Angela.

I tried to remove as many emotionally-charged adjectives as I could from the first few paragraphs. I hope the article is a little more level-headed and professional-looking now... 71.116.217.242 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the POV tag as obsolete and redundant. The various points of view are represented even-handedly and the controversy surrounding the riot is harped on constantly in the body of the article. 71.116.217.242 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrest is a better title for this event. the violence was both ways

I will never forget the video of the unrest. I never saw anything like it before. Large crowds of Jews on one side and blacks on another, hurling missiles back and forth in a constant rain. that's how it was reported at the time -- unrest, and TWO WAY unrest at that. Not it's degenerated into black-only violence. I had to add that one part to the article about the rain of white missiles.

Confirmed, see Hasid Dies in Stabbing; Black Protests Flare 2d Night in a Row By JOHN KIFNER New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 21, 1991; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003)pg. B1 - Hasidim and blacks were both throwing rocks and bottles at each other, according to the NY Times, at least at one point. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I could have added the fact that the child pedestrian struck by the illegally-driven car was screaming for help and being scorched by the hot underside of the car for extended periods when the ambulance drove off without helping. Also the driver of the car was allowed to leave the USA and completely escape punishment for the death of this child. This is what inflamed the onlookers. How could it not? And how could these facts be forgotten? Jeff 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Illegally driven car." This is something I did not understand from the article: The driver (Lifsh) had a driver's lcense from a foreign country (Israel). Under NY State law, is he not therefore entitled to drive in NY? When we travel to foreign countries, I believe we can rent a car if we have a valid driver's license in our residence. Can someone please explain? Was Lifsh driving the car illegally or not? 66.108.4.183 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole section is a shameful attempt to present a first pogrom in America as a some kind of communal feud with no perps and no victims. Truth is simple - an Israeli driver was driving lawfully and under valid international document, so after the police concluded he wasn't a guilty party in the accident, there was no reason to keep him in the same city with people who were able and willing to murder Jews because they were Jews. Also, I am still trying to understand how exactly Jews of Crown Hights "oppressed" their black neighbors, except by their very existence. Maybe gruppenfuerer Al Sharpton can provide some answers?

[edit] Curious...

Just curious about the line referring to the Hatzolah ambulance being ordered to leave the area. On who's account is this based? Also, Hatzolah is not a 'private' ambulance service but a volunteer one.

CLEARLY SKEWED

This article is clearly biased. I wondered throughout the article if the person who wrote it is Jewish. The author blatantly underplayed two very important event: The fact that the driver was driving illegally and that a Jewish ambulance let the dying kid to perish. These very two important facts were not at all given the weight they inherently possess. In addition, statements such as "purely antisementic" were used even though there was fighting on both sides not to mention the fact that the author stated that the "Black residents" rioted for four days and then stated that there were rocks hurled from both sides.

[edit] Menachem Schneerson and the riot

Didn't Menachem Schneerson have something to do with the start of the riot? I read somewhere that his motorcade was involved. 204.52.215.107 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by David Dinkins, Black Mayor of NYC

REPORTER: "What if somebody's in a crowd, urging these kids to throw rocks and bottles or commit other acts, is that illegal?"

Commissioner Brown begins potentially long-winded response

MAYOR DINKINS (breaking in): "Let me give a lay answer to that. If you're suggesting that somebody's out in a group, saying to youngsters, 'Yeah, throw those bricks', then I say that's inciting to riot and they ought to be arrested on the spot, is that clear?"

REPORTER:"Yes, sir". DINKINS: "All right, I thought it was."

— Police Brace For Protest In Brooklyn By JOHN KIFNER New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 24, 1991; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 27 (account is on page 29, second pg of article) — Rickyrab | Talk 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon vandalism

Some folks are apparently upset that I pointed out that a source caught Hasidic Jews throwing bottles and rocks at blacks in addition to blacks doing the same to Jews. This is no excuse for vandalizing to exclude such information, even under the reason that it was "editorializing". A statement of fact is not editorializing, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This kinda seems anti-black. "While there certainly has been a great attempt to whitewash the riots, and especially Al Sharpton's involvement, it was clearly a violent anti-Jewish outburst by the black community. The differing accounts of what happened in Crown Heights during the summer of 1991 may never be reconciled." But I'm not sure, idk much about this.

[edit] Reworked

This Whole artical needs to be reworked to at least reach some nutrality, but the problem is you can't even edit some paragraphs. The whole thing needs time and a lot of backspace, it's probally the most racialy charged article I've ever run across on wikipedia. The fact that the discussion page is allmost universialy comdeming the tone of the page its self should be a bit of a hint that its honestly totally biased. I think it would be more fitting on conservapdia than wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One more parade (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cleanup

I slapped on the cleanup tag - apologies for forgetting to note what the change was for the history page. I have little/no knowledge on this subject; however, the article itself is messy, including poor and disorganized citations. Basically, it's very clear that this article was randomly edited by quite a few people. Facts are piled on and it's not very readable as-is. Also, POV is obviously an issue, just from reading the article and its comments. To do for this article, in my opinion:

  • Copy-editing.
  • A clearer, definitive, well-sourced recounting of events - the precursors to the riot, the riot itself, and the ramifications.
  • A section documenting the controversy surrounding the event; reliable sources for both sides of the controversy over the riot. That is, if the controversy extends beyond a few Wikipedia lurkers; again, I don't know anything about the riot.

Then again, that's pretty much a basic wish list for any article, so... — Ambientlight 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Cleanup

Unlike many of those above, I lived in Crown Heights during the rioting, so I do have first hand knowledge. Statements that an editor "wasn't there" and thereby assumes "both sides are at fault" are no more authoritative or appropriate than those above who wish to present either the "Caribbean American, West Indian, and African American" side or the "police, Lubavitch, or Caucasian" side. An encyclopedia is not the place for any of the three positions. I've tried to clean up some of the grammar, and remove unsubstantiated material. It makes no sense to say in three places that no one can reconcile the reasons for the riot, and then have a section titled, "Causes of the riot". I've moved some of the historical material to a section on "Previous Tensions", but a subsequent editor might elect to delete it or move it to its own page. Many times the previous editors stressed it was YOUNG "Blacks" (which is a color, not an ethnicity) who were rioting - obviously they weren't born or were far too young to have participated or have direct knowledge of many of those events. Finally (for now), much of the Talk on this page is anti-Semitic, and will be reported as such. This is the formum for healthy debate on how best to depict the event, not ad hominem attacks.Edstat 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of neutral tag

Anyone can slap a npov tag, but without indicating what the issue is on the talk or discussion page, it requires the editors to be mind-readers. Editors have no opportunity to support any 'disputed' fact with references, or support the veracity of 'disputed' references, unless information is given as to the nature of the npov. That is what the talk page is for, MichaelLinnear!

[edit] Removal of material pertaining to arrest

I have spoken with a city attorney, who pointed out that (1) even if there was an allegation from the Black community that the driver wasn’t arrested, the point is legally irrelevant. A traffic infraction is a misdemeanor, and as such is a civil matter. Arrest, which would be rare, is only legally permitted if the police officer witnesses the misdemeanor. (2) This city attorney pointed out that no percentage of the blame for the accident for either driver was asserted by the officer or determined by a jury. (3) The city attorney pointed out that it is not uncommon for neither party in a two car incident to receive a traffic citation. (4) Most germane in an encyclopedia entry, there has been no citation of fact to support that this was an allegation raised by members of the Black community during the riot or even soon thereafter – it appears to be either speculation or rhetoric added long after the incident. City and state statutes can be cited for points 1 - 4.

[edit] Removal of anti-Semitic material in discussion page

One gets tired of the newest-Antisemitism, which of course, is the "discussion" pages of Wikipedia. I've edited out such materail from this discussion - its either that or spend a lot of time and money with Wikipedia and its unacceptable editors who use this as a forum for hate speech. Similarly, I've edited out racist language used to describe Blacks, despite the au's attempt to convince the reader that it is being used in defense of the Black community.

Thank you for cleaning that stuff up. --MichaelLinnear 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction to title

There is no document in Lubavitch that refers to its Rebbe as a "head rabbi". For many decades the acronym AdM"R has been translated as Grand Rabbi. Although it is entirely inaccurate, its usage is accepted as a short form for "Chassidic Master".

Edits that hyphenate Chabad with Lubavitch are at best redundant. Chabad refers to the top three (according to Chassidus; not according to Kabbalah) aspects of the spiritual psychic anatomy, which is an intellectual structure. Lubavitch refers to a city (Luvav) where these disciples of the Maggid were primarily established, and as is the custom, who assumed that name as part of their identity.

Thus, use “Chabad” when referencing the philosophy of this Chassidic group; use “Lubavitch” as a reference to the group itself.Edstat 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI - All other chassidic groups have an orientation either according to a primary three emotion structure referenced as "ChaGaS", or a secondary three emotion structure referenced as "NeHY" (pronounced Nuh-Hee'). Edstat 00:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be to use “Rebbe of Lubavitch”, but that would require a link on the term “Rebbe”. The use of Lubavitch”er” is rather tiresome. The attachment of English prefixes and suffixes to Hebrew/Yiddish words can become a grammatical nightmare.Edstat 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

As someone who is both black and Jewish, this article is really needs a re-writing. It sounds like it was written by one of the Hasids in Brooklyn and they're about as impartial as Al Sharpton is: Not very.

-PhPh

[edit] Another NPOV hit and run?

PhPh - your ethnicity and religion are irrelevant. Comments that an article needs re-writing without any specifics wastes discussion page space. For someone who supposedly is Jewish, you appear to have little knowledge on conjugating Hebrew terms - there is no such phrase as "Hasids" (try Hasidim, or Chasidim). To make a sweeping statement that an entire group of Jewish people are "not very" impartial is not only anti-Semitic, but it seeks to denigrate the victim of an event in which a court of law has convicted a perpetrator for a religously motivated hate crime. What contribution does your hit and run comment serve?Edstat 05:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Chabad Hasidism" Template

I think one uncontroversial way to clean this up a little is to remove the "Chabad Hasidism" template on the side. This was not an event that involved or affected only one group of people, and promenantly displaying that template solidifies the idea that this is from a certain POV.

Rawilson52 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absudly and self-evidently biased

In several years of reading wikipedia for pleasure and information I have never read an article on a relatively major subject with such gross and self-evident bias. I do not know how to edit wikipedia entries but will now take the time to do so in order to correct the problems in this article.

I am not a member of either the jewish or black community and think it is fair to say that this article is HIGHLY selective in its choice of sources, many of which could be fairly questioned regarding their neutrality.

The most obvious example of this is in the following paragraph which summarizes the event that led to the riot:


Lifsh exited the station wagon to render aid to the two victims, but became a victim himself when he was assaulted and robbed by the crowd that had formed at the accident scene.[5] A private ambulance from the Hatzolah Ambulance Corps arrived and removed Lifsh on the orders of police officers. The ambulance driver was also ordered to leave the area without the injured Gavin because a city ambulance had been summoned. The officers believed there was an immediate threat to the safety of the volunteer ambulance workers, because of the violence already ensuing. Retrospectively, members of the Black community contended that the officers' orders were racially motivated, promoting unequal treatment for the victim. Although a city ambulance arrived within minutes to treat Gavin, he died of his injuries at a nearby hospital.

This traffic accident sparked the riots that followed, although in the three year period leading up to this incident, there had been nearly two dozen traffic accidents in Brooklyn where Chassidim were killed by motorists from the Black community.[5]

The above (mis)described event was one of the most widely covered news stories in New York in 1991, with in depth coverage featured in all of the quality print media. What is the source given for the above decription? The source for the first sentence is attributed to an article in The Jewish Forward from 1993. This event was the subject of MASSIVE media attention all the way up to in depth articles in The New York Times and the best this article can do is a single citation in The Jewish Forward? This highly selective use of citations showcases a basic lack of the good-faith principles upon which all wikipedia entrie should be based.

Further, the entry make no reference to who was to blame for the collision at the intersection. Obviously someone was in the wrong, high speed collisions such as this do not generally occur unless someone has either driven recklessly or illegally, or both. The paragraph above uses the following weasel-worded construction to describe how the accident occured: "Lifsh's vehicle fell behind, and a traffic accident occurred when a car headed north on Utica Avenue hit Lifsh's vehicle when he crossed the intersection. Lifsh's vehicle veered onto the sidewalk, striking and seriously injuring a 7-year-old Guyanese boy named Gavin Cato as well as his cousin Angela, also 7."

So an accident just "occured", huh? Again the above paragraph is unsourced. Thirty seconds of searching in Google revealed the following article from Time magazine which states that "a station wagon driven by a Hasidic Jew ran a red light, collided with another car, then jumped the curb and struck two black children." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973786-1,00.html

So the detail about Lisch running a red light was conveniently left out of the description of the accident, does that sound neutral to you?

I am not an expert on this subject and do not know the intricacies of wikipedia but as soon as I find out how I will submit this article to senior editors for review. I don't want to sound draconian but in my opinion people who engineer such a clearly biased versions of a major event ought to have their submission priviledges revoked. Entries such as this are the kind of thing that anti-wikipedians use to ridicule this site.

I don't like to go on but what is perhaps even more depressing is reading some of the posts above which defend this version of the article. Do the people who defend this article by use of (not very sophisticated) sophistry and evasion really think that their obvious bias reflects well upon the ethical standards of the community which they are clearly members of? It does not.

lankyfool August 30, 8:25 am EDT

It isn't biased, it's what happened. In all that verbiage I could only see one specific complaint, the description of the accident, so I've filled it out with a more complete account of what happened. It's not true to say that he "ran a red light"; he believed that he had the right of way. The rest of your complaint seems to rest simply on the assumption that there must have been roughly equal blame on both sides, and that an account that places the blame on one side must by definition be biased. But that's simply not how it was. The facts are as given in the article. The Forward is just as reliable a source as the NYT (if not more so), and 16 years later we can't be expected to dig through newspaper archives to find every available source. Perhaps you can take a few days off to do that if you like. -- Zsero 18:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This article sounds like jewish propaganda to garner hatred towards blacks in crown heights. Wonderful how the jews own all the media and now there infecting the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.97.47 (talk) 20:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I think that speaks for itself. -- Zsero 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


    • A crowd surrounds a man on the street. A voice cries out "get the Jew". A youth jumps out of the crowd and stabs the man to death. I shudder to recall it.Lowgen 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV

I removed the POV tag for the same reason I have done so in the past on this page. Just because you don't agree with a citation, and would prefer citations from other vetted sources, doesn't mean there is a negative POV. If such exist, please add citations that you believe present facts that are missing from this entry. The statement that a citation from a Jewish news source is de facto biased is an unabashedly anti-Semitic remark. The poster should be censored for making such a prejudiced statements.

Regarding one newspaper’s account vs another on the cause of a traffic accident: “guilt” or “blame” (and the fraction thereof) for a traffic accident is NOT within their purview. In the U. S., a judge and/or jury make that determination. Until adjudication, newspapers and scholarly researchers are free to collect facts from interviews and present it as news, or spin as opinion, but are not authorized to make judgments of which party is at fault.

Also, as mentioned above on this discussion page, there is no negative POV because you don’t like the facts of an incident or because you have a presumption that both sides of a riot (e.g., the rioters and their victims) are equally at fault. You are free, however, to research the matter from the so-called massive media reports at your disposal and cite facts they have uncovered that disagree with those currently cited.

I deleted the vitriol and expletives of the previous poster immediately above and an anti-Semitic remark several posts higher, while trying to leave the primary message intact (regardless of whether or not they had merit). My suggestion is that if you wish to edit wiki entries, a good place to begin learning how to do so is to find ways of expressing your point on the discussion pages without the use of vitriol and expletives. Edstat 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the antisemitic comment. It gives the reader valuable guidance on how to evaluate the rest of the comments -- Zsero 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding other Crown Heights traffic deaths

Repeatedly, editors of this entry have been desirous of using terms such as Lifsch “fled”, when he returned to Israel prior to legal proceedings emanating from the traffic accident. There is a treaty of reciprocity for extradition between the US and Israel. If the Grand Jury felt the need to extradite Lifsh, they could have done so. They did not. Therefore, “fled” is not a neutral term. Moreover, authors of this entry insist on citing this tragic accident in which a Black child was killed and another seriously injured by a Chassidic Jewish motorist as the event that prompted, and hence, justified, the ensuing riot of Blacks against the police and Jews, and the hate crime of killing a person due to his religion. Thus, a balanced report must also indicate there had been numerous tragic traffic accidents leading up to the riot where Chassidic Jews were killed by Black motorists in the same city, and yet there were no ensuing riot of Jews against the police or Blacks. Statements that such statistics do not exist are easily levied after a previous author deleted the reference to an investigative reporter who actually researched such traffic accident statistics as recorded in the city’s police blotter. Hence, see the privious edit.68.43.236.4 06:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism

Zsero, you have a valid point in reinserting the anti-Semitic statement, for the reason you cited. The trouble I have with that "poster" (thankfully not an au yet!) is the systemic anti-Semitism through many pages on Jewish or Jewish-related topics in Wiki, with this discussion page being a prime example. The M. O. seems to let a few months pass by where small pieces are removed, *especially* factual statements with their references, and then slap a negative POV on the page due to the lack of citations! Anti-Semites have nothing better to do than to constantly work on hacking these pages, and it gets tiresome.Edstat 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request to senior editors to arbitrate this dispute

Users Edstat and 68.43.236.4, you obviously have an agenda geared towards painting the best possible picture of Libsh in this affair and are not using wikipedia's 'good faith' principles in your edits to this entry. My edit removed all the uncited elements from your version of this well-reported traffic accident. The elements I added to the entry on the accident were all sourced from either The New York Times or The Village Voice, two widely-read mainstream publications with well-established editorial practices.

Your removal of the disputed POV tag shows just how low you are willing to go on this issue. Clearly there is a dispute in progress here. I have disputed this article in comments above and edits to the main page and have given detailed reasons (based upon wikipedia's principles) for my disputations of your version of this event. I continue to dispute it now, many others have also done so in above comments (once again, I disown any racist/anti-semitic trash in some of the entries written above). Why do our objections not count? Or do you consider yourself somehow the final arbiter of this entry, down to the level that others are not even allowed to dispute it?

That is not how wikipedia works. I request that you DO NOT REMOVE the disputed POV tag until at least this particular dispute(regarding the facts of the traffic accident) is concluded. After all, it is only fair that the reader of this entry should know that there is a dispute here. I am happy to have any senior wikipedia editor or anyone else in the community look at my edits and comments and help to reach a consensual conclusion to this based upon reasoned arguments that pertain to wikipedia's policies. You admit that you have removed the disputed POV tag from this page several times previously, since this is the first time I added the tag that only shows that several other people feel there are problems with the bias on this page. Why do you have such a problem with people disputing your version of events? I have taken the trouble to catalog (using citations) my disagreements with your version so please do not remove the tag again since the neutrality of this page is most definitely currently in dispute.

I have re-edited the entry to remove the continuing weasel words and unsourced claims made about the accident. To wit, the statements about Libsh being injured, leaving the vehicle to help bystanders etc. are not backed up by any citation. Also your statement that a police officer on the scene ordered Libsh away from the scene contradicts ALL versions of this event that I have read (or at least, the few versions that mention this police officer at all). Those versions all claim that the police officer contacted the Hetzolah Ambulance crew by RADIO, he was not at the actual scene. Can you show a single reputable source for this officer being present? Or is this more of your wantonly one-sided engineering of this entry? Until you can post strong evidence of this cop being present, evidence that contradicts the Times and Voice's version I will keep removing your edits.

Below are wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and verifiablity, you might want to read it along with wikipedia's policies regarding bias and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith">good faith</a>.

Neutrality and Verifiability[1]

A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

I have also removed your categorization of the crowd as 'Blacks' (with a capital B for some reason I can't being to understand). I admit I am not so sure about this but it seems to me that the fact that they were black was irrelevant. The people who gathered around after the accident were the inhabitants of the area. I certainly understand that there was a history of strife between the black and hasidim communities in crown heights, but feel that the articles opening paragraphs which talks about this history does enough to characterize the inhabitants of the area. If the accident had occured in the upper east side of Manhattan would you have pointed out that the surrounding crowd wre 'Whites'? If you wish I will be happy to see the bystanders characterized as people who were not Hasidim (or not jewish, if you prefer).

Your statements about Libsh not having fled to Israel are not true in my opinion, though I admit that interpretations of the word 'fled' come down to semantics. However I personally think that most reasonable people would agree that someone who leaves a legal jurisdiction while a lethal accident they caused (do you dispute that Libsh was the cause of this accident?) was being investigated - have fled. Whether the Grand Jury ultimately indicted him or not is irrelevant, the fact is he fled to Israel while the accident was being investigated.

I am also removing your paragraph about the number of black-upon-hasidim accidents in Brooklyn. I removed it since I don't see what it has to do with the accident. What are you trying to say here? Are you implying that there was an imbalance of accidents in Brooklyn, that black drivers were - in disproportionate numbers - causing accidents that injured hassidim? What is the context? Or perhaps you are not implying that there was a disproportion but merely that since other accidents occured involving black drivers injuring hassidim that somehow excuses what Libsh did (ran a red light killing one 7 year old child and grievously injuring another) in this case? Are you trying to say that this somehow justified Libsh doing what he did? I really don't get it. Further, your supposed source for this statistic is not searchable online. I have provided a hyperlink to the NY Times and Village Voice websites for all of my citations, you have not managed to do so in this case. I think the statistic would only make sense if it also referred to the number of Hassidim-upon-black car accidents in Brooklyn over a similar period of time. In any case, it has nothing to do with the simple FACTS of this accident and has therefore been removed. If you wish to use it in some sense to contextualize the riots over the following days in Brooklyn that might make slightly more sense, though not much in my opinion.

Finally, and most importantly, I would LOVE if several senior wikipedia editors took a look at this page and helped pull us out of this mess. I am hereby submitting it to them for review and will be happy to go along with the broad community's consensual decision on this. If you edit my entry again without explaining your rationale in the talk pages first I will simply revert to my version in the meantime as you have repeatedly used weasel words, selective reporting, unsourced claims and other breaches of wikipedia's posting policies.

PS Edstat, alleging someone is anti-semitic is a very serious charge. I do not have any dislike of jewish people as a race, religion, etc. Do not refer to me as an anti-semite just because I disputed the neutrality of how this article was written. At best your charge reeks of hysteria, at worst outright malice. Also, thanks for saving the wikipedia from my, admittedly unneccesary vitriol, the community is now safe from expressions such as "who the hell".

LankyFool 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC) lankyfool —Preceding unsigned comment added by LankyFool (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reinstatement of edits by user Edstat to my comments

User Edstat removed the second half of the following end-statement from one of my comments above, claiming it was vitriol. And hey, by your ethical standards, if 'blacks' had somehow been so responsible for accidents were they actually accidents or were they murderous acts of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE resulting in the DEATH OF CHILDREN a la mister Libsh's joyride through Brooklyn?


I have no particular problem with anyone editing vitriol out of comments, but Edstat replaced the above comment with the following, completely obliterating my point:

And hey, by your ethical standards, if 'blacks' had somehow been so responsible for accidents were they actually accidents? <vitriol deleted>.

I have re-instated it, if someone wants to edit it because their sensibilities are offended by the above I would be happy if they would retain the valid semantic point that was being made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LankyFool (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The responses to lankyfool's questions were deleted, so they are reinstated below

[edit] Response to concerns raised by lankyfool, hackers, and Anti-Semites

1. Making an accusation of an agenda is hysteria, not factual. 2. There is no attempt to paint a picture of Libsh in the best possible way or otherwise. Allegations that you have made regarding him are just that. This is not a source for allegations. You used terms such as murderous, etc., when a Grand Jury ruled otherwise. 3. All facts I've stated were supported by citations. If you look at the history page, you will see, as is the way of hackers/anti-Semites, to one by one delete them, and then claim there are no citations. 4. For some reason, you have the opinion that the New York Times and the Village Voice are the only vetted news reporting outlets. You are mistaken. 5. Calling a fellow au "low" is not communicating. The Negative POV cannot be slapped on an article because you prefer other citations. What you can do, is make any factual counterpoints you can support. 6. There is no dispute in progress here. What is happening is a presumption of fact that "both sides must be equally at fault". In fact, the driver of the vehicle was involved in a tragic misdemeanor that led to three/four days of rioting, and the murder of an individual due to his religion. 7. You have failed to give any detailed reasons for your perspective. In fact, what you have done is use expletives, vitriol, and anti-Semitism (e.g., Jews own the media). 8. You can disown racist/anti-Semitic remarks, but you have made them yourself. In the interest of keeping this page clean, I edited them, but another au, Zsero, reinstated it just to keep the record straight on where you are coming from. 9. Objections never count. What counts, and what you are free to do, is to marshal factual evidence and edit this entry to reflect them. However, a supposed fact from one newspaper does not trump a supposed fact reported in another newspaper. 10. I am not the final arbiter of this entry. Anyone may freely edit it, as long as there is factual evidence to support it. 11. The facts of the traffic accident, per se, are of interest only as they relate to the title of this entry, which is on the Crown Heights Riot. If you wish to make a stub regarding the traffic accident, where you can enlarge on that topic, please feel free to do so. That is why information of who was in the motorcade, where the Rabbi was coming from, the location of the cemetary, who was buried there, etc., are not relevant. Moreover, your original comments voicing your disdain on why there was a cemetary visit to begin with is irrelevant. 12. This page and the article itself are always open to senior editors for review. They have their hands full with the type of anti-Semitism, and uneven toned remarks that you and others have made on this discussion page. 13. Regardless of how many times someone slaps on a negative POV tag, unless there are factual reasons behind it, it cannot stand. Just because the events, as cited, don't meet some preconceived notion of yours does not warrant a negative POV. 14. All of us have read and digested wiki's neutrality and verifiability pages. No where does it say a national Jewish paper is de facto biased, as you have charged. 15. I do agree with you on the use of "B"lacks, as I have written in many other pages. The special problem here, which I have been "outvoted on", is that it is unfair to say that African-Americans were solely responsible for the riot, as other "B"lack people were also involved. If you read the discussion on this page and elsewhere, you will see the problem. We all await a term that is acceptable to all parties concerned, and yet communicates who participated in the riot. 16. Again, the term "fled" flies in the face of the facts - the Grand Jury did not find the driver's actions to warrant his appearance, and hence, by definition, he did not flee. The implied anti-Semitism is that Jews "flee" to Israel, when in fact, Jewish people come and go to Israel frequently. 17. If you ask about why "black-upon-hasidim (SIC)" is relevant, I suggest you read up just a few inches. It is tedious to repeat the same message over and over. I personally do not believe the accident was the "cause" of the riot, but many authors at least have factual evidence that suggest it was the accident, and the police direction, that was the "final straw". This implies that the event precipitating the event was something out of the ordinary. Hence, it is "neutral" and "balanced" to mention that there were over two dozen such accidents in the reverse in that time frame that did not lead to a riot. Your original complaint was that the statistic couldn't be correct because you didn't agree with it. That is not how wiki works. The statistic was garnered by an investigative reporter who actually looked at the police blotter, which was cited (although deleted by previous hackers). 18. Your language, such as "weasel words" is odorous on these pages. Your claim that facts cited that you don't agree with are "unsourced", especially if they come from a Jewish press, is anti-Semitic, and has no place here. 19. I do apologize for mangling the intent of one of your comments. Unfortunately, after the expletives and vitriol were deleted, that was all that was left of the sentence.Edstat 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] accusations of anti-semitism

In the posting above, user Edstat makes extremely serious allegations about me, ie that I am anti-semitic, have said Jews own the media, and have made anti-semitic postings here. All of that is categorically untrue. I have never said any such things or anything even remotely close to such things. Edstat cliams I have said the following:

7. You have failed to give any detailed reasons for your perspective. In fact, what you have done is use expletives, vitriol, and anti-Semitism (e.g., Jews own the media). 8. You can disown racist/anti-Semitic remarks, but you have made them yourself. In the interest of keeping this page clean, I edited them, but another au, Zsero, reinstated it just to keep the record straight on where you are coming from.

I want to state again that I have NOT at any time made such postings. Anyone can check the history of this board in as much detail as they want to see whether I did or not. What 'deleted' postings are you referring to Edstat? Point out a single instance where I said anything even remotely anti-semitic? Just one single instance. When I said I disowned anti-semitic comments on this talk board, I meant the postings of other people who have criticized your version of the accident, sometimes using anti-semitic terms when they did so. I wanted nothing to do with such posters and that is why I distanced myself from such comments.

At this point you are willfully slandering me. I understand that this is a largely anonymous community and that posters may feel they get away with such things, however I value my reputation even in the online world and I will be making every effort to bring this to senior editors attention.

Your posting above is filled with other inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, I don't have time to go through every single one right now but wanted to respond to your charge of anti-semitism immediately. Tell me, don't you think it is disrespectful to those who have suffered genuine anti-semitism to use this charge as an escape clause to win every argument, regardless of whether it is true or not?

LankyFool 06:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC) lankyFool

[edit] more on accusations of anti-semitism

I am new to editing/reviewing wikipedia entries and have just seen that user Zsero claims I wrote the following UNSIGNED comment:

This article sounds like jewish propaganda to garner hatred towards blacks in crown heights. Wonderful how the jews own all the media and now there infecting the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.97.47 (talk) 20:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I did not write this comment and as you can see from the metadata at the end of the comment I am in no way associated with it whatsoever. Zsero and Edstat will you now retract your allegations and issue an appology?


LankyFool 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC) lankyfool

[edit] Response to lankyfool

It is obvious that you presume no au understands how to use the history page, but since you asked, here is the tip of the iceberg of the information you requested:

These comments signed by you, are found on various history pages. 1. Implied anti-Semitism: "The New York Times and the best this article can do is a single citation in The Jewish Forward". This and other remarks you posted implies that a religious Jewish press must be biased. 2. Vitriol: "weasel-worded". 3. Implied anti-Semitism: "Your statement that the Jewish Standard's version of events is as good as anyone's shows exactly where you were coming from", which denigrates a Jewish press as not being capable of being as trustworthy of a non-Jewish press. 4. Moral equivalency of a Jewish press to an avowed anti-Semitic press: " I guess by your standards you would have no problem with me rewriting the article making reference to nothing but Nation Of Islam reportage of the traffic accident? Would that be okay with you?" 5. Anti-Semitism: "or was he in a group of three cars following along behind some rabbi who had been on his weekly visit to his brother-in-law's grave?" The title is a denigration when not in upper case, and this particular Rabbi was the spiritual leader of Crown Heights, and major parts of world Jewry. 6. Vitriol :"this clown", when referring to a Chasidic Jew. 7. More denigration due to lack of capitalization: "jewish" 8. Vitriol: " primitive tribalism" when disagreeing with facts cited that you don’t agree with. 9. Vitriol: "what the hell" 10. Vitriol: "horse manure" when describing facts cited that you don’t agree with. 11. Vitriol: "CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE <snip> a la mister Libsh's joyride through Brooklyn.” There was no adjudication in this tragic misdemeanor indicating fault or fraction of fault by the driver; following a procession to honor one’s Rabbi is not a “joyride”. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is nevertheless, information you requested.Edstat 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More to LankyFool as a Contributor

It seems to me, upon reflection, that, assuming you drop the use of vitriol, expletives, anti-Semitic remarks, and negative POV tags as a substitute for factual writing, you might benefit from some advice/instruction on how to make this a better entry. What you can do, if you wish to make sure other perspectives are represented, assuming they exist, is to find at least one vetted source (e.g., newspaper report, scholarly article, book from a critical press, archived audio tape of an interview, etc.) that purports to have a different factual account, and insert that material at the appropriate place.

For example, you could use the phrase, "Another eye-witness who countered that... (citation)." As long as you do so in an even tone, with factual support, your contribution will be a valued addition to this entry. Obviously, even a vetted source must be dropped in lieu of best evidence. For example, a police report written contemporaneously is more authoritative than a newspaper’s account written ex post facto. The finding of facts by a Judge, jury, or Grand Jury, is more authoritative than a police report. In this case, in the absence of an unsealed Grand Jury deliberation, speculation and innuendo cannot be substituted for facts.

Moreover, refrain from areas not within your expertise. For example, as discussed earlier on this page (and it is always a good idea to read the entire discussion page before launching into a diatribe), it was noted that a traffic accident, regardless of how tragic, is a misdemeanor. An arrest is inappropriate unless (a) the officer witnessed the accident, or (b) some driver characteristic was against the law (e.g., no license, wanted for a crime, used the vehicle in the commission of a felony, crossed a state line, had contraband in the trunk, etc.). Similarly, ask an attorney what is “Criminal Negligence” before resorting to such histrionics on the discussion page.

Finally (hopefully!), implied anti-Semitism is not clever. It is easy to detect, especially when the au brings in material not related to the case.

This, in my view, is how one could clear their name and reputation as a Wiki au.Edstat 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV hacker

Please take the time to read this discussion page. Slapping on a POV just because you don't like the article is misuse of the tag. Edstat 03:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Anti-Semitic charge that Lifsh fled

I cited the Washington Post's article regarding the Grand Jury's action a month after the traffic accident. Their decision to not indict Lifsh was handed down AFTER he testified before the Grand Jury. The popular urban legend that Lifsh, being Jewish, fled to Israel to avoid responsiblity, is just thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Hopefully, it won't crop up on this Wiki entry again. Edstat 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ha...

I'm Jewish and I even think this is the most horribly written piece I've seen on this site yet.

I mean seriously people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.248.12 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to unsigned "Ha..."

Normally, it is not worth the effort to response to un-signed "drive-by" statements. However, perhaps it is a virtue of patience to point out that if you wish to add constructive criticism to an entry, all you have to do is state specifics, backed up by sources.Edstat 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)