Talk:Borough Park, Brooklyn
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Borough Park, Brooklyn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Bobov 43rd Street
- 2 Boring Photo
- 3 Protests or Riots?
- 4 bobov dynasty schism
- 5 250,000?
- 6 Slightly biased?
- 7 An article about what?
- 8 The Expansion Of The Neighborhood
- 9 Fixed the sentence - see talk page
- 10 Revert - Public Library
- 11 Bias
- 12 Population- Census figures
- 13 "Boro" Misspelled?
- 14 Religion and politics - Religious observances
- 15 Education section
- 16 Fertility
Bobov 43rd Street
- There certainly is no Bobov 43rd Street, but there definitely is a Bobov 45th street.--Screwball23 talk 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"A street covered with snow?" seriously, we can have some more interesting pictures than that. Something about the Satmar brothers' battle or a little more info on the ethnic history would be a real help. Maybe a picture of 13th Avenue shopping or a picture of a supermarket or a synagogue or something.--Screwball23 talk 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Protests or Riots?
Seriously, bonfires and attacks on police officers? Burning a police vehicle? That is a riot, plain and simple. Mr. Schick himself said it got out of hand, and called it a riot himself. It also should be remembered that there were previous "protests" like this in the past.--Screwball23 talk 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- The NY times called it a protest. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- See the news reports there is no riot there http://ondemand1.cv.net/news12/DK0405RT.asx http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real4/001657D8_060404_232714hi.rm --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"The wild behavior of the crowd was condemned by all Jewish community leaders and in the local Jewish newspapers." -- Does anyone know whether the abusive behavior of the police officer was condemned by any civil service leaders or in the local law enforcement bulletins? Lone wanderer 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the answer to that is a yes and no. The news reports had mixed responses to the riot. First, the New York Police Department did investigate the actions of the involved officers (See: Lowe, Herbert, Parascandola, Rocco. "Anger over melee: Police brass assure Borough Park leaders they will probe actions taken during face-off with irate Hasidim." Newsday. 04/06/06.) In that article, you will notice that the officers were accused of pushing the 90-year-old man against a vehicle and using hateful speech. The officers spent several hours with two local Jewish politicians (Felder and Simcha) to explain what happened. The next day, 4/7/06, Police Chief Esposito, who was in charge of his squad that day and had explained himself to both the politicians and the NYPD admitted to using profanity to the crowd, but did not admit saying the word "jews" in a derogatory way. Both Simcha and Felder were happy with what they got from him and accepted his apology, leading us to believe that he did not use antisemitic language, but only loud profanity.
- In that regard, he did apologize to the community. However, the NYPD did have a little more to say about this riot. In their opinion, there was a "double standard" imposed on them by the community. The rioters blocked traffic, caused bonfires, and damaged a police vehicle, and only 3 arrests were made. This was not what would have been expected, especially from the NYPD that imprisoned hundreds of peaceful protestors during the 2004 Republican National Convention. In fact, the NYPD did not have to report and explain themselves to protest organizers after the incident; rather, they carried out many of the arrests without any repurcussions, for example, Chief Paragallo, who ordered a bystander to be arrested without reason. Nonetheless, it seemed that the police force was intimidated by the rioters and did not exercise the same strict measures that it normally would have. This would indicate that some people felt that the rioters were let off the hook easily.
- Nice question, though. You can decide for yourself.--Screwball23 talk 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
bobov dynasty schism
I called it the bobov dynasty schism because the article mostly about the schism, which happened in boro park, not the dynasty as a whole. the main article link is helpful, but the subsection was about the schism.--Screwball23 talk 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The article says there are 250,000 Jews in the neighborhood - is it supposed to be 25,000? 250,000 seems high for even a total population of any neighborhood. --Awiseman 08:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's accurate. Boro Park is about 225-250 blocks in Brooklyn, and in Brooklyn, most houses are at least 2 family homes, plus apartments and so on. Brooklyn is about 2.5 million in population, and that would mean roughly 10% of Brooklyn is Jewish (it isn't clear whether the 250,000 are only in Boro park), which is not unreasonable considering the population density and growth rate.--Screwball23 talk 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
it is difficult to estimate the population. as screwball says, boro park is about 225 blocks in brooklyn and it seems reasonable that were are over 1000 people per block. 100 people per block would make this place a ghost town. according to the new york department of health borough park constitutes the zip codes 11204, 11236,11219, and 11230 (http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/cancer/registry/appendix/neighborhoods.htm). according the city-data.com the population of these zip codes in 2000 was 74,880, 74,611, 85,987, 88,933. this equals a total of 324,411. 250,000 out of 324,411 equals about 77% which seems pretty accurate considering how jewish boro park is--there are severals yeshivas and synagogues on every street. moreover, brooklyn is closer to 25-30% jewish as 10% represents the new york state average. also considering it is a widely circulated figure that boro park had approximately 80,000 jews in 1983, considering the birth rate of the ultra orthodox community a quarter million seems like a fair estimate.22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)jonah
I'm only guessing, but is there a non-Jewish population in Borough Park as well? Ratzd'mishukribo 04:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
An article about what?
This article is incredibly biased! Is it about Boro Park, or about Hasids? It doesn't even set the boundaries of the neighborhood, give a population estimate, a general history, or anything of interest. What is the article about??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere (talk • contribs) 19/Jun/07
The Expansion Of The Neighborhood
The opening segment holds the following sentecne:"Moreover, neighboring Flatbush and Bensonhurst are beginning to shrink as Borough Park rapidly expands." What is this based on? The defenition of Borough Park is municipal at best. How can one neighborhood expand on behalf of its beighbor? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
boro park is basically wherever hasidic people live and they continue to live farther and farther out from what was traditionally boro park. so what was once considered bensonhurst is increasingly becoming an extension of bp 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)jonah
Fixed the sentence - see talk page
With an estimated Jewish population that may be as high as 250,000 Jews (though estimates vary drastically and this number is bound to increase in the coming years), which includes many Hasidic and Hareidi Jews, Borough Park has largest concentrations of Jewish people in the United States and is among the most Orthodox neighborhoods in the world.
The sentence was weakened from my original edit because some dipshit decided to shorten the statement. It reads: "With an estimated population that may be as high as ..., borough park has one of the largest concentrations of Jewish people in the US and is among the most Orthodox..."
Someone had shortened it; hopefully, it will not happen again because it was grammatically incorrect.
Revert - Public Library
I reverted a section concerning the Brooklyn Public Library in Borough Park. The information was not newsworthy, and was incredibly trivial, especially for a neighborhood article. Comments and suggestions welcomed on the talk page: --Screwball23 talk 00:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see it's gone, but having been born there and gone to school there for several years (in the Modern Orthodox sector; school no longer exists), the library was quite important. In particular, please understand that many people there intentionally do not have internet, and certainly do not have televisions. Whether they use the library I do not know. Ironically, in my youth it was one of the few libraries open on Saturday.Mzk1 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Granted the neighborhood being about 90-95% jewish some one reading this article would get the impression that this neighborhood is exclusively jewish. There must be something to include about other ethnic groups in this neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You may want to add that the area is the one of the filthiest of New York as people feel 'heimish' enough to dump garbage in the streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't random anti-semitic attacks wonderful? Having grown up in several neighborhoods of New York, I would say having trash on the streets is pretty ubiquitous.Mzk1 (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Population- Census figures
As of the 2000 Census, the population of Borough Park was 85,987. The demographics were 71.4% White, 16.2% Asian, 11.9% Hispanic or Latino, 1.0%Black or African American, 0.3% Native American, 6.7% Some other race , 4.3% two or more races.
Firstly, the population of 85 thousand is helpful, but the percentages are out-of-place and far too trivial. Secondly, there are no clear references and no clear information making it clear that this is official info from the Census in the Borough Park neighborhood. Thirdly, and most importantly, even if the information is official, the article is supposed to be encyclopedic, and not written like some traveler's guide/real estate handbook.--Screwball23 talk 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Religion and politics - Religious observances
Men and women sit separately in accordance with the laws of modesty (so that there should be less mingling), not to avoid physical contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:37, 16/May/14
The education section makes no sense. Here we have a neighborhood with a religious school on just about every block in areas, and the entire section is about the government system? We could change the title, but then there is a notability issue.Mzk1 (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why rename? Add nicely written, well cited paragraph. Not one naming individual religious schools, unless some are large or otherwise notable, but surely some newspaper must have mentioned the topic in a more general way. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because it is Undue Weight. How many people in the neighborhood go to those schools? Three on the religious schools, one on the public would make sense. But I don't have the sources to add to it. As it is, the section does not fit at all.Mzk1 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, I assume a lot of them are notable, including the one I went to, now closed. It opens the first page of Alan Dershowitz's first book (he was one of our better failures); Dr. Auman, the Nobel prize winner, went there for a few years. There are also a lot of notable charities, some of which serve larger areas, but sources are not easy to get. One of the NYT articles has several paragraphs on that, but how do I cite that without plagiarism?Mzk1 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
why does the article claim the problem with a pre-college is solely 'scantily dressed girls', as if the govt. is bending itself backwards to religion? how about uncivilized teens causing trouble "'cuz the jews don't hit back"? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The opening part mentions children per family, but the reference, besides not directly being the one quoted, is for fertility per woman. Am I right in assuming that these are not the same thing? Would it perhaps not be better to cite the NYT article that says (approvingly!) that the fertility is about twice that of the city (or borough, I have to look again)?Mzk1 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)