Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-23 Crown Heights Riot

Request details
This request is to help in the resolving of a disupte of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY.

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:Malik Shabazz
 * User:Edstat
 * User:Crownjewel82

What's going on?
This article is on a sensitive subject that is causing some emotional responses from authors in particular Edstat. Recent attempts to contribute to the article's content by other users have been signifigantly altered or removed. Attempts to address neutrality issues have been largely dismissed without the opportunity for discussion. The last npov request posted by myself was responded to by Edstat and each point was reviewed. Only one point was slightly changed, all others were dismissed and the npov tag was removed from the page. Malik Shabazz replaced the tag twice and I replaced it a third time. I then placed a 3RR warning on Edstat's user talk page asking him not to remove the tag again. He placed a message on my talk page seeming to indicate that he felt that the disupte was resolved, accusing me of violating WP:OWN. He further accused Malik Shabazz and I of attempting to misuse the NPOV process to force inaccuracies into the article and suggested that I seek mediation to resolve further issues. I agreed if only because the level of hostliity in responses on the talk page and in edit comments has reached a level that makes it difficult to work with other editors on this page.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like to see a reasonable review of NPOV related concerns and the opportunity for other editors to contribute to this article without their edits being reverted or rewritted and without the uncivil responses in edit comments and on the talk page.

Mediator notes
I am happy to serve as mediator regarding this article. I will take the next 3-5 days to review the article as well as the discussion pages. Both sides should please submit comments substantiating their side as soon as possible. Please answer questions without delay. I look forward to a swift resolution.

--Leonmon 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have as of today finished reading (and several times re-reading) the article and am now studying it very closely. I have also studied the various discussion pages as well. I received comments from Edstat that are similar to the comments made on the talk pages and I have reviewed the comments below from CJ. Over the next few days, I will synthesize the key points of contention. I will need a couple more days to submit questions to both parties. I appreciate the commitment of both parties to a resolution of this matter and I look forward to facilitating an agreement in the near future.

--Leonmon 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to all parties for submitting your thoughts and opinions. User:Edstat -- I would appreciate you posting your comments in the discussion below.

The first issue that I would like to immediately resolve is the WP:CIV&WP:NPA issue. I have read many comments that are quite inappropriate and completely unnecessary. Going forward, I ask all parties (regardless of any past comments and without placing any blame) to please redouble efforts to adhere to WP:CIV&WP:NPA. In order to facilitate an effective mediation, I respectfully request that all parties indicate your commitment (in the discussion section below) to adhere to WP:CIV&WP:NPA not only throughout this entire mediation process but also from this point forward.

I will make another posting soon with questions as well as with an indication of how I will proceed.

--Leonmon 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The primary issue in this disagreement is WP:NPOV which I believe has contributed to all of the other complaints and concerns. All parties have valid concerns regarding neutrality. There are some areas that should be improved on. In order to better craft my attempts at a solution, I have a few questions of the parties: (Please answer in the discussion section below)

User:Edstat

1. Seven paragraphs are devoted to Lemrick Nelson relating to the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum. What is the purpose of these paragraphs and how would you propose that they be more succinctly summarized?

2. The section entitled "Crown Heights violence between Blacks and Jews prior to and after the riot" seems excessive to me. How does this section benefit the reader of an encyclopedic article on the Crown Heights Riots?

3. The reference to Rev. Sharpton and Lenora Fulani in the third paragraph of the "Scope of..." paragraph seems a little out of place. Why are Sharpton and Fulani even mentioned and what do you believe could be done to improve this reference?

4. References to Shapiro or his book are rather extensive in this book. Many of his quotes are indeed informational. How much information provided by Shapiro however can be provided by other sources? Should more focus be placed on additional sources to reduce Shapiro's influence?

5. Is this article contentious? Why or why not? (Please cite specific examples) How does your answer support or challenge the claim that this article violates WP:NPOV?

User:Crownjewel82

1. Reverend Sharpton is quoted twice in the third paragraph of the "Traffic Accident..." section. The first quote (from an acceptable source) seems appropriate to the article. Whereas the second quote does not seem appropriate. (The fourth paragraph seems superfluous as well.) You commented that Rev. Sharpton is overemphasized in the article. Do you believe that the first quote is appropriate to the article? If not, what references to Rev. Sharpton in the article are appropriate?

2. There are a lot of quotations in this article as opposed to citations. That seems a little unusual to me. What do the frequent quotations achieve over citations? 3. Is this article contentious? Why or why not? (Please cite specific examples) How does your answer support or challenge the claim that this article violates WP:NPOV?

User:Malik Shabazz

1. Edward Shapiro's book is indeed referenced quite a few times in the article. However, many of these references are simply informational. Which references do you believe are most inappropriate and why?

2. Is this article contentious? Why or why not? (Please cite specific examples) How does your answer support or challenge the claim that this article violates WP:NPOV?

Thank you very much for indulging me with these questions. I truly look forward to your responses. I believe strongly that we can arrive at mutually agreeable solutions regarding this article. While waiting for your responses, I will next be reviewing the WP:OR claim related specifically to the "Traffic Accident.." paragraph.

(Enough for tonight......) --Leonmon 04:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read the comments from User:CJ and User:Malik Shabazz. I'm still waiting for responses to my questions of User:Edstat. I believe that a compromise is not far off.

--Leonmon 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your answers/comments. I have quite a bit to digest. I will have a few more questions of each party within the next couple days. I appreciate all parties' willingness to reach a compromise.

--Leonmon 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As of this evening, I have meticulously reviewed the first three sections ("events immediately" through "traffic accident") and I have one question that I would like each party to respond to.

Question 101: In my opinion, the first and second paragraphs of the "Traffic Accident" section are slanted in favor of the Jewish community. I understand the purpose and reasoning of the paragraphs. What specific adjustments would you make to the first and/or second paragraphs in order to balance the views being expressed?

(Please disregard paragraph 3 for now -- I will propose some edits to paragraph 3 based upon answers to the above question.)

--Leonmon 06:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In order to keep things organized, I will number my questions (starting with the above question) beginning with 101. Please place your responses in your section and please reference the question number in your response.

--Leonmon 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now reviewed all sections of the article. I am getting close to an agreeable solution for all parties. Please allow me some more time to review my notes and propose an initial solution for discussion.

The following questions/requests are for all parties.

Question 102:  User:Revolving Bugbear provided a valid insight regarding the introduction/lead section of this article. WP:LEAD outlines specifics regarding what should be included in the introduction. (The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.) I agree with User:Revolving Bugbear that improvements are necessary.

What changes would you make (examples are welcome) to the lead paragraph in order to better achieve the WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV standards?

Question 103: I have been working on a different title for the current "Traffic Accident" section. I have come up working titles of "Strong Feelings in the Community" and "Strong Community Feelings". In my opinion, the current title asks readers to make a decision on a controversial subject. The working titles signpost that the next section will outline both sides of the issue. What are your thoughts? How can the working titles be improved?

--Leonmon 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a small request of all parties. I am working on my first proposal of changes to the article and I am relying on the numbering of citations prior to today. Please delay your changes in citations for the benefit of reviewing my proposed changes. I hope to have my first proposal very soon. Thanks!

--Leonmon 06:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am posting the first portion of my proposal this evening. I would like to make a few brief comments beforehand.

This article is about a very unfortunate event which includes facts that are certainly unpleasant. However unpleasant the facts my be, they still must be presented. Many of the points made in the article have been made so emphatically that they are either WP:POV or appear to be at the very least. I don't suggest that my proposal is the absolute solution to this dispute. In fact, I think that a healthy discussion of my proposals is imperative. I believe that it is this discussion that will, at the very least, bring all parties back to the same path -- which is my goal as mediator. Please don't allow opinions of this article to be clouded with opinions of the event.

Honestly, I have focused most of my efforts on the WP:POV claims. Throughout the review of my proposal, I will make additional proposals that are designed to bring all parties together regarding WP:OR. If any party still has strong WP:OR concerns about specific parts of my proposal, then please let me know. I will stay on as mediator until all parties agree on appropriate changes to the article. I am not yet submitting a proposal for the introductory paragraph. I would like to have all parties review my proposal for the other sections first.

Comment 104: (Proposed changes to section 1)

The following are my proposed changes to the first major section entitled "Event immediately precipitating the riot":

Comment 104a: Replace "Witnesses disagree.......when Mr. Lifsh went through [9]"  with the following:

'''Witnesses could not agree upon Lifsh’s speed and could did not agree whether the light that Lifsh went through was red or yellow. [8][9]'''


 * This change removed the quotations and makes the prior text more encyclopedic.

Comment 104b: Eliminate "The Rev. Al Sharpton,....ran a red light." Eliminate citation 12.


 * This citation does not improve the facts of the article. This citation is merely an opinion of Rev. Sharpton and, in my opinion, violates WP:NPOV.

Comment 104c: Replace Paragraphs 4 & 5 (and strike all unused citations) with the following:

'''Lifsh claimed to have the right of way to proceed through the intersection because of the police escort. Lifsh deliberately steered his car away from adults on the sidewalk, toward the wall, a distance of about 25 yards (22.9 m), in order to stop the car. Lifsh commented, “The car did not come to a full stop upon impact with the building, but rather slid to the left along the wall until it reached the children. [After the collision], the first thing I did was to try and lift the car” to free the two children beneath it.[15] Before ambulances arrived, Lifsh was robbed and beaten. [2][17][18] Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh and his passengers from the scene for their safety. [18] More than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police. [19]

'''Members of the community were outraged because Lifsh was taken from the scene by a private ambulance service while city emergency workers were still trying to free the children who were still pinned under the car. Some perceived that Gavin Cato died because the Hatzolah ambulance crew was unwilling to help non-Jews. Their anger was compounded due to a rumor that Lifsh was drunk at the time. A breath alcohol test administered within 70 minutes of the accident indicated that this was not the case. Other rumors that circulated after the accident included: Lifsh was on a cell phone, Lifsh did not have a valid US driver's license, and that police prevented people, including Gavin Cato's father, from assisting in the rescue. [2][21][22]'''


 * My attempt here is to make the section clearer as well as WP:NPOV to the non-bias reader. This change also reduces the emphasis on rumors.

Comment 104d: Improve citation 23 and change Paragraph 6 to the following:

'''Later on that evening, as the crowd and rumors grew, people threw bottles and rocks to protest the treatment of the children. At about 11:00 p.m., someone shouted, 'Let's go to Kingston Avenue and get a Jew!' A number of black youths then set off toward Kingston, a street of predominantly Jewish residents several blocks away, vandalizing cars and heaving rocks and bottles as they went." [23]'''


 * This paragraph further illustrates the magnitude of the riots. The citation really needs to be improved however.  I would be very interested in including sources that contradict this description of events.

Comment 104e: All other paragraphs of this section remain the same.

Please forgive spelling, punctuation, style errors. We'll work on those when parties agree to the text. I look forward to your questions and comments -- please reference the appropriate comment number. I will post the "Grand Jury" and "Traffic Accident" sections tomorrow.

--Leonmon 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am posting two more sections of my proposal this evening. I would like to make a few more comments beforehand.(I sure this is no surprise by now.)

Thanks to those who are postponing edits during mediation. I can keep the citations straight and it maintains the text as I originally reviewed it.

Regarding the recent edits to this article: This article has been the victim of extensive tit-for-tat edit wars that violate WP:CIVILITY at the very least. The latest skirmish is no exception. All editors should please refer to WP:WQT.

Regarding the recent edits specifically:

Comment 105a: ''The reference to the $400,000 settlement in the "Event proceeding" section, although factual, does little to improve the article. Before including this reference, the reference should be significantly expanded with further discussion of the reasons leading up to the settlement.''

Comment 105b: ''The reference to Schneerson as the Jewish Messiah is highly WP:POV and is irrelevant to the riots.

Comment 106 -- Changes to "Grand Jury" section:

Comment 106a: In the first paragraph, eliminate the two sentences "Sharpton planned and led...village in Queens."


 * ''This citation regarding Rev. Sharpton is not only out of place but is redundant in light of Rev. Sharpton's anti-Semitic behavior discussed in the next section. (Please see my comments regarding the "Traffic Accident" section.)  Multiple comments interspersed throughout the article regarding Rev. Sharpton's anti-Semitic comments no longer improve the article but instead serve to criticize Rev. Sharpton -- thus, violating WP:NPOV.

Comment 106b: Replace paragaph 2 (and strike all unused citations) with the following:

Lifsh waived immunity and testified before the Grand Jury.[9] About an hour after Lifsh testified before the grand jury in state Supreme Court, the grand jury voted not to indict Lifsh.[28] Subsequently, Lifsh moved to Israel, where his family lives, because his life was threatened.[29]


 * Although this change reduces the size of the paragraph, it eliminates some conjecture by Rev. Sharpton and Shapiro regarding Lifsh, the Cato family, and the Grand Jury. The changed paragraph relies simply on demonstrable facts.

'''Comment 107 -- The "Traffic Accident" section is perhaps the most contentious paragraph in this article. I have spent a considerable amount of time analyzing this paragraph as well as its title.'''

Comment 107a:  My current, proposed title to this paragraph is "Conflicting Community Viewpoints."

Comment 107b: Replace paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 (and strike all unused citations) with the following:

'''After the death of Gavin Cato, members of the Black community contended that the decision to remove Lifsh from the scene first was racially motivated. Many members of the Black community maintained that this was one example of a perceived system of preferential treatment afforded to Jews in Crown Heights.[11] The preferential treatment was reported to include biased actions by law enforcement and allocations of government resources amongst others. Furthermore, many members of the Black community were concerned about the expansion of Jews moving into the neighborhood, believing the latter were buying all the property.[30]'''

'''Members of the Jewish community did not share this view. Many felt that allegations of favoritism made by Blacks were unsupported by facts listed in a number of studies. It was widely felt in the Jewish community that these allegations were an attempt to mask blatant anti-Semitism committed during the riot against Jews. Proponents point to anti-Semitic statements made by protesters specifically at Gavin Cato’s funeral. In his eulogy at the funeral, the Rev. Al Sharpton made anti-Semitic statements regarding "diamond dealers"[35] and commented "it's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights." [37] In addition, a banner displayed at Gavin Cato's funeral read "Hitler did not do the job". [31]'''


 * ''These proposed changes attempt to turn down the flame of contention to a point where the comments become factual representations of the strong, passionate views of the Black community and Jewish community.


 * Comment 107b(1):  Citation 37 is included.  I believe the average, non-bias reader can easily construe 37 as anti-Semitic, supporting the overall assertion of the paragraph.  However, Citation 38 is NOT included.  In my opinion, 38 is unnecessary because it would only reinforce the points that I believe are being made clearly in these paragraphs.  The elimination of 38 will reduce potential WP:POV claims specifically regarding Rev. Sharpton.


 * Comment 107b(2):  Citation 36 is not included.  In my opinion, Citation 35 is an acceptable citation and since 36 has no link, it's removal is appropriate.


 * Comment 107b(3):  I have given a significant amount of thought to Citation 39.  I have attempted to consider it from a number of different angles.  In my opinion, Citation 39 should remain in its location (indented after the two changed paragraphs above -- Comment 107b) with one change.  The parenthetical ("which included calling blacks...") should be deleted.  In my opinion, from a non-bias perspective, citation 39 puts Rev. Sharpton in a better light and provides substantial balance to citations 35 and 37.

Comments from all parties are appreciated. I apologize for being verbose but I think that dissecting the article to some degree is the best way to resolve this dispute. I would appreciate your assistance if you notice that I have misnumbered citations.

--Leonmon 06:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments from User: Malik Shabazz. I stepped away from this mediation for the weekend to clear my thoughts a little bit and to allow other users time to respond to my questions and comments. I will be posting further comments this evening or tomorrow.

--Leonmon 15:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The following are my comments and proposed edits to the next several sections.

'''Comment 108 -- Changes to the "Scope of the Riot" section:

Comment 108a: Keep the first paragraph -- no changes

Comment 108b: Insert the following (from the "Black Rioter" paragraph):

'''Approximately three hours after the riots began, Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, a University of Melbourne student in the United States conducting research for his doctorate, was surrounded by a group of approximately 20 young black men, was stabbed several times in the back, had his skull fractured, and died later that night. Before being taken to hospital, Rosenbaum was able to identify 16-year-old Lemrick Nelson, Jr. as his assailant in a line-up shown to him by the police.[8] Nelson was later charged with murder.'''


 * In my opinion, the "Black Rioter" section, along with the "2nd Trial" and the "3rd & 4th Trial" sections are unnecessary to the article. They belong in an entirely different article that could be referenced by the above change.  The above paragraph summarizes all three sections appropriately.

Comment 108c: Replace paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 with the following:

'''During the riots, Jewish people were injured, four stores were looted or burned to the ground, cars and homes were damaged. The rioters located Jewish homes by the mezuzot affixed to the front doors.[22] Rioters marched through Crown Heights carrying anti-Semitic signs and an Israeli flag was burned. Rioters threw bricks and bottles at police. Police were fired at as well as hit by bottles; police cars were pelted and overturned, including the Police Commissioner’s car.[2][22]'''


 * ''I don’t challenge the accuracy of the reference to Rev. Sharpton. However, prior the article has already established that Rev. Sharpton did make anti-Semitic comments and in my opinion, this reference does not serve to improve the encyclopedic nature of this article.

Comment 108d: Replace paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 with the following:

'''An additional 350 police officers were added to the regular duty roster assigned to Crown Heights by Tuesday morning in an attempt to quell the rioting.[2] After significant episodes of rock and bottle throwing, Blacks marched through Crown Heights shouting, "Death to the Jews!"[2] As a result, an additional 1,200 police officers were dispatched to confront rioters on Wednesday.[41] Riots escalated to a point where a detachment of 200 police officers (wearing full riot gear) was overwhelmed and had to retreat for their safety. On Thursday, over 1,800 police officers, including mounted and motorcycle unites, were dispatched to stop the attacks on people and property.[2]'''


 * The above better summarizes paragraphs 5-8. The prior text was, in my opinion, far too excessive to be considered WP:NPOV.  This edit gets the point across effectively.

Comment 108e: Strike all text (inclusive) between "...a Lubavitcher woman..." and "neighborhood.... In addition,"


 * I can understand the reasons why this section about Estrin was included and I also suspect that the author was indeed correct. HOWEVER, it is my opinion that since Estrin's reason for committing suicide can not be ascertained to a reasonable certainty (i.e. with a note), I must conclude that the comment is speculative and therefore its inclusion is a violation of WP:OR.

Comment 109: Remove sections "Black Rioter", "2nd Trial", "3rd and 4th Trial". SEE COMMENT 108B

Comment 110:
 * ''I am having some difficulty with the "Impact of the riot" section. It will take me a little more time to finish my proposed comments on this section.

Comment 111: Remove the "Crown Heights Violence" section.
 * I believe that this section adds very little value to the article. This section does not have a strong connection to the article other than its similarity in the types of violence and the individuals involved.

Comment 112: No change to the "Healing" section.
 * I really appreciate this section and I would really like to see it expanded.

I hope you are all doing well. When I receive comments from all parties, I will synthesize all the comments and hopefully create a compromise for each of my comments. We've made a lot of progress and I look forward to a positive outcome.

--Leonmon 05:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an update -- I am still working on the first paragraph (WP:LEAD) as well as the "Impact of the Riot..." section.

In addition, I am awaiting comments from User:Edstat regarding comments 104 through 112. As soon as I receive those comments, I will propose changes based upon the comments.

--Leonmon 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As requested by User:Edstat, I am posting my entire set of changes in a separate section below.

Please note: I have not yet included changes to the proposal based on responses to Comments 104 through 112. When I receive specific comments from User:Edstat regarding comments 104 through 112, I believe we will be very close to a solution.

--Leonmon (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment 113:

Thank you User:CrownJewel82 for your comments regarding the lack of discussion of mutual violence.

In my second draft, the third paragraph of the "Scope of the Riot" paragraph does have some discussion of incidents between Blacks and Jews. The article from citation 5 does make reference to a specific altercation between Jews and Blacks. Shapiro also makes a number of references to altercations between Jews and Blacks as well. However, in all of my reading, I'm not inclined to think that violence on the part of Jews prolonged the Crown Heights Riot to any significant degree.

I believe that the comments in the third paragraph of "Scope of the Riot" in the second draft are sufficient in the discussion regarding the Jews involvement in the violence of this riot. If anyone has a citation regarding the inclination of Jews to initiate multiple altercations during the riot as opposed to responding to threats (or perceived threats), then I would like to review it.

Again, thank you to all parties for your willingness to achieve a solution that works and for your committment to WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Have a wonderful holidays.

Regards,

--Leonmon (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment 114: Specific responses to comments about 2nd draft from User:Edstat

1. ''Red or Yellow. I agree that a change to "yellow or red" will bring the article even more inline with WP:NPOV.''

2. ''Unidentified black man. I agree that this sentence sort of sticks out in the paragraph and I will remove it from the 3rd draft.''

3. "Some members”. Cato was pronounced dead at the hospital. To say "some members were outraged at the scene of the accident because he "died" is an interpolation. They could only become enraged about that later that evening.


 * This is a stretch that I think is not inappropriate to make and does not violate WP:OR. Readers already know that Cato died from injuries suffered in the accident and can reasonably assume that Cato suffered serious injuries (about which some members were outraged) prior to his passing.

4. ''Rumors. I have adjusted the text in a couple of places leaving the term rumors in place but clarifying the fact that the truth had not yet been obtained.''

5. "Members of the Jewish..." This paragraph is spectacular in its absence of capturing the anti-Semitic slurs and chanting of hundreds of roving bands of rioters throughout the three days of the riots. In other words, the funeral was but a small example of public anti-Semitic expressions.


 * I don’t think that there is any secret in this article about the anti-Semitism during this riot. In fact, the non-bias reader reads about further anti-Semitism later on in the article and I will believe will also reasonably infer (upon analysis of the citations) that the Jews suffered much of the damage resulting from the riot (see paragraph 4 of Scope paragraph).

6. ''Al Sharpton. Rev. Al Sharpton certainly played a role in these riots. DA Hyde’s opinion is exactly that – his opinion. There is no definitive source (WP:NPOV) that shows whether or not Sharpton came close (or how close) to crossing the line of inciting a riot. However, the non-bias reader will clearly be able to see how involved Rev. Sharpton was during the riots and can easily see that his comments were anti-Semitic.''

7. ''Scope of the Riot. The point is well taken and I have adjusted the order of the paragraph.''

8 & 9. ''"Additional 350"  I'm not inclined to propose a change right now primarly because I believe that the non-bias reader will not make a distinction between 1. why people were throwing rocks and bottles and 2. where the rock- and bottle- throwing people were located. In my mind, the non-bias reader will view all rock and bottle throwers as participants in a riot. I will review [User:Edstat]'s comments again and I will thoroughly re-review these paragraphs in light of those comments.''

10. 38 civilians.  User:Edstat -- ''Please provide me with the exact quotation (as well as citation -- I presume it is also Shapiro). I believe that some clarification about the death of civilians is appropriate.''

Please feel free to comment and make suggestions. Please also keep in mind that we are getting very close to an agreement.

Again, have a great holidays!

--Leonmon (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back -- I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving holiday. Thank you User:Malik Shabazz and User:Edstat for your comments on the second draft. I will posting a third draft this evening. Before doing so, I am now posting my first attempts at a WP:LEAD paragraph as well as my first attempt on the mayoral election paragraph.

Comment 115: I have removed as much rhetoric and WP:POV from the "Impact" section while at the same time maintaining its suitability to this article.

'''"The repercussions of the Crown Heights riot, based on the official indifference to the plight of Jews, contributed directly to the defeat of the incumbent mayor of New York,"[54] David Dinkins. He was embattled by many political adversaries in his reelection bid, including vocal proponents of “black nationalism, back-to-Africa, economic radicalism, and racial exclusiveness”

'''On November 17, 1992, New York Governor Mario Cuomo gave the Director of Criminal Justice Services, Richard H. Girgenti, the authority to investigate the rioting and the Nelson trial. The Girgenti Report was compiled by over 40 lawyers and investigators, and produced a two volume, 600-page document of its findings on July 20, 1993. It was extremely critical of Police Commissioner Lee Brown. The report also embarrassed Dinkins on his handling of the riots.

'''Dinkins hesitated to deploy vast numbers of police to stop the rioting because he had been elected as a peacemaker. However, this strategy proved disastrous.[56] Jews criticized Dinkins for this. The first night of the riot, Dinkins, along with Police Commissioner Lee Brown, both African Americans, went to Crown Heights to dispel the false rumors about the circumstances surrounding the accident, but they had no impact on the "young blacks roaming the streets."[20] In a 16 minute speech on the Thanksgiving holiday following the riot, Dinkins denied preventing police from protecting citizens in Crown Heights.[2] Many Jews believed Dinkins failed to contain the riot and that the mayor had responsibility that he did not exercise, to the detriment of the Jewish community.[57]

'''Uniformed police were hostile to Dinkins. "They believed the mayor had prevented them from doing their duty during the riot, and that he had blamed them for his own failures."[2] As a result, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association strongly supported Giuliani, Dinkin's opponent, in the mayoral election of 1993.

'''The Crown Heights riot was an important issue raised repeatedly on the campaign trail. Rudolph Giuliani, who would become the next mayor of New York, called the Crown Heights riot a pogrom because "for three days people were beaten up, people were sent to the hospital because they were Jewish. There's no question that not enough was done about it by the city of New York".[59] Giuliani won by over 44,000 votes. Support for Dinkins by Jews, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans, Asian-Americans, uniformed police officers, and first-time voters decreased significantly from the previous election.[2]'''

Comment 116: My first proposal for the WP:LEAD paragraph:

'''The Crown Heights Riot was a three-day riot in the Crown Heights neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. The community was home to approximately 180,000 people – consisting of Caribbean-Americans and West Indians (50%), African Americans (39%), and Jewish residents (11%). The riots began on August 19, 1991 and were sparked after a Guyanese boy was struck by an automobile driven by Yosef Lifsh in a motorcade for a prominent Hasidic rabbi. They riot was viewed as a progrom by the Jewish community [5] and was referred to as "one of the most serious incidents of anti-Semitism in American history" by Edward Shapiro, Professor of History Emeritus at Seton Hall University.[2]'''

Please note that comments 115 and 116 are included in my third draft for this article. I look forward to your comments.

--Leonmon (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Malik Shabazz and User:Edstat for your comments. I will be proposing a proposed final draft within the next day or two. I want to spend a little time on the grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. in addition to incorporating your most recent comments.

--Leonmon (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed your most recent comments.

I have posted a Proposed Final Draft below. (I moved the prior three drafts to the discussion page). I have earnestly strived to take all opinions, comments, concerns, etc. into account in order to make this article better and more encyclopedic than it was before mediation. Although I looked forward to a swift resolution, I am nonetheless pleased at the time parties were willing to take in order to contribute to this process. I also appreciate the willingness of all parties to contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia in general.

For the next few days, I will continue to review this article for grammer, punctuation, spelling, footnotes, and other minor errors. I would appreciate it if, during the next few days, both parties would please indicate that this mediation was completed fairly and that your respective views were appropriately considered. On Saturday, I will proceed with a major edit of this article using the Proposed Final Draft below.

Again, I sincerely appreciate contributions from all parties. I commend you for your efforts.

Kind Regards,

--Leonmon (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am several days behind schedule due to an unfortunate death in my family. I have completed the first three paragraphs for posting and I hope to complete the article entirely by Saturday.

--Leonmon (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted the final draft of this article this evening. Thanks to all parties involved. I will monitor this article closely for the next week or so in order to smooth the sharp edges. Again, thanks to all parties involved.

--Leonmon (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED FINAL DRAFT
WP:LEAD

The Crown Heights Riot was a three-day riot in the Crown Heights neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. The community was home to approximately 180,000 people – consisting of Caribbean-Americans and West Indians (50%), African Americans (39%), and Jewish residents (11%). The riots began on August 19, 1991 after a Guyanese boy was struck by an automobile driven by Yosef Lifsh in a motorcade for a prominent Hasidic rabbi. The riot was viewed as a progrom by the Jewish community [5] and was referred to as "one of the most serious incidents of anti-Semitism in American history" by Edward Shapiro, Professor of History Emeritus at Seton Hall University.[2]

Event immediately precipitating the riot

At approximately 8:20 p.m. on August 19, 1991, Yosef Lifsh, 22, was driving a station wagon, with three passengers, east on President Street, part of a three-car motorcade accompanying the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The procession was led by an unmarked police car with two officers, with its rooftop light flashing.[2] Lifsh's vehicle fell behind. He continued through the intersection at Eastern Parkway and Utica Avenue in an attempt to rejoin the group. Witnesses could not agree upon Lifsh’s speed and could did not agree whether the light that Lifsh went through was yellow or red. [6][7]Lifsh’s vehicle struck a car being driven on Utica Avenue, veered onto the sidewalk, knocked a 600-pound stone building pillar down, hit a wall, and injured a seven-year-old Guyanese boy named Gavin Cato and his cousin Angela Cato, also seven.[8][9]

Lifsh believed he had the right of way to proceed through the intersection because of the police escort. [2] Lifsh said he deliberately steered his car away from adults on the sidewalk, toward the wall, a distance of about 25 yards (22.9 m), in order to stop the car. Lifsh later commented that the car did not come to a full stop upon impact with the building, but rather slid to the left along the wall until it reached the children.

Accounts differ as to the next sequence of events. After the collision, Lifsh said that the first thing he did was to try and lift the car in order to free the two children beneath it.[14] Ambulance attendants who arrived on the scene about three minutes after the accident said that Lifsh was being beaten and pulled out of the station wagon by three or four Black men. [2][16] All accounts agree that Lifsh was beaten before ambulances and police arrived.

A volunteer ambulance from the Hatzolah ambulance corps arrived on the scene at about 8:23 pm followed shortly by police and a City ambulance which took Gavin to Kings County Hospital, arriving at 8:32 p.m.[2] Volunteers from a second Hatzolah ambulance helped Angela, until a second City ambulance arrived and took her to the same hospital.[2][6]

Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh from the scene for his safety, while Gavin Cato was being removed from beneath the station wagon. [17] According to the New York Times, more than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police. [18]

Some members of the community were outraged because Lifsh was taken from the scene by a private ambulance service while city emergency workers were still trying to free the children who were pinned under the car. Some believed that Gavin Cato died because the Hatzolah ambulance crew was unwilling to help non-Jews. Their anger was compounded due to a rumor at the time that Lifsh was intoxicated.. A breath alcohol test administered within 70 minutes of the accident indicated that this was not the case. Other rumors that circulated shortly after the accident included: Lifsh was on a cell phone, Lifsh did not have a valid driver's license, and that police prevented people, including Gavin Cato's father, from assisting in the rescue. [2][19][20]

Later on that evening, as the crowd and rumors grew, people threw bottles and rocks to protest the treatment of the children. At about 11:00 p.m., someone shouted, “Let's go to Kingston Avenue and get a Jew!“ A number of black youths then set off toward Kingston, a street of predominantly Jewish residents several blocks away, vandalizing cars and heaving rocks and bottles as they went. [21]

Conflicting Community Viewpoints

After the death of Gavin Cato, members of the Black community believed that the decision to remove Lifsh from the scene first was racially motivated. They also maintained that this was one example of a perceived system of preferential treatment afforded to Jews in Crown Heights.[9] The preferential treatment was reported to include biased actions by law enforcement and allocations of government resources amongst others. Furthermore, many members of the Black community were concerned about the expansion of Jews moving into the neighborhood, believing the latter were buying all the property.[28]

Members of the Jewish community did not share this view. Many believed that allegations of favoritism made by Blacks were not supported by facts. A number of studies disproved these allegations, including one study conducted specifically in response to this allegation. [29] It was widely believed in the Jewish community that these allegations were an attempt to mask blatant anti-Semitism committed against Jews during the riot. As examples, they point to anti-Semitic statements made by protesters, including comments made at Gavin Cato’s funeral. In his eulogy at the funeral, the Rev. Al Sharpton made statements regarding "diamond dealers"[33] and commented "it's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights." [35] In addition, a banner displayed at the funeral read "Hitler did not do the job". [29]

Scope of the Riot

About three hours after the riots began, a group of approximately 20 young black men surrounded Yankel Rosenbaum, a 29-year-old University of Melbourne student in the United States conducting research for his doctorate. They stabbed him several times in the back and beat him so severely that his skull fractured. Before being taken to hospital, Rosenbaum was able to identify 16-year-old Lemrick Nelson, Jr. as his assailant in a line-up shown to him by the police.[6] Rosenbaum died later that night and Nelson was later charged with murder.[42]

For three days following the accident, numerous African Americans and Caribbean Americans of the neighborhood, joined by growing numbers of non-residents, rioted in Crown Heights. Indeed, over the course of the next three days, many of the rioters "did not even live in Crown Heights".[2]

During the riots, Jewish people were injured, stores were looted and cars and homes were damaged. The rioters identified Jewish homes by the mezuzot affixed to the front doors.[20] Rioters marched through Crown Heights carrying anti-Semitic signs and an Israeli flag was burned. Rioters threw bricks and bottles at police; shots were fired at police and police cars were pelted and overturned, including the Police Commissioner’s car.[2][20]

An additional 350 police officers were added to the regular duty roster on August 20 and were assigned to Crown Heights in an attempt to quell the rioting.[2] After episodes of rock- and bottle-throwing involving hundreds of Blacks and Jews, and after groups of Blacks marching through Crown Heights chanting “No Justice!”, “No Peace!”, and "Death to the Jews!", an additional 1,200 police officers were sent to confront rioters in Crown Heights. Riots escalated to a point where, at one point, a detachment of 200 police officers was overwhelmed and had to retreat for their safety. On August 22, over 1,800 police officers, including mounted and motorcycle units, had been dispatched to stop the attacks on people and property.[2]

By the time the three days of rioting ended, 152 police officers and 38 civilians were injured, 27 vehicles were destroyed, seven stores were looted or burned,[40], and 225 cases of robbery and burglary were committed.[2] At least 129 arrests were made during the riots,[40] including 122 Blacks and seven whites.[38][41] Property damage was estimated at one million dollars. [2]

Grand Jury

A Grand Jury composed of 10 African Americans, 8 Caucasians, and 5 Latinos found no cause to indict Lifsh. Then District Attorney Charles J. Hynes explained that under New York law, the single act of "losing control of a car" is not criminal negligence even if death or injury resulted. Lifsh waived immunity and testified before the Grand Jury.[7] About an hour after hearing Lifsh’s testifimony, the grand jury voted not to indict Lifsh.[26] Subsequently, Lifsh moved to Israel, where his family lives, because his life was threatened.[27]

Afterwards, Hynes fought unsuccessfully for the public release of the testimony that the grand jury had heard. His lawsuit was dismissed, and the judge noted that more than three-quarters of the witnesses who had been contacted refused to waive their right to privacy. The judge also expressed concern for the witnesses' safety. [7][23][24]

Impact of the riot on the 1993 mayoral race

"The repercussions of the Crown Heights riot, based on the official indifference to the plight of Jews, contributed directly to the defeat of the incumbent mayor of New York,"[54] David Dinkins. He was embattled by many political adversaries in his reelection bid, including vocal proponents of “black nationalism, back-to-Africa, economic radicalism, and racial exclusiveness”[2]

On November 17, 1992, New York Governor Mario Cuomo gave the Director of Criminal Justice Services, Richard H.Girgenti, the authority to investigate the rioting and the Nelson trial. The Girgenti Report was compiled by over 40 lawyers and investigators, and consisted of a two volume, 600-page document of its findings on July 20, 1993. It was extremely critical of Police Commissioner Lee Brown. The report also embarrassed Dinkins on his handling of the riots.

According to the report, Dinkins hesitated to deploy vast numbers of police to stop the rioting because he had been elected as a peacemaker. However, this strategy proved disastrous.[56] Many Jews criticized Dinkins for this. The first night of the riot, Dinkins, along with Police Commissioner Lee Brown, both African Americans, went to Crown Heights to dispel the false rumors about the circumstances surrounding the accident, but they had no impact on the rioters, most of whom were young Black men."[20] In a 16 minute speech on the Thanksgiving holiday following the riot, Dinkins denied that he had prevented police from protecting citizens in Crown Heights.[2] Many Jews believed Dinkins failed to contain the riot and failed to exercise his responsibility, to the detriment of the Jewish community.[57]

The Crown Heights riot was an important issue raised repeatedly on the campaign trail. Rudolph Giuliani, who would become the next mayor of New York, called the Crown Heights riot a pogrom because "for three days people were beaten up, people were sent to the hospital because they were Jewish. There's no question that not enough was done about it by the city of New York".[59] Giuliani won by over 44,000 votes. Support for Dinkins by Jews, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans, Asian-Americans, uniformed police officers, and first-time voters decreased significantly from the previous election.[2]

Healing in Crown Heights

Relations between Blacks and Jews in Crown Heights began to improve following the rioting. A week after the riots, Hatzolah helped repair an ambulance of a Black-owned volunteer service. The following year, the Brooklyn Children's Museum held an exhibit on the contributions made by Blacks and Jews in New York. In 1992, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was active in promoting improved Black-Jewish relations. In 1993, a series of neighborhood basketball games were scheduled between the two groups, including a scrimmage held as part of the halftime entertainment of a New York Knicks vs. Philadelphia 76s professional basketball game. Also that year, while on the anti-crime patrol, Shemtov rushed to the aid of a black woman who had been shot on the street in Crown Heights, putting her in his car and taking her to the hospital.[64] The Crown Heights Mediation Center was established in 1998 to help resolve local differences. On August 19, 2001, a street fair was held in memory of Cato and Rosenbaum, and their relatives met and exchanged mementos of hopes of healing in Crown Heights.

Fictional portrayals in film and television
 * No Change

Comments from CJ
Thanks for picking this up. There are three areas that have created concern for me. I and others have made requests to address neutrality and original research but any attempt to make changes or reach a consensus have been largely prevented by the primary editor Edstat. His response to my npov issues was to reword one statement, and dismiss the rest of my concerns. I elected not to continue discussion with him based on the comments he has left on the article's talk page (also see the archive), Malik Shabazz's talk page, and in the edit comments. All of which I feel are completely uncivil and a failure to assume good faith. Most disconcerting are the accusations that Malik Shabazz and myself are attempting to introduce errors by claiming pov and accusations of racism.

The npov issues, which I feel are at the heart of this are:

The suggestion for improving this is to either create a clear timeline of separate and distinct events or to describe incidents of violence separatly from organized non-violent rallies. There are also some minor concerns regarding the overwhelming use of Shapiro's book, weight assigned to attacks on Jews when compared to attacks on Blacks, and the use of pov words and phrasings. Another concern has been listed by Malik Shabazz that I agree with is the overuse of the phrase anti-semetic. While much of what happened and what was said can certainly be classified as anti-semetic, Al Sharpton's "let's get it on" quote is not. I don't believe protests calling for Lifsh to be tried qualifiy either.
 * The overemphasation of the actions and comments of Al Sharpton. No other individual's statements are as heavily covered. Al Sharpton's involvement is presented as if he condoned or participated in the violence."Following a rally by the anti-Semitic New Alliance Party addressed by Al Sharpton and Lenora Fulani, black teenagers threw bricks and bottles at police, who retreated after gunshots from the crowd. Shots were fired at police, and 12 police officers were injured."
 * The entire section entitled Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism? was previously identified as WP:OR and npov. The section firstly combines accusations of preferential treatment and anti-semetic remarks. Secondly it uses secondary sources to "disprove" African American claims of preferential treatment for Jews. It cites an editorial that mentions the Newsweek article instead of the article itself. Another article, which is not cited correctly, "Anxious Wait on Riot Report Black progress reduces charges of favoritism" was written two years after the facts and the abstract indicates that claims of preferential treatment are a reducing trend. The third article used as a citation seems to support the stated context but it does seem to indicate that there may be some legitimate concerns. The text in the wikipedia article uses it to dismiss any claims of preferential treatment.

There are also a number of citations which do not provide enough information to verify the information. (3 Jewish Press, May 1, 1992; 6 Daily News, July 1, 1993.; 16 WNBC-TV; 22 http://law.jrank.org/ ;33 City Sun, August 28 - September 3, 1992 ; 38)

CJ 18:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to keep these discussions civil. Anything else prevents work from getting done. In response to your questions.

1. Reverend Sharpton is quoted twice in the third paragraph of the "Traffic Accident..." section. The first quote (from an acceptable source) seems appropriate to the article. Whereas the second quote does not seem appropriate. (The fourth paragraph seems superfluous as well.) You commented that Rev. Sharpton is overemphasized in the article. Do you believe that the first quote is appropriate to the article? If not, what references to Rev. Sharpton in the article are appropriate?

The first quote does seem apropriate. "Sharpton made anti-Semitic statements, in his eulogy for Gavin, regarding "diamond dealers"[32][33] and said "it's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights."[34]"

I only don't get why citation 33 is necessary given that it's incomplete and 32 and 34 do the job more than adequately. "Sharpton planned and led a protest march against Hynes for failing to indict Lifsh. The protest was held in front of Hynes' summer home, which Sharpton called an "apartheid village in Queens."[2]"

I also find this quote appropriate.

"Sharpton attempted to re-incite the Black community with the challenge: "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.""

This is where I start getting concerned. Where'd this re-incite come from? The abstract of the article cited isn't even about Crown Heights. Other articles that have been cited like 32 and 34 don't say anything other than he said it. The big block quote from the Slate article seems out of place. Like it's trying to say look he said this antisemitic stuff and now he's saying he never said anything antisemitic. In reality, while the words are very angry and very much directed towards the Jewish community, only one cited could really be called antisemitic (the diamond dealers one) and in my opinion only marginally. I think it would be better to indicate that he made comments about Jews and indicate, with sources, that this is offensive because... This may be my ignorance on what constitutes anti-semitic remarks but then that seems to be all the more reason to elaborate.

Other places where I have questions about refering to what Al Sharpton said: "The Rev. Al Sharpton, however, claimed all three cars ran a red light.[11]"

First of all the word claimed. Secondly, Al Sharpton wasn't a witness to the events so I'd hardly call him credible in this instance. Thirdly the reference is out of place because there's all this information and then here's a little side comment about what Al Sharpton said. Did anyone who actually witnessed the accident say that the cars ran a red light? If so then let the article cite them. If not then it's just Al Sharpton running off at the mouth again and it serves no other purpose than to discredit him. "A allegation that has surfaced (e.g., on blogs) is that Lifsh, being Jewish, fled to Israel to avoid the Grand Jury. This false statement was published by Sharpton in his autobiography five years after the Grand Jury investigation.[25]"

Why exactly is it necessary to refer to blogs? Furthermore, calling it a false statement seems POV to me because well it's Sharpton's opinion isn't it. I don't have access to a copy of the book, Maybe I can get one from the library, but the question I have is did Sharpton say he fled or that he fled to avoid prosecution?

2. There are a lot of quotations in this article as opposed to citations. That seems a little unusual to me. What do the frequent quotations achieve over citations?

I don't know what was intended but it seems to be an attempt to allow the opinions and the POV of other authors to be included in the article. "According to a Time magazine account published the following month, "[t]heir anger was compounded by the false rumor that Lifsh was drunk and by the fact that he was immediately whisked away in a private Lubavitcher ambulance while city emergency-service members worked to free the two Cato cousins pinned under the car."[20] However, within 70 minutes after the accident, Lifsh was given a breath alcohol test at Methodist Hospital, and the test was negative.[2] On the Thursday following the riot, Mary Pinkett, an African American City Councilwoman of Crown Heights, noted that when the volunteer ambulance left, Gavin was still pinned under the car. During the week, both the ambulance service and city officials publicized this fact, but most Black residents continued to believe the rumor that they left without concern for the black children.[21] During the three days of rioting, many other false rumors circulated, including Lifsh deliberately tried to run down the Catos, Lifsh did not have a valid driver's license, that he was talking on a cell phone when the accident occurred, Cato died because the Hatzolah crew refused to help non-Jews, that the police and the Brooklyn District Attorney altered Lifsh' blood alcohol test, that Gavin's father was beaten by police for interfering with the rescue, and that the police prevented bystanders from helping lift the car off Gavin.[2]"

In this case the quotation gives the POV that the community was unjustified in it's angry response to the death of Gavin Cato. Saying instead: "Members of the community were outraged because Lifsh was taken from the scene by a private ambulance service while city emergency workers were still trying to free the children who were still pinned under the car. Some perceived that Gavin Cato died because the Hatzolah ambulance crew was unwilling to help non-Jews. Their anger was compounded due to a rumor that Lifsh was drunk at the time. A breath alcohol test administered within 70 minutes of the accident indicated that this was not the case. Other rumors circulated after the accident included that Lifsh was on a cell phone and that he did not have a valid US driver's license. It was also rumored that the police prevented people, including Gavin Cato's father, from assisting in the rescue."

seems more balanced.

3. Is this article contentious? Why or why not? (Please cite specific examples) How does your answer support or challenge the claim that this article violates WP:NPOV?

Yes. The quotations I've provided above indicate examples of NPOV in this article. Furthermore: CJ 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Each of the sources I've listed previously as not verifiable are all used to support potentially inflammatory statements including most prominently a quote from Rudi Guliani stating that the events constituted a pogrom supported by reference 6 that is only listed as Daily News, July 1, 1993. It's presented as a fact about an opinion but it's not sourced.
 * Citation 10 that is used to support an entire paragraph only mentions that a single officer ordered Lifsh to be taken from the scene for his own safety. It doesn't say anything about the black community's feelings regarding the incident. It's an opinion not supported by the source.
 * Citation 28 is an editorial that briefly discusses the mentioned newsday article in the context of a larger discussion on the author's opinion that the media failed to hold Black leaders accountable for their antisemitism. It's an opinion presented as fact to support a fact about an opinion.

In response to Edstat's concerns about the page numbers. I did that unintentionally when wikifying the references. But maybe I missed where someone said the references weren't valid without the page numbers. The only sources I've called into question are those without a title or a direct link. CJ 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Question 101: First up I think the title should be changed to something less inflamatory. I don't have a good suggestion. I think there were two general concerns. The Black community felt that the Jewish community was reciving preferential treatment. The Jewish community felt that the Black community was anti-semitic. These should be stated clearly following the guidance on "facts on opinions". This seems a start to something better: "After the death of Gavin Cato, members of the Black community contended that the decision to remove Lifsh from the scene first was improper. Some believed that the decision to do so may have been racially motivated and one example of a percieved system of preferential treatment afforded to Jews in Crown Heights. This was reported to include biased actions by law enforcement and allocations of government resources amongst others. Members of the Jewish communitiy did not share this view. Many felt that allegations of preferential treatment made by Blacks were unsupported by facts listed in a number of studies. It was widely felt that it was an attempt to mask blatant anti-semitism under the guise of outrage over oppression. Proponents of this opinion point to anti-semitic statements made by protesters including a banner displayed at Gavin Cato's funeral reading "Hitler did not do the job"."

All of this text is supported by the references already used in this section. CJ 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Question 102 and 103: I haven't had time to work out any suggestions for these but I do agree with Malik's suggestions. CJ 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Comment 104: I agree with the all the proposed changes provided the sources, specifically number 23, can be verified. CJ 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I expect to be unavailable to participate in mediation until Monday or Tuesday. Please continue without me. I'll note any objections I have when I return. CJ 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Comment 105: I agree with both proposals

Reply to Comment 106: I also agree with these proposals

Reply to Comment 107: The only concern I have here is with 107b. I think those two statements by Sharpton are piss poor examples of what could be considered anti-semitic especially when placed in contrast with the Hitler banner. I think they should be either left out or simply referred to as comments instead of framing them as anti-semitic comments.

Reply to Comment 108: Wasn't there some documentation that indicated retaliatory actions by Jews?

I don't have any concerns about any of the other comments. CJ 10:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the lack of discussion of mutual violence. Reference number 5 clearly describes clashes and at least one incident where Jews and Blacks had a confrontation in the streets. CJ (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Malik Shabazz
Thank you for agreeing to mediate. Please forgive me if some of my comments below seem repetitive after your review of the article's edit history and its Talk page; I will try to keep duplication to a minimum.

While reverting my first edits to the article, Edstat left an uncivil edit summary: "Restoring material with citations - nice try, though." (In addition to reverting my changes, the diff includes further edits by Edstat.)

The following day I restored the information I had added to the article and added Verify source to a sentence whose source was "Washington Post, September 21, 1991" with a hidden comment: "The Washington Post is a very big newspaper. Where did this information come from?" Edstat reverted my changes and left a nasty-gram at Talk:Crown Heights Riot (with the edit summary "Correcting hacking and anti-Semitism") in which he called me lazy and described my editing as hacking. (More recently, he repeatedly insinuated that I am a racist because he misunderstands a quote on my User page.)

Instead of keeping my cool, I'm afraid to say that I responded by exchanging a series of increasingly nasty messages with Edstat on the article's Talk page and engaging in an edit war with him. After three reversions, I left for four days. Since then I haven't made substantive edits to the article except to correct the article when it contradicted its source.

Beside WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, I have concerns about WP:OR and WP:NPOV which are adequately summarized at Talk:Crown Heights Riot. I am troubled by Edstat's response to those issues, which rarely address the OR or NPOV concerns raised by me or other editors. (Talk:Crown Heights Riot/Archive 1 shows that Edstat has a long history of brushing aside POV complaints, often by accusing other editors of being antisemitic.) Edstat's response to recent criticism of the article has been to change a few words, or add a source, or delete a sentence. He has not addressed the OR or NPOV issues directly, which suggests to me that he has no understanding of what OR is, nor does he understand NPOV.

I believe one explanation for Edstat's POV-pushing is his personal experience, which may create a WP:COI. He has written that "Unlike many [other editors], I lived in Crown Heights during the rioting, so I do have first hand knowledge." While he professes to follow NPOV, the result of his editing, and his WP:OWN behavior, demonstrate otherwise. At the risk of being uncivil, one might describe him as a WP:FANATIC.

I share CJ's concern regarding the WP:UNDUE use of Shapiro as a source. At last count, his book is cited 59 times, a review of the book is cited seven times (New Jersey Jewish News), an advertisement for his book is cited once (U.P.N.E.), and a journal article by Shapiro is cited three times (once at Questia, twice at American Jewish History) — a total of 70 references to the work of a single person.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Edward Shapiro's book is indeed referenced quite a few times in the article. However, many of these references are simply informational. Which references do you believe are most inappropriate and why?

2. Is this article contentious? Why or why not? (Please cite specific examples) How does your answer support or challenge the claim that this article violates WP:NPOV?
 * In general, I think that such heavy reliance on a single source for a contentious article, especially when the author is not known as the "last word" on the subject, is inappropriate. While The New York Times isn't the be-all and end-all, I'm leery of a serious book on such an important subject whose only mention in the Times has been an appearance on a list of "Recently Published" books on local subjects. In fact, I can't find any reviews of Shapiro's book beside the one cited in the article (New Jersey Jewish News) and two other local Jewish newspapers. Without minimizing the importance of the Jewish press, why has the book been ignored by the media and most bloggers? (A blog about American Jewish history did write about it.)
 * The following portions of the article that are sourced to Shapiro's book are, in my opinion, either irrelevant, POV, or OR:
 * First paragraph of "Grand Jury" — What is the relevance of the fact that Al Sharpton led a march through Hynes' neighborhood? Why is Sharpton quoted describing it as an "apartheid village in Queens" without mentioning that it is a neighborhood "guarded by a private security force" that had been almost all-white "but in recent years Asian-Americans and Latinos have purchased homes there". (Shapiro describes it as "ethnically and racially integrated". His view of integration is different from that of the New York Times article he cites as his source, which I quoted.)
 * Second paragraph of "Grand Jury" — Since the purpose of the grand jury was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Lifsh, what is the relevance of the fact that the Catos didn't testify? Also, Edstat has transformed what Shapiro describes as "conjecture" by "some court observers" into fact: "An explanation for this strategy was that their attorney, Colin Moore 'advised them not to cooperate...'"
 * Second paragraph of "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?" — What is the relevance of the income of Black residents and that of Hasidim?
 * Third paragraph of "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?" — (See below concerning the chronology of this section.) What is the relevance of Herbert Daughtry and Sonny Carson, who aren't mentioned elsewhere, and their remarks at a funeral that took place after the riot?
 * Third paragraph of "Scope of the riot" — What is the relevance of Lenora Fulani and the New Alliance Party, which aren't mentioned elsewhere? Also, the article suggests that 12 police officers were injured because shots were fired at police; according to Shapiro (p. 38), the injuries were from bricks and bottles. According to The New York Times (see below), both Jews and Blacks were throwing rocks and bottles on Tuesday night, but Shapiro is cited as a source that only Blacks threw bricks and bottles.
 * Fourth paragraph of "Scope of the riot" — Sharpton and Alton Maddox "warned the city" that they (Sharpton and Maddox) would make a citizen's arrest. (Shapiro, p. 39) Without Maddox, Wikipedia has turned the sentence into an ominous warning from Sharpton: the rioters would make a citizen's arrest.
 * Eighth paragraph of "Scope of the riot" — Brokha Estrin fell to her death, "an apparent suicide", on August 26 (the Monday following the riot), and according to Shapiro "The speculations of [Rabbi Shmuel] Butman and other Lubavichers that blacks were to blame for Estrin's suicide were mere conjectures, and there was no way to determine their accuracy. She did not leave a suicide note ... While the cause of Estrin's death remained a mystery, for the Lubavitchers it was another indication of the lethal effects of black anti-Semitism." (Shapiro, pp. 52-53)
 * First paragraph of "2nd trial" — What is the relevance of the Senate resolution?
 * Second paragraph of "3rd & 4th trial" — Why are the first two sentences direct quotes from Shapiro?
 * "Impact of the riot on the 1993 mayoral race" and "Crown Heights violence between Blacks and Jews prior to and after the riot" — Many, if not all, of the citations are irrelevant, because these sections largely consist of OR. C. Vernon Mason, who isn't mentioned elsewhere, is quoted from Shapiro in "Impact of the riot on the 1993 mayoral race". Why? The quote doesn't refer directly to Crown Heights. Likewise, the quotes from Sharpton and Maddox in that sentence don't refer directly to Crown Heights. (Before the riot many Black radicals in New York felt that Dinkins pandered to Jews, and these quotes could have been made at any time during his tenure as mayor.) Citations to Shapiro are half-hearted. "Giuliani won by 44,000+ votes. Support for Dinkins by Jews, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans, Asian-Americans, uniformed police officers, and first-time voters decreased significantly from the previous election." Does Shapiro link those facts to Crown Heights? Because the Wikipedia article doesn't, except by innuendo.


 * The article is contentious because it takes one side in a very controversial incident in recent New York City history. The article ignores contemporaneous news accounts that violence was bilateral, instead spinning a tale of Jewish innocents beset by a herd of Black savages. Jews (and other white people) narrate their own accounts, while Black people are cited through secondary and tertiary sources except for incendiary quotes. Similarly, Jews (and other white people) "say", "report" and "explain"; by contrast, Black people "claim" and "contend".
 * At every opportunity, the article ignores, minimizes, or explains away legitimate grievances by the Black residents of Crown Heights but it describes every anti-Hasidic incident that ever took place in the neighborhood. The article's narrative goes out of its way to explain and excuse the driver of the vehicle that killed a child who was playing on the sidewalk, doing so in part by including irrelevant facts and statements, describing (in unencyclopedic language) unsourced allegations only to rebut them with "In fact..." Throughout, comments, incidents, and groups are referred to as antisemitic without attribution. Finally, the article ignores the fact that Rosenbaum's injuries were not life-threatening; that Mayor Dinkins visited him in the hospital and was told that he would recover; and that he died because of medical incompetence. Instead, the article suggests that Rosenbaum's wounds were so severe that died in the ambulance.
 * I will provide one specific example of each criticism in the preceding paragraphs. If I were to point out every instance of these flaws in the article, my comments would be at least as long as the original article.
 * Bilateral violence — The article has no mention of violence by Jews. 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."
 * First-person narrative — "Event immediately precipitating the riot" mixes Lifsh's first-person account, often without introductory phrases such as "Lifsh later said". Beside Al Sharpton, the only Black person quoted directly is David Dinkins in the penultimate section "Impact of the riot on the 1993 mayoral race", and that quote is from three months after the riot.
 * "say", "report", "explain" / "claim", "contend" — In the second paragraph of the lede, "Hynes said "; in the fourth paragraph of "Event immediately precipitating the riot", "an attendant from Hatzolah reported "; in the first paragraph of "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?", "members of the Black community contended "; in the second paragraph of "Event immediately precipitating the riot", "The Rev. Al Sharpton, however, claimed ".
 * Ignores legitimate grievances by Black residents — The titles of the newspaper articles cited in the second paragraph of "Traffic Accident, preferential treatment, or anti-Semitism?" to knock down assertions of police and city favoritism toward Hasidim contradict the article's narrative: "Little proof inequity persists", "Black Progress Reduces Charges of Favoritism". Those titles say clearly that favoritism has existed, it still exists, but that it has been reduced. Also, beside economic issues, complaints center around intangible issues such as police partiality and non-economic favoritism from city agencies, such as street-closings on Jewish holidays that inconvenience non-Jewish residents (whom, the article states, are an overwhelming majority).
 * Describes every anti-Hasidic incident — See "Crown Heights violence between Blacks and Jews prior to and after the riot". This section once described racial tensions that existed before the riot, principally the complaints of favoritism toward Hasidim made by Black residents of Crown Heights, and was located toward the top of the article. Edstat has rewritten it to completely change its focus, including anti-Jewish incidents nearly 40 years before the riot(!).
 * Narrative explains and excuse the driver — Practically every sentence in "Event immediately precipitating the riot" is written to beatify Lifsh. He "continued through the intersection" (although the DA's expert concluded that he was traveling between 45 and 50 mph [Shapiro, p. 3]); the lead car had a green light (to suggest that Lifsh had one too); Lifsh was bleeding from the face and head and needed 18 stitches (what parts of Gavin Cato's body were bleeding? How many stitches did Angela Cato need?); several hundred bystanders gathered but Lifsh was the only person who tried to lift the car from the children, for which he was thanked by being robbed (unsourced); etc. According to Time, Black residents believed "false rumors" that Lifsh was drunk; Edstat feels the need to establish the falsity of the rumor by discussing the breath alcohol test. According to other secondary sources, Black residents "continued to believe the rumor" and circulated "many other false rumors".
 * Labeling comments and groups as antisemitic without attribution — Throughout.
 * Rosenbaum's injuries and death — Rosenbaum bled to death because doctors found only two of his three stab wounds. Investigations concluded that he "was not provided care that meets generally acceptable standards of professional practice". (Shapiro, pp. 22-24) The article, on the other hand, lies by omission. Yes, Rosenbaum "died later that night" and identified Nelson "before being taken to hospital". But the article suggests that he died because of the severity of his wounds, and that he didn't survive the trip to the hospital.
 * Other POV problems — Breaking the chronology of the narrative by putting the grand jury before the riot suggests that the rioters knew that Lifsh had not been charged in connection with Cato's death. In fact, the grand jury sat weeks after the riot. Sharpton's march in connection with the grand jury is irrelevant. The unsealing of the grand jury testimony was requested by the district attorney, not by protesters (as the article suggests). 75% of the witnesses were opposed to unsealing the minutes, with no reason given (not, as the article says, because they were concerned for their safety). Most of those opposed to releasing the testimony were police officers, not bystanders. Concern for safety was expressed not by the witnesses, but by the judge. The article cites an unsourced allegation about Lifsh to create another opportunity to justify Lifsh's actions, and this time also to criticize the Cato family.
 * Likewise, putting Cato's funeral before the riot is another break in the chronology that suggests that remarks at the funeral caused the riot. Also, writing that "Sharpton attempted to re-incite the Black community" strongly implies that he incited it in the first place.
 * "Scope of the riot" — "On Tuesday, 18 Jewish people were injured". How many Black people were injured? Why does the article only mention Black rioters?

— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Edstat's comments are inconsistent with his actions, and they indicate a persistent unwilling to familiarize himself with WP policies and guidelines. He rejects the label of "primary editor", yet his 246 edits to the article (not taking into account those he has made under various IPs) are more than the next 25 editors combined. He criticizes other editors for not improving the article, but his aggressive reversion of anything that is at odds with his POV discourages substantive contributions and drives away other editors. His comment that CJ and I have "now, for the first time, revealed *specifics* that should relate to improved editing of this entry" suggests that he's forgotten (or ignored) the comments we've left on the article's Talk page.

Edstat's suggestion that Estrin's death must have been a suicide because of Jewish law against suicide suggests that he still doesn't understand WP:NOR. His inability to understand other editors' objections to the use of the Jewish press as objective sources suggests he doesn't understand WP:NPOV either. (Note: Neither CJ nor I have objected to the use of the Jewish press, but in the past other editors have.) Would Edstat consider The Amsterdam News and The City Sun, two Black-owned newspapers, objective sources concerning city favoritism toward Hasidim and racism on the part of police in arresting Black rioters and ignoring Jewish rioters?

Edstat's continued insistence that a traffic citation is the standard for describing Lifsh's speed through the intersection, as he tried to catch up to a motorcade from which he had fallen behind, is a very high bar. By that measure, the only rioters who should be mentioned in the article are those who were arrested. At the same time, Edstat's inability to understand the inadequacy of a WP:CITE of a newspaper article without the article's title is disturbing.

Finally, I never suggested that Edstat is a WP:FANATIC because of where he lived, but rather because of his behavior.

— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Question 101
 * The first paragraph mentions the perception that medical attention was given to Lifsh at the expense of the Catos in the context of vague "preferential treatment accorded to Jews over African Americans". I would modify it by (i) deleting the word "Retrospectively", which is both condescending toward the Black residents of Crown Heights (it suggests that this is an ex post facto rationalization) and implies that Wikipedia doubts the sincerity of the assertion (WP:WTA), (ii) deleting the word "contend" (another WTA), and (iii) being more specific about the nature of Black complaints of preferential treatment given to Hasidim by city agencies, especially since those complaints were said to be part of the reason for the riot.
 * The sole purpose of the second paragraph is to rebut the assertions of preferential treatment. It has nothing to do with the Crown Heights Riot, and its inclusion here is a red herring and an attempt to create a false sense of balance. ("If Black residents of Crown Heights say there is preferential treatment, we need to show that they're wrong.") First, Wikipedia isn't in the business of adjudicating conflicting claims. Second, as I wrote earlier, the titles of the articles themselves indicate the persistence of preferential treatment.
 * If any of the material in the second paragraph is considered appropriate by consensus, I think it belongs in a footnote to the first paragraph, not in the body of the article. See, for example, notes 14 and 15 at Nadia Abu El Haj.
 * I know we're not dealing with it now, but an attempt at real balance is made in the third paragraph, not the second: "If Black residents of Crown Heights say there is preferential treatment, we need to include the view of Hasidic residents that they're only saying that to hide their antisemitism."
 * With respect to Edstat's rationale for the use of the word "Retrospectively", I would point out that most Black people don't need to "contemplate a perceived history of preferential treatment" to assume racism, just as most Jews don't need to contemplate Jewish history to assume that a rock thrown through their window was thrown by an antisemite. For better or worse, it's practically a natural reflex.
 * Note: The sentences in quotation marks above are hypothetical and are not intended to represent the thoughts of any Wikipedia editor.

— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Question 102
 * A reader should be able to look at the lede and leave with a good idea of what the article is about, without having to read the rest of the article. This is particularly important if a reader comes across an article by clicking on a Wikilink; she or he may want a "Reader's Digest condensed version" of the article in order to return to the original article from which this article was linked.
 * I think the first sentence of the lede is fine: it says what the riot was (what and where).
 * The balance of the first paragraph should say when the riot took place, and that it involved Blacks, Jews, and police (who and when).
 * The first paragraph should also answer "Why?" Maybe something along the lines of "Some viewed the riot as the culmination of long-standing tensions between Black and Hasidic residents of the neighborhood. Others viewed it as a raw display of antisemitism." Sourced appropriately, of course. If this makes the first paragraph too unwieldy, maybe it should be in a second paragraph.
 * I think a second paragraph in the lede should mention the death of Yankel Rosenbaum and conviction of Lemrick Nelson, the number of people involved in the riot (which isn't made clear anywhere in the article), and the damage caused by the damage (ditto). Something like "The riot involved as many as xxx Blacks, yyy police officers, and zzz Hasidim. Property destroyed during the riot was estimated to be worth $xx million". Again, with appropriate sources.
 * I don't see any reason for the lede to include quotes from everybody who ever held a press conference to condemn the riot. It's gratuitous and it doesn't belong in the lede. A few quotes belong toward the end of the article.
 * Beside being gratuitous, many of the quotes were made in ignorance or as campaign rhetoric. Hynes said that the riot was "the most chilling" in New York City’s history; he clearly doesn't know New York City's history, because more than 100 people were killed during the New York Draft Riots, in which Black New Yorkers were beaten and killed by Irish mobs. Andrew Stein and Rudolph Giuliani each ran against Mayor Dinkins, so their description of the riot as a pogrom can hardly be described as objective.

Response to Question 103
 * As the section is currently written, an appropriate title might be "Blacks are antisemites, cry-babies, and big fat liars".
 * It's hard to name a section without carefully reading the content of the section (Question 101).
 * If there were consensus to write the section along the lines I proposed above (Response to Question 101), an appropriate title might be "Community tensions" or "Conflicting accounts of community tensions".
 * As I pointed out on the article's Talk page, Edstat's continued insistence that traffic accidents in the years preceding the riot have some bearing on the riot is WP:OR.

— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Comment 104


 * I have serious concerns about the chronology in this section. As I've reviewed the sources to make these comments, I have come to have greater concerns about the veracity of the narrative as well.
 * The narrative in this section is choppy. Paragraphs 1 and 3 relate some aspects of the accident twice. Paragraph 2 discusses the cars in the motorcade, which had passed before the accident (in paragraph 1). Paragraphs 3 and 4 relate some of the same post-accident events twice, such as Lifsh exiting the car and trying to help, and other events out of sequence, such as the arrival of police, ambulances, and the start of the riot. We need to weave this section into a single, chronologically correct narrative.

Comment 104a — OK

Comment 104b — I would prefer to delete all of paragraph 2. If it's necessary to say that the police car had a green light, say it in paragraph 1 when the police car is mentioned.

Comment 104c — I have concerns about paragraphs 4 and 5 as proposed. It may be easier if I copy-edit the proposed language and explain my changes:


 * Lifsh claimed to have believed he had the right of way to proceed through the intersection because of the police escort. Lifsh said he deliberately steered his car away from adults on the sidewalk, toward the wall, a distance of about 25 yards (22.9 m), in order to stop the car. Lifsh later commented, “The car did not come to a full stop upon impact with the building, but rather slid to the left along the wall until it reached the children. [After the collision], the first thing I did was to try and lift the car” to free the two children beneath it.[15] Before ambulances arrived, Lifsh was robbed and beaten. [2] [17] [18] Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh and his passengers from the scene for their safety. [18] More than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police. [19]


 * Some members of the community were outraged because Lifsh was taken from the scene by a private ambulance service while city emergency workers were still trying to free the children who were still pinned under the car. Some perceived believed that Gavin Cato died because the Hatzolah ambulance crew was unwilling to help non-Jews. Their anger was compounded due to a rumor that Lifsh was drunk at the time. A breath alcohol test administered within 70 minutes of the accident indicated that this was not the case. Other rumors that circulated after the accident included: Lifsh was on a cell phone, Lifsh did not have a valid US driver's license, and that police prevented people, including Gavin Cato's father, from assisting in the rescue. [2][21][22]


 * Source 17, which doesn't satisfy WP:V, should be deleted, and with it goes the allegation that Lifsh was robbed.
 * The sentence in red troubles me. The New York Times article that is its source reads: "More than 100 police officers, some in riot helmets, surrounded the accident scene as more than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teen-agers shouting "Jews! Jews! Jews!" jeered the driver of the car, a Hasidic man, and then turned their anger on the police." There is a break in the chronology, and I think it's the Times' fault. How could 100 police officers in riot helmets have arrived on the accident scene between 8:20 (the time of the accident) and — at the absolute latest — 8:32, by which time (a) Lifsh had been removed from the scene and Gavin Cato arrived at the hospital. I know we can't engage in WP:OR, but I need to do some research to try to find some other accounts, because this seems like patent nonsense: according to our article, within minutes of the accident 250 rioters had gathered, and according to our source, 100 police officers in riot gear were there as well. Shapiro simply says "A crowd of several hundred immediately gathered at the scene of the accident, and police soon arrived moments after an ambulance from Hatzolah, a volunteer Jewish ambulance service, appeared". Shapiro says nothing about shouts, jeers, or police in riot helmets.

Comment 104d — OK if the source supports it. The current source, as it's cited, doesn't satisfy WP:V.

Comment 104e — Paragraph 3 is not acceptable to me, for reasons outlined earlier. I've copy-edited it below:


 * Lifsh, bleeding from the face and head (later receiving 18 stitches),[13][14] exited the station wagon to assist the victims, who were pinned beneath the car.[15][8] "Unidentified black men led one of the passengers away to safety,"[8] while two police officers protected the other Lubavitchers from several hundred bystanders who quickly gathered at the scene.[2] a volunteer ambulance from the Hatzolah ambulance corps then arrived on the scene at about 8:23 p.m., and their "crew was at first attending to the two Black children but stopped doing so when the first City crew arrived" followed shortly by the police and a City ambulance, which took that would eventually take Gavin to Kings County Hospital one mile away, arriving ; it arrived at the hospital at 8:32 p.m.[2] Volunteers from a second Hatzolah ambulance helped Angela, until a second City ambulance arrived and took her to the same hospital.[2][8]


 * The first sentence misrepresents the source. Shapiro quotes an ambulance attendant: "When we arrived, three or four black people were trying to get him [i.e., Lifsh] out and were beating him. He was in the station wagon — halfway in — and he was bleeding from the face and head." There is no reason for the article to suggest that Lifsh's injuries were a result of the crash and not the beating.
 * If Lifsh was being pulled out of the station wagon, how did he "exit [it] to assist the victims" or, as he later said, "the first thing I did was to try and lift the car"?
 * As noted above, Shapiro says the volunteer ambulance arrived, and then the police. I've edited the paragraph to correct the chronology.
 * The quote about the private ambulance "attending to the two Black children" isn't in Shapiro, which is cited as its source.

— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Comment 105

Comment 105a — I agree. Frankly, I don't think the settlement needs to be discussed at all. I don't mean this as an attack on Edstat's motives, nor do I mean to assign blame, but mentioning the settlement seems like an attempt to direct the reader's attention away from Lifsh and the volunteer ambulance.

Comment 105b — I agree.

Response to Comment 106


 * As I mentioned earlier, I think the "Grand Jury" section belongs in appropriate chronological sequence.

Comment 106a
 * Striking the two sentences about Sharpton is fine.
 * As I wrote above, I have concerns that the second half of the paragraph misrepresents the facts. The Mayor and the District Attorney sued to have the grand jury records unsealed, etc.

Comment 106b — OK

Response to Comment 107

Comment 107a — OK

Comment 107b — I think the general structure is great. I would make some minor changes:


 * After the death of Gavin Cato, members of the Black community contended said that the decision to remove Lifsh from the scene first was racially motivated. Many members of the Black community maintained believed that this was one example of a perceived system of preferential treatment afforded to Jews in Crown Heights.[11] The preferential treatment was reported to include biased actions by law enforcement and allocations of government resources amongst others. Furthermore, many members of the Black community were concerned about the expansion of Jews moving into the neighborhood, believing the latter were buying all the property.[30]


 * Members of the Jewish community did not share this view. Many felt said that allegations of favoritism made by Blacks were unsupported by facts listed in a number of studies. It was widely felt believed in the Jewish community that these allegations were an attempt to mask blatant anti-Semitism committed against Jews during the riot against Jews . Proponents As examples, they point to anti-Semitic statements made by protesters specifically at Gavin Cato’s funeral. In his eulogy at the funeral, the Rev. Al Sharpton made anti-Semitic statements regarding "diamond dealers"[35] and commented "it's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights." [37] In addition, a banner displayed at Gavin Cato's the funeral read "Hitler did not do the job". [31]


 * Many of my changes are intended to replace WP:WTA and use similar verbs in the two paragraphs.
 * It may seem like a minor thing, but I think the placement of the phrase "against Jews" is important.
 * I think the use of the word "antisemitic" in three consecutive sentences is unnecessary. Having said that there were antisemitic statements made at the funeral, do we need to say that "Sharpton made antisemitic statements"?

Comment 107b(3)
 * Citation 39 is the same as citation 37, although it's only cited as a URL. I assume you're referring to paragraph 4, the indented paragraph.
 * I don't feel strongly that paragraph 4 needs to stay, but if it does I think it needs some sort of introduction.
 * As an alternative to paragraph 4, which is a quote from a second-hand source, we can quote the Washington Post article itself:


 * He has gone on in years past about "cocktail sip Negroes," the "diamond merchants," the Orthodox Jews of Crown Heights, and "white interlopers" in Harlem. Sometimes, he apologizes. "I've grown; we all have," he acknowledges. "I'm not as brash. There are ways I look at life now that I would not have when I was a younger man from the ghetto."


 * On the article's Talk page, one of my complaints about paragraph 4 is that it wasn't clear that Slate's account ("his past abrasive comments") referred to Crown Heights. The Post article makes it a little clearer that it does. Or maybe not.

— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Comment 108 — Based on the instructions in your comments, I put together "Scope of the riot" as you've described it. In general, I'm happy with it. I've made some changes:


 * For three days following the accident, numerous African Americans and Caribbean Americans of the neighborhood, joined by growing numbers of non-residents, rioted in Crown Heights. Many of the non-residents were in Crown Heights that evening attending a B. B. King concert less than a mile away. As they left the hall, speakers "harangued" them regarding the death of Cato, and "encouraged the growing crowd at the scene of the accident to resort to violence." Indeed, over the course of the next three days, many of the Black rioters "did not even live in Crown Heights".[2]


 * About Approximately three hours after the riots began, a group of approximately 20 young black men surrounded Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, a 29-year-old University of Melbourne student in the United States conducting research for his doctorate. was surrounded by a group of approximately 20 young black men, was They stabbed him several times in the back had and beat him so severely that his skull fractured. and died later that night. Before being taken to the hospital, he was able to identify 16-year-old Lemrick Nelson, Jr. as his assailant out of five suspects shown to him by the police.[8] Rosenbaum died later that night and Nelson was later charged with murder.


 * During the riots, Jewish people were injured, four stores were looted, and or burned to the ground, cars and homes were damaged. The rioters identified located Jewish homes by the mezuzot affixed to the front doors.[22] Rioters marched through Crown Heights carrying anti-Semitic signs and an Israeli flag was burned. Rioters threw bricks and bottles at police. Police were fired at as well as hit by bottles; police cars were pelted and overturned, including the Police Commissioner’s car.[2][22]


 * An additional 350 police officers were added to the regular duty roster on August 20 assigned to Crown Heights by Tuesday morning in an attempt to quell the rioting.[2] After significant episodes of rock and bottle throwing, Blacks marched through Crown Heights shouting, "Death to the Jews!"[2] After episodes of mutual rock- and bottle-throwing involving hundreds of Jews and Blacks, and groups of Blacks marching and chanting, "No justice" No peace!" and "Death to the Jews!", an additional 1,200 police officers were sent to Crown Heights.[2] dispatched to confront rioters on Wednesday.[41] At one point, Riots escalated to a point where a detachment of 200 police officers (wearing full riot gear) was overwhelmed and had to retreat for their safety. On August 22 Thursday, over 1,800 police officers, including mounted and motorcycle units unites , were dispatched to stop the attacks on people and property.[2] [Are the 1,800 in addition to the 350 + 1,200 from Tuesday plus ? from Wednesday, or do they include those officers?]


 * By the time the three days of rioting ended, 152 police officers and 38 civilians had been were injured, 27 vehicles had been were destroyed, seven stores had been were looted or burned to the ground,[42], and 225 cases of robbery and burglary had been were committed.[2] At least 129 arrests were made during the riots,[42] including 122 Blacks African Americans and seven whites.[40][43] Property damage was estimated at a million dollars.[2]


 * I remain troubled by the one-sided description of the riot. As I wrote earlier, The New York Times described groups of Blacks and Jews throwing rocks and bottles at one another. Shapiro describes Tuesday:


 * The violence on Monday evening, however, was a mere prelude to far more serious rioting on Tuesday. While blacks walked the streets of Crown Heights, pleading in vain for an end to the rioting, Lubavichers complained to city hall about inadequate protection. ... Twice on Tuesday afternoon, groups of blacks and Hasidim numbering in the hundreds threw rocks and bottles at one another. All the while, blacks marched through Crown Heights chanting, "No justice, No peace!" "Whose streets? Our streets!" and "Death to the Jews!" Twelve hundred additional police officers were dispatched to the neighborhood to restore order. ... At least twelve policemen and three journalists were injured that day, mostly by bricks and bottles. (pages 37-38, my emphasis)


 * Shapiro's description of Wednesday, the day on which the worst of the rioting took place, isn't available for view at Amazon or Google Books. It's an omission from the fourth paragraph above (describing the police).


 * While Blacks made up most of the rioters and Jews the vast majority of the victims, categorical statements that "African Americans and Caribbean Americans ... rioted" (first paragraph) and "Jewish people were injured" (third paragraph) don't adequately reflect the complex reality of the riot. I'll try to draft alternative language and offer it for other editors' consideration.

Response to Comment 109 — OK

Response to Comment 111 — OK

Response to Comment 112 — Just as "Crown Heights violence between Blacks and Jews prior to and after the riot" has nothing to do with the riot, I think "Healing in Crown Heights" is irrelevant. It seems like a strained effort to patch a "feel-good" ending on a tragic incident in New York history. But I don't feel strongly about it, and won't object to keeping it or expanding it.

— Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments concerning Second draft proposal

 * General comments
 * I don't see any serious problems with the draft. I made some edits below, most of which (I think) clarify things.
 * My only substantive edit concerns Lifsh's actions in the minutes following the accident. There are two quite different accounts of what Lifsh did: either he exited the station wagon and tried to lift it, as he said, or he was being beaten and pulled out of the car, as the ambulance attendants said. I tried to present both accounts without favoring one over the other.
 * "Event immediately precipitating the riot"
 * At approximately 8:20 p.m. on August 19, 1991, Yosef Lifsh, 22, was driving a station wagon with three passengers east on President Street, part of a three-car motorcade accompanying the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The procession was led by an unmarked police car with two officers, with its rooftop light flashing.[2] Lifsh's vehicle fell behind. He continued through the intersection at Eastern Parkway and Utica Avenue in an attempt to rejoin the group. Witnesses could not agree upon Lifsh’s speed and could did not agree whether the light that Lifsh went through was yellow or red red or yellow .[8][9] He swerved to avoid hitting a car being driven north on Utica Avenue. Lifsh's vehicle struck a car being driven north on Utica Avenue the other car, veered onto the sidewalk, knocked a 600-pound stone building pillar down, hit a wall, and then injured injuring a seven-year-old Guyanese boy named Gavin Cato and his cousin Angela Cato, also seven.[8][9]
 * Lifsh believed he had the right of way to proceed through the intersection because of the police escort. [2] Lifsh said he deliberately steered his car away from adults on the sidewalk, toward the wall, a distance of about 25 yards (22.9 m), in order to stop the car. Lifsh later commented that the car did not come to a full stop upon impact with the building, but rather slid to the left along the wall until it reached the children.
 * Accounts of what happened next differ. Lifsh said that the first thing he did after the collision was to try and lift the car in order to free the two children beneath it.[14] Ambulance attendants who arrived on the scene about three minutes after the accident said that Lifsh was being beaten and pulled out of the station wagon by three or four Black men.[2] All accounts agree that he was beaten before ambulances and police arrived.
 * Lifsh exited the station wagon to assist the victims, who were pinned beneath the car.[13][6] "Unidentified black men led one of the passengers away to safety. [6] A volunteer ambulance from the Hatzolah ambulance corps arrived on the scene at about 8:23 pm, followed shortly by police and a City ambulance which took Gavin to Kings County Hospital, where he arrived arriving at 8:32 p.m.[2] Volunteers from a second Hatzolah ambulance helped Angela, until a second City ambulance arrived and took her to the same hospital.[2][6]
 * Lifsh believed he had the right of way to proceed through the intersection because of the police escort. [2] Lifsh said he deliberately steered his car away from adults on the sidewalk, toward the wall, a distance of about 25 yards (22.9 m), in order to stop the car. Lifsh later commented that the car did not come to a full stop upon impact with the building, but rather slid to the left along the wall until it reached the children. After the collision, Lifsh said that the first thing he did after the collision was to try and lift the car in order to free the two children beneath it.[14] Before ambulances arrived, Lifsh was beaten. [2][16] Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh and his passengers from the scene for their safety before Gavin Cato had been removed from under the station wagon. [17] According to The New York Times, "more than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police." [18]
 * Some members of the community were outraged because Lifsh was taken from the scene by a private ambulance service while city emergency workers were still trying to free the children who remained were still pinned under the car. Some believed that Gavin Cato died because the Hatzolah ambulance crew was unwilling to help non-Jews. Their anger was compounded due to a rumor that Lifsh was drunk at the time. A breath alcohol test administered within 70 minutes of the accident indicated that this was not the case. Other rumors that circulated after the accident included: Lifsh was on a cell phone, Lifsh did not have a valid driver's license, and that police prevented people, including Gavin Cato's father, from assisting in the rescue. [2][19][20]
 * Later on that evening, as the crowd and rumors grew, people threw bottles and rocks to protest the treatment of the children. At about 11:00 p.m., someone shouted, 'Let's go to Kingston Avenue and get a Jew!' A number of black youths then set off toward Kingston, a street of predominantly Jewish residents several blocks away, vandalizing cars and heaving rocks and bottles as they went." [21]
 * "Conflicting Community Viewpoints"
 * After the death of Gavin Cato, members of the Black community believed that the decision to remove Lifsh from the scene first was racially motivated. They also maintained that this was one example of a perceived system of preferential treatment afforded to Jews in Crown Heights.[9] The preferential treatment was reported to include biased actions by law enforcement and allocations of government resources amongst others. Furthermore, many members of the Black community were concerned about the expansion of Jews moving into the neighborhood, believing the latter were buying all the property.[30]
 * Members of the Jewish community did not share this view. Many believed that allegations of favoritism made by Blacks were not supported unsupported by facts, listed in and that a number of studies had disproven them. including one conducted specifically in response to this allegation . [29] It was widely believed in the Jewish community that these allegations were an attempt to mask blatant anti-Semitism committed against Jews during the riot. As examples, they point to anti-Semitic statements made by protesters, including comments made at Gavin Cato’s funeral. In his eulogy at the funeral, the Rev. Al Sharpton made statements regarding "diamond dealers"[33] and commented "it's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights." [34] In addition, a banner displayed at the funeral read "Hitler did not do the job". [29]
 * "Scope of the Riot"
 * No comments
 * "Grand Jury"
 * A grand jury composed of 10 African Americans, 8 Caucasians, and 5 Latinos was convened. It found no cause to indict Lifsh. Hynes explained that under by New York law, the single act of "losing control of a car" is not criminal negligence even if death or injury resulted. Lifsh waived immunity and testified before the Grand Jury.[9] About an hour after Lifsh testified before the grand jury in state Supreme Court, the grand jury voted not to indict Lifsh.[28] Subsequently, Lifsh moved to Israel, where his family lives, because his life was threatened.[29]
 * Afterwards, Hynes fought unsuccessfully for the public release of the testimony that the grand jury had heard. His lawsuit was dismissed, and the judge noted that more than three-quarters of the witnesses who had been contacted refused to waive their right to privacy. The judge also expressed concern for the witnesses' safety. Subsequently, several lawsuits attempting to compel the city to unseal the evidence presented to the Grand Jury were dismissed, including a decision by the Appellate Court.[7][23][24] Judge Theodore Jones of the State Supreme Court (Brooklyn) explained that a poll of the Grand Jury indicated over 75% of the 33 witnesses, including 12 of 16 of the bystanders in the crowd, were concerned for their safety.[23]
 * Lifsh waived immunity and testified before the Grand Jury.[9] About an hour after Lifsh testified before the grand jury in state Supreme Court, the grand jury voted not to indict Lifsh.[28] Subsequently, Lifsh moved to Israel, where his family lives, because his life was threatened.[29]
 * "Healing in Crown Heights"
 * No comments

Thanks again for your ongoing efforts and patience. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments concerning Third draft proposal

 * General comments
 * Thank you again for your patience and assistance. My edits, I hope, clarify things and tighten up the language without changing the meaning.
 * Except for the new section ("Impact on the 1993 mayoral race"), I've included only paragraphs about which I have comments or suggestions.
 * I would like to strike the paragraph concerning the police and the PBA in the 1993 election. They were hostile to Dinkins in his 1989 race against Giuliani (which was also a very close race), they were hostile to him throughout his term, and they supported Giuliani again in 1993. I don't think Crown Heights changed the level of their hostility toward him.
 * Lede
 * The Crown Heights Riot was a three-day riot in the Crown Heights neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. The community was home to approximately 180,000 people – consisting of Caribbean-Americans and West Indians (50%), African Americans (39%), and Jewish residents (11%). The riots began on August 19, 1991, and were sparked after a Guyanese boy was struck by an automobile driven by Yosef Lifsh in a motorcade for a prominent Hasidic rabbi. They riot was viewed as a progrom by the Jewish community [5] and was referred to as "one of the most serious incidents of anti-Semitism in American history" by Edward Shapiro, Professor of History Emeritus at Seton Hall University.[2]
 * Event immediately precipitating the riot
 * Later on that evening, as the crowd and rumors grew, people threw bottles and rocks to protest the treatment of the children. At about 11:00 p.m., someone shouted, 'Let's go to Kingston Avenue and get a Jew!' A number of black youths then set off toward Kingston, a street of predominantly Jewish residents several blocks away, vandalizing cars and heaving rocks and bottles as they went." [21] [MS notes: (a) The quotation marks are unbalanced, so it isn't clear where the quote begins. (b) Ideally, the source of the quote should be identified in the body of the article. (c) Source 21, Law Library, is a homepage that has no specific link concerning Crown Heights.]
 * Scope of the Riot
 * During the riots, Jewish people were injured, stores were looted and cars and homes were damaged. The rioters identified Jewish homes by the mezuzot affixed to the front doors.[20] Rioters marched through Crown Heights carrying anti-Semitic signs and an Israeli flag was burned. Rioters threw bricks and bottles at police ; shots were fired at police; . Police were fired at as well as hit by bottles; and police cars were pelted and overturned, including the Police Commissioner’s car.[2][20]
 * Grand Jury
 * A Grand Jury composed of 10 African Americans, 8 Caucasians, and 5 Latinos found no cause to indict Lifsh. Then District Attorney Charles J. Hynes explained that under New York law, the single act of "losing control of a car" is not criminal negligence even if death or injury resulted. Lifsh waived immunity and testified before the Grand Jury.[9] About an hour after hearing Lifsh's testimony, Lifsh testified before the grand jury in state Supreme Court, the grand jury voted not to indict Lifsh.[28] Subsequently, Lifsh moved to Israel, where his family lives, because his life was threatened.[29]
 * Impact of the riot on the 1993 mayoral race [MS note: Some portions of this section are missing footnotes.]
 * "The repercussions of the Crown Heights riot, based on the official indifference to the plight of Jews, contributed directly to the defeat of the incumbent mayor of New York,"[54] David Dinkins. He was embattled by many political adversaries in his reelection bid, including vocal proponents of “black nationalism, back-to-Africa, economic radicalism, and racial exclusiveness” [MS note: The source of this direct quote should be identified in the body of the article.]
 * On November 17, 1992, New York Governor Mario Cuomo gave the Director of Criminal Justice Services, Richard H.Girgenti, the authority to investigate the rioting and the Nelson trial. The Girgenti Report was compiled by over 40 lawyers and investigators, and consisted of produced a two volume, 600-page document of its findings on July 20, 1993. It was extremely critical of Police Commissioner Lee Brown. The report also embarrassed Dinkins on his handling of the riots.
 * According to the report, Dinkins hesitated to deploy vast numbers of police to stop the rioting because he had been elected as a peacemaker. However, this strategy proved disastrous.[56] Many Jews criticized Dinkins for this. The first night of the riot, Dinkins, along with Police Commissioner Lee Brown, both African Americans, went to Crown Heights to dispel the false rumors about the circumstances surrounding the accident, but they had no impact on the rioters, most of whom were young Black men. "young blacks roaming the streets." [20] In a 16 minute speech on the Thanksgiving holiday following the riot, Dinkins denied that he had prevented preventing police from protecting citizens in Crown Heights.[2] Many Jews believed Dinkins failed to contain the riot and that the mayor had failed to exercise his responsibility that he did not exercise, to the detriment of the Jewish community.[57]
 * Uniformed police were hostile to Dinkins. "They believed the mayor had prevented them from doing their duty during the riot, and that he had blamed them for his own failures."[2] As a result, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association strongly supported Giuliani, Dinkin's opponent, in the mayoral election of 1993. [MS note: The PBA "strongly supported" Giuliani in his 1989 race against Dinkins, so Crown Heights wasn't a factor in their "strong support" for him in 1993.]
 * The Crown Heights riot was an important issue raised repeatedly on the campaign trail. Rudolph Giuliani, who would become the next mayor of New York, called the Crown Heights riot a pogrom because "for three days people were beaten up, people were sent to the hospital because they were Jewish. There's no question that not enough was done about it by the city of New York".[59] Giuliani won by over 44,000 votes. Support for Dinkins by Jews, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans, Asian-Americans, uniformed police officers, and first-time voters decreased significantly from the previous election.[2]

Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments concerning Proposed final draft

 * I think the proposed final draft looks fine. Thank you, Leonmon, for all of your assistance and for your patience. This has been my first experience with Wikipedia mediation, and I appreciate the fairness that you brought to this process and your willingness to consider my point of view. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:edstat
Comments on Mediator's 3rd draft. There are some typos/grammar issues. Also, after it is posted, consideration should be given to some of the material that was added after the mediation began.

Four things were accomplished from this mediation: (1) The story of the greatest anti-Semitic act in the history of the United States has been white-washed slightly less, (2) some of the anti-Semitism and factual misinformation about Jews in Crown Heights in general, and Lifsh in particular, has now been eliminated, (3) at least the tiniest bit of blame for the murder and pillage has now be placed onto the rioters, instead of the Jewish people of Crown Heights who deserved what they got for their unmitigated gall in violating the "Whose streets? Our Streets!" principle, and (4) Al Sharpton who?

Unsolicited opinion from uninvolved User:Revolving Bugbear
I'm not going to do any serious editing to this article, because I don't wish to fuel the flames. However, there was a request for "a reasonable review of NPOV related concerns". I would like to provide one.

I don't know anything about the subject, other than knowing vaguely where Crown Heights is, having grown up in New Jersey. Thus, I can't speak to how the issues at this article will be solved insofar as content as concerned. But it is clear to me that a liberal application of policy and guidelines is necessary.

WP:LEAD says this: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

Thus it is noteworthy that, of the 1206 characters in the lead section (236 words), 126 describe the incident (28 words), 235 describe ethnic makeup of the community (38 words), no characters describe context beyond ethnic makeup, and 844 are dedicated to the various public figures and scholars who condemned it (170 words).

Another thing that strikes me about this article is the way it uses sources. I don't know that I can comment on the appropriateness of the sources, but the way they are cited is more fitting to a research paper than an encyclopedia article. That is, while secondary sources should be cited extensively, they should be directly quoted only sparingly. Portions of this article are largely the words not of Wikipedia editors but of Edward Shapiro. While it seems to me that Shapiro is an authority on the subject, 59 citations from a single source, almost all of which are direct quotes, seems excessive and looks like undue weight to me. The article should be about the riots, but it reads like it is about Shapiro's book.

In short, the article lacks balance. Most of the sentences in the article, taken by themselves, would be relatively unobjectionable -- in my opinion, anyway -- in a more balanced article. However, taken as a whole, the article presents problems. I couldn't say for sure whether the content of this article is accurate or skewed, but it appears skewed to an uninformed eye, and that is enough to run afoul of NPOV. I hope all the editors involved can step back and see why this is. - Revolving Bugbear  (formerly Che Nuevara) 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reponse to User:Revolving Bugbear by User:Edstat

 * The comments in the above opinion illustrate the *primary* issue at hand. Two excellent points were made: (a) the lead should be revised to stand alone, and (b) having to rely on quotes because citations were unacceptable makes the entry un-encyclopedic in format. Thus, it would be expected that In short, these two items should be revised, and of course they should! Instead, the conclusion In short is that even though most of the sentences in the article, taken by themselves are relatively unobjectionable (without giving examples of which are not), and even though the poster doesn't know whether the content of this article is accurate or skewed, it appears skewed to an uninformed eye which justifies NPOV. Does it appear to be skewed because of the absence of another point of view? If so, sourced comments on that view should be included. In the absence of another point of view, must this article remain NPOV forever? If sourced specifics on what appears to be objectionable, including terms which some considered non-neutral (e.g., claimed instead of said) which have appeared on this page for the first time, are revised, must this article remain NPOV forever?Edstat 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. Let me try to clarify a bit.
 * The clearly unbalanced lead section and the heavy reliance on quotations from Shapiro are examples of why this article appears to be written from a sympathetic viewpoint. Don't get me wrong -- beating and murdering innocent people is pretty much a bad idea, and I'm rather opposed to the idea. However, rather than presenting the facts of the incident and letting them speak for themselves, the article appears to be written from a point of view which seeks to garner sympathy for the victims -- particularly the Jewish victims.
 * As I said, I don't know anything about this subject, so it may be that the overwhelming consensus condemns this as a travesty perpetrated on the Jewish population of the neighborhood. However, the fact that a single book by a scholar of Jewish history forms the entire backbone of this article opens the door to the question, is this article trying to prove something? I don't ascribe that motive to any particular editor or editors, but that's how the article reads.
 * Is it established that the "opposing viewpoint" holds little credibility or weight? If so, that needs to be somehow expressed (and sourced) to explain to the casual reader why there is no counter to the very strong condemnations implicit in this article. Otherwise, an opposing viewpoint which exists and can be shown to carry weight -- even if it is significantly less than the viewpoint currently expressed in the article -- should be identified and discussed.
 * Here is an example of sentences I do find objectionable:
 * Sharpton made anti-Semitic statements, in his eulogy for Gavin, regarding "diamond dealers" and said "it's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights." Sharpton attempted to re-incite the Black community with the challenge: "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house."
 * Yes, these quotations are sourced, and they may be noteworthy and relevant. However, there is some clear OR going on here -- there is an editor's assessment of these comments. Were his statements called antisemitic by a significant or reliable source? Was he accused of attempting to re-incite the black community? If so, say that and source those assessments. But if not, let the quotations stand for themselves without editorializing. And in any case, saying "Sharpton made antisemitic statements" and "attempted to re-incite" the black community is problematic because it's an assessment of his words and motives.
 * I hope this helps.
 * Cheers! - User:Revolving Bugbear 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It *does help!*. I agree completely, that other references should be acceptable and there should not be an over-reliance on Shapiro. I agree completely, that if there are other views, they should be cited (and sourced). Yes, Shapiro (and others) called Sharpton's statements anti-Semitic (although a Jew doesn't need a scholar of Jewish history to tell when anti-Semitic canards are levied at her/him). As for the OR, historically it was in the reverse. The editor's comments were made, it was challenged, and the quotes were put in in response to that challenge. I think you are on to something important in resolving this, which is *none* of the direct quotes should be in an encyclopedia article - as long as editors realize that informational sentences are not contentious. You have been very specific, and contrary to the contention of other authors here, I am not the primary editor (I do object to unsourced statements, partial quotes, and contorted sequences), and hence, *please* take the initiative to make the edits! I don't know the rules on editing while mediation is in progress (I've added Maddox to clear up a mismatch with the pronoun), but why not try it and see what kind of reaction there is from other authors?Edstat 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple of points.
 * although a Jew doesn't need a scholar of Jewish history to tell when anti-Semitic canards are levied at her/him
 * That is, of course, true. However, Wikipedia does. The bottom line of WP:OR is that Wikipedia can never be the first to say something. Now, it sure looks like Sharpton said some things which were offensive to Jews ... however, taken out of context the way they are, it isn't clear whether Sharpton was speaking about the area's Jewish population or the area's white population, which is of course obscured by the fact that they were more or less identical at the time. Also, it isn't clear whether Sharpton believes what he said about all Jews, or just those Jews who live in CH.
 * I think you are on to something important in resolving this, which is *none* of the direct quotes should be in an encyclopedia article
 * Generally speaking -- and there are exceptions -- I believe that a direct quote should only be used in talking about the actual author of the quote. Thus, direct quotes by Sharpton are appropriate in talking about Sharpton (and his involvement); direct quotes from others are appropriate in talking about others' reactions to him etc. (It's a subtle distinction, and sometimes there are grey areas.)
 * I don't know the rules on editing while mediation is in progress
 * Because MedCab is informal, there are no "rules" per se. However, editing by users involved in the conflict to the material in conflict and editing by other users which are likely to be controversial are discouraged.
 * Again, my lack of familiarity with the topic hinders my ability to edit, and I'm hesitant to do a large rewrite or edition to a topic under mediation. On the other hand, I'd be willing to try my hand at it if nobody objects. Perhaps I can try to rework some of the article and pare down some POV, which would produce a (hopefully) stable base from which constructive collaboration can build back up? - Revolving Bugbear  (formerly Che Nuevara) 18:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Revolving Bear, regarding your statement, "taken out of context the way they are, it isn't clear whether Sharpton was speaking about the area's Jewish population or the area's white population, which is of course obscured by the fact that they were more or less identical at the time. Also, it isn't clear whether Sharpton believes what he said about all Jews, or just those Jews who live in CH.", the source says, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." Those were the immortal words of the Rev. Al Sharpton during the Crown Heights crisis in New York City in 1991. A car driven by a Hasidic Jew had run over a black child in the Brooklyn neighborhood, prompting black-Jewish tensions that eventually spilled over into antisemitic riots. Sharpton's contribution to civic peace was statements like the above, together with such classic anti-Jewish smears as: "Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights."I'm not sure how you find this could relate to the Jewish population or the (presumably non-Jewish) white population. {And don't forget about the Coleman Shul - the synagogue in Crown Heights that was in the basement of the Coleman family who were African American converts to Judaism.) I'm also not sure what difference it makes if he was referring to 2 Jews (*Jews* in his quote were plural) or all Jews, nor how that somehow becomes OR.Edstat 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure what difference it makes if he was referring to 2 Jews (*Jews* in his quote were plural) or all Jews, nor how that somehow becomes OR.
 * I think it makes a very big difference. It's the difference between saying "I hate you, you Jew" and "I hate Jews". It's a pretty straightforward difference.
 * Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights.
 * That is much more illuminating than simply saying "he mentioned 'diamond merchants'". - Revolving Bugbear 11:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I believe that I've been able to pare down much of the POV in the past week. I think you'll be pleased with what I've already done. I will be posting my proposals, section by section, over the next couple days. (I'm definitely not suggesting that they are by any means the perfect solution.) I would greatly appreciate your assistance in reviewing these initial proposals. This would save us from doing the same thing twice.

--Leonmon 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I have not had the time to respond to 104 and other points, which I hope will be taken into consideration.Edstat 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)