Talk:Elmhurst, Queens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New York City (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elmhurst is a great place for families, with the new schools, afterschool programs, great library, easy commuting and available parking!

This passage from "However, besides the fact theres much diverse beauty in this area...besides this little ghetto is a b- area to raise your kids in." is racist as hell - coupling specific races and ethnicities with crimes - and, having personally spent a good amount of time in the area, in my opinion the image it paints is inaccurate. Perhaps there's some information in it that is useful and can be salvaged but I'm not sure what that is and in any case, it definitely needs to be rewritten.


Elmhurst is NOT the replacement name of the Town of Newtown. It is the replacement name of the Village of Newtown, which was originally named Middleburgh. Newtown Township is still extant as the 111XX Zip Code, although the various place names are used for the full five digits. My source is the Encyclopedia of New York City. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


How can Jackson Heights and Elmhurst both be "the most ethnically diverse neighborhood/community in the world"?

- Agreed! It's more accurate to say that it's one of the most diverse neighborhoods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


The percentages under demographics add up to more than 100 and are confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I can identify the problem easily enough: The census figures from the source list hispanic/latino of any race, which means they are counted twice (for example, a black latino would be counted under black AND latino). That is why the total adds up to about 143 instead of 100 (43 is the percentage of hispanic/latino). Now as for the solution... that's trickier. We can eliminate the hispanic/latino number and the table will yield a nice, neat 100%. But that seems like a less than ideal solution, since it eliminates an important fact that readers may want to know. We should see how other articles deal with this. I hesitate to make a change without some community feedback and consensus on how to address this issue. Any thoughts? --anietor (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)