Talk:Dyker Heights, Brooklyn

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dyker Heights, Brooklyn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old Comments

A map of NYC showing the boudaries of Dyker Heights is needed. (in the top left corner)

Images of the parks, waterfront and the homes. (right below the desciption of the location)

There are illustrations, photos and floorplans of the Dyker Heights Country Club in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. The club was renamed the Italian American Country Club at some point in the 1930s.

real estate guide?

jeez, I look at this and I know it was definitely written with the promotion of real estate in mind. The buzzwords of developers and building histories makes this very clear. Hey, put up a little neighborhood history, some hotass century 21 agents' #s, a view of the Verrazano, and you might get a few offers right now.--Screwball23 talk 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban?

Is it really appropriate to describe Dyker Heights as "suburban?" According to Wikipedia itself, in the U.S., the term is not commonly applied to areas within the limits of the defining city. And as a native Brooklynite I'd certainly never have described areas within Brooklyn as suburban, except perhaps metaphorically. DeSales 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I made it "suburban-like". —Nricardo 13:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editoral Comments

User:Cjz208 feels that these editorial comments belong in the article. Anyone have an opinion? CitiCat^♫ 12:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments should be rephrased neutrally and cite sources from the local press (there are plenty that feel this way) or politicians. —Nricardo 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from CJZ208 on 00:39, 1 Nov 2007

I tried to answer these as objectively as possible. Let us have a dialogue if anything is not clear or needs to be challenged. If anyone feels that the explanations offered herein could supplement the article than please feel free and add them verbatim or paraphrased.

“Very few of these homes fit into the historic context of Dyker Heights…” 1. Infill homes that are fully and semi attached and some fully detached homes are by definition not in the historical character of original DH because they are:

a. on lots smaller than the minimal lot of DH homes (60X100)

b. of different architectural design (not Queen Anne)

c. built after the initial development stopped (~1902).

2. Infill homes that are fully detached and are of “mini mansion” scale and/or renovated homes

a. Bricking over DH homes takes them out of the historical context. No exterior bricks were used in the original homes.

b. Mediterranean homes/villas are of a totally different architecture, they are not in the Queen Anne style. They represent the southern European character of the neighborhood as it is today; this is different from the northern European character of the neighborhood 110 years ago. Thus it is not historically connected.

3. Condos

a. Do I really need to explain this one?

4. The Saitta House is not in a Historic District

a. If these homes were historically connected, then the Saitta House would be in a Historic District.

“Very few have been constructed with the high level of design, craftsmanship, and materials exhibited by the Saitta House - both inside and out.”

1. The interior of new homes have plaster board. The Saitta house has wainscoting.

2. If infill homes were of equal merit, they too would get listing for their architectural spirit.

“The Saitta House is significant in that it retains a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.”

1. This is all true, that is why the home was listed on both the state and national register of historic places.

"In addition to the efforts by local government officials to help protect the character of the neighborhood, the community should recognize those who have preserved Dyker Heights’ historic houses through the years.

1. The new zoning was put in place to preserve the character of DH, that is why Bay Ridge has new zoning.

As for the historical society: “The recently established Dyker Heights Historical Society, [this is true, it was established in 2006] associated with the Dyker Heights Civic Association founded in 1928 [this is also true, as that is how it was established], is raising the community’s awareness of its rich historic and architectural heritage [this is also true, as part of the affiliation with the DHCA, the DHHS is editing the Wikipedia article, and lecturing the DHCA, as well as the Bay Ridge Historical Society, and the Society of Old Brooklynites]. The first official action of the Historical Society was the preparation of the Saitta House National Register nomination. [This is true as well.] The Dyker Heights Historical Society will begin to help the residents of this locality finally recognize and appreciate the beauty, quality, and importance of the original homes of Dyker Heights, as well as help them learn about the history to become prouder of this great community [again, true. I lecture and edit this article]. It is important for people to know that the DHHS exists and what it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjz208 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume for the minute that you are correct on all accounts. You still can't put something in Wikipedia because "I know it's true", and certainly not "because that's my opinion".

Wikipedia is not a primary source, it only it supposed to have information that can be attributed to another source.

Let me put it this way "The Dyker Heights Historical Society will begin to help the residents of this locality finally recognize and appreciate the beauty, quality, and importance of the original homes" is not an acceptable statement. However, "John Doe, the head of the Dyker Heights Historical Society stated in an interview that the society 'will begin to help the residents of this locality finally (etc.)'" is fine, hopefully accompanied by information on where that interview was published. This is all spelled out in WP:NOR CitiCat^♫ 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

This article has many, many problems. Nearly every assertion is uncited. Much of the language and tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, contains obvious original research, and whole sections that rely on quotes and unsourced interpretation. There are numerous Manual of Style violations, and nearly every image appears to be a copyright violation and will soon be deleted. I have tagged where necessary, and left inline comments to aid the process of cleaning up. I trust that the primary author of the article (as noted in the New York Times) knows what they are talking about and it should be fairly easy to provide references. However, an uninvolved third party will need to step in and get rid of the POV and original research, as well as fixing the overall tone problems.

Additionally, there is no information about transportation, demographics, attractions, and, well, pretty much everything else that can be found in every other NYC neighborhood article.

The article really isn't bad, and the author(s) know what they are talking about, but cites must be provided, the language needs to be neutralized a bit, and there needs to be a more broad focus. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to expand on the demographics of the neighborhood in this article to at least bring it up to par with one that properly describes the neighborhood. If you don't know how to obtain these demographics, just look on the City of New York website in the Department of City Planning's pages. There are figures from, among other things, the 2000 census on median income, population statistics, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.31.59 (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

This is supposed to be in Brooklyn, but takes you to a location upstate. Matt Zeidenberg (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This error was introduced last year when the infobox was added. — Dispenser 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More opinions

User:Cjz208 continues to add his own opinions to this article as facts (I understand this opinions may be held by others as well, but they are still opinions). I recently removed the statement "Very few of these homes fit into the historic context of Dyker Heights and very few have been constructed with the high level of design, craftsmanship, and materials exhibited by the Saitta House - both inside and out" - and the words "Unfortunately many" from the statement "Unfortunately, many of Dyker Heights’ original surviving homes have been extensively renovated and remodeled." He immediately reverted those edits with the edit summary "Historic context is correct. It is written in the State and National Registers of Historic Places Report for the Saitta House". Once again I am stating for you - Wikipedia articles are for facts, not your opinions, or those of your society, no matter how strongly you may feel about them. CitiCat^♫ 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:3o - it does not appear that the sources provided in the paragraph as written support the statements. If there are people who say the new houses are bad, certainly they have had their statements published somewhere. Where have these statements been published? Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we gone over this before?

1. historic context - if the homes were built in the historical context (design, craftsmanship, and materials) then the saitta house would be within an historic district. the state/feds found no other home to have a similar merits.

2a. Unfortunately - again, if they were not altered/demolished there would be an historic district and/or other homes added to the register.

2b. Unfortunately - DH (and BR) were both re-zoned by the City Council to protect the community from condos/overdevelopment.

If you were to read the entire SH report, the answers to your question(s) would be present. File find "150" and also look at the photos which show demolition and condos replacing original homes.

I think the article would benefit more if you were to add substance: photos, stories, history, current events, citations, rather than by picking at pieces and deleting whole chunks. Be constructive, not destructive. Add a blurb about Christmas Lights or Parks or find another supporting documentation. Be like Matt Zeidenberg who made a nice, useful edit on the navigation. Or Rostdo who added section (and a photo) on the sunshine society’s blind school. Cjz208 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is known as synthesis. If your source states a fact directly, then put into the article a statement along the lines of "according to <your source>, <fact> is true." CitiCat^♫ 07:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC:Are statements in the article from a neutral point of view

Over a period of two years various statements which appear to be at best synthesis have been placed in the article. Numerous discussions have failed to resolve the question of these comments being acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. CitiCat^♫ 02:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The examples noted in the previous section are problematic. First of all, the word "unfortunately" is an editorial comment that rarely belongs in a WP article unless it's part of a direct quote. Here, it does violate NPOV. Regarding the rest, Citicat's worries over synthesis do seem to have some foundation. I'm not a stickler for sourcing absolutely everything that logically follows from everything else, but this isn't the case here; the subject matter in question is sufficiently esoteric to make it difficult or impossible for a reader without specialized knowledge to know what's what. So sourcing is critical. Cjz208 may well be right, but it isn't enough to be right. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for building the encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: claims non-obvious to a generic non-expert reader with a 13 year school education should be reliably sourced. In particular, judgemental claims, or claims regarding complex "facts" that require derivation, proof, or extended working out should be sourced to a scholar, expert or report which has conducted that working out off-of wikipedia and made such a claim. Synthetic claims are original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dyker Heights, Brooklyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915221701/http://www.house.gov/fossella/ to http://www.house.gov/fossella/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civic services

The information in this subsection is entirely useless and un-encyclopedic. Not another NYC neighborhood has this dreck (in a quick sample of ten+ in multiple boroughs I took to make sure I wasn't crazy). Just having a cite doesn't make it automatically appropriate to include. Schools are listed, places of worship as well, because those exist uniquely in and of the neighborhood, like its notable residents, parks, and landmarks. But saying NYPD and Brooklyn Public Library serve a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York is so asinine and just clutters the page. If the precinct or branch or ladderhouse had its own page or was in any way significant, I could see its merit to include it. As it stands there is no reason Dyker Heights should be alone in the encyclopedia in having non-encyclopedic information on its page just because User:Alansohn wants it there without any rationale given or MOS to back it up. JesseRafe (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the crap and the smarmy attitude. Just because User:JesseRafe doesn't like properly sourced material doesn't make it "useless" "dreck" or "asinine". I didn't insert this material and the absence of this content in other articles isn't an excuse for deletion; if we worked in your preferred manner, we'd be deleting everything until every article matched the lowest possible standard. When you're ready to address some policy that supports your case, come back and start discussing in a rational manner. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting this edit war over nothing and you're asking me to prove a negative now? Show me where it says this information is encyclopedic, because obviously it's not; you're intentionally acting in bad faith insinuating that my "preferred manner" would be to delete everything. Millions of Wikipedia articles have useless trivia that ought to be deleted, regardless of citing, because citations don't confer notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Perhaps WP:LOCAL and Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#No_inherited_notability are the relevant starting points? I'd assume you'd already be aware of these positions. I'd also like to remind you to be civil, if you can manage it. JesseRafe (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't I want to know which police precinct covers the 'hood or which library branch is found here? If other neighborhood articles are missing this info., they're deficient. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Dyker Heights, Brooklyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dyker Heights, Brooklyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025123709/http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/branch_library_detail.jsp?branchpageid=143 to http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/branch_library_detail.jsp?branchpageid=143
Corrected formatting/usage for http://memorial.mmc.com/pgBio.asp?BioID=147&curpage=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714210036/http://www.stephremchurch.org/ to http://www.stephremchurch.org/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compstat

@Alansohn: WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN apply. Please don’t keep reverting when you haven’t done what you need to do, its disruptive and doubly so when you don’t understand whats going on so you make wild accusations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, it's becoming clearer that you don't understand what you're talking about. The source for crime statistics is provided from the City of New York itself, from a set of data on crime provided by the New York City Police Department using their CompStat system. The burden of providing a reliable source has been satisfied. Your persistent removal of sourced content from a wide range of articles is genuinely disruptive, as is the refusal to understand the sources or to follow WP:PRESERVE to fix problems for encyclopedic content. If you don't understand the sources, ask for help; don't assume that your ignorance means that a source is not reliable. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't encyclopedic content (at best its random crime trivia from 2018)... And you have not addressed the due weight concerns I raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The city government is the only agency collecting the data in many cases. I don't see how it could be improved by adding an "independent" source that doesn't exist. Crime stats can be updated, but you're just removing information about government services. I agree that some of the data may be undue, but the relative crime rate is still significant. I have reverted some of your removals as it is pretty clearly disruptive editing. As for health info, you basically removed every metric except for Medicare access and hospitals, which is pretty useless to the reader. Please do not continue until we've reached a consensus. Epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN works. If theres no independent coverage then its not due for inclusion in the article, simple as. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that interpretation inaccurate. The government is the agency collecting the data. Not anyone else. There aren't going to be any independent sources to back up this government data. Any source summarizing the crime and health conditions in each neighborhood will have to take from the government source. That is probably why you removed DNAInfo even though that is a secondary source, but that's not how things work here. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DNAInfo is unreliable, we’ve already been over that. Wikipedia is not a random repository of statistics the government has collected, everything we include must meet our WP:DUEWEIGHT standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, can you point to the discussion where DNAInfo was determined to be unreliable? Epicgenius (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually the person who wants to use the source who has to demonstrate reliability, I can’t find anything that suggests that during their brief existence DNAInfo was a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're making things up by saying "we’ve already been over that". It was a local online-only news source which closed down. Epicgenius (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We (as in you and I) have been over this [1]. Most local online-only news source which closed down are not WP:RS, what makes this one different. In fact this one seems to have been the personal paper of Joe Ricketts without significant editorial independence, remember that he shut them down on a whim when the employees tried to be even a tiny bit independent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "we". You just reverted without discussion and now you are making unsubstantiated claims. Come back when you have a clear consensus on whether the source is unreliable. Otherwise, I will revert any further removals of yours that I consider disruptive. Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats backwards, its up to you not me to get consensus for the inclusion of the challenged material, and doesn't answer the central question which is about sourcing to compstat directly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you got an answer and you're still asking the same exact question as before. You are reverting from the status quo version, and you refuse to get a consensus. I do not need consensus to make an addition to an article. It is you who needs to get a consensus for removing material that has been in the page for two years. Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced or poorly sourced information can be removed at any time. You didn’t need consensus to add the undue information two years ago, I don’t need consensus to remove it. Maybe instead of yelling at me now you should have created content that actually met wikipedia’s policies and guidelines two years ago? What does need consensus is any restoration of the material without providing reliable sources which meet our due weight standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content does meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and just as you don't need consensus to revert, I don't need consensus to revert your edit, which in the first place was largely incorrect. You do, however, need consensus to keep defending your revert and, thus far, all you have done is repeated the same talking points. I'm going to solicit consensus from others to form an opinion that's not just one editor's view of how WP:RS should be interpreted. Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you let them know you’re the OP of the info under discussion, not disclosing that would be a bad look. I hope you were planning on doing that with me before I stumbled across it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: This feels like it is an attempt to distract from the issue at hand. If you remove large sections from an article citing a lack of established consensus, that's fine, we can have a discussion about it, but if consensus emerges in favor of inclusion, it's kind of a bad look to change tack to accusations of concealed interest. jp×g 01:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus has yet emerged, also I didn't change tack... I brought that up for the first time a long time ago on another page before the conversation firmed up on this talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To any editors who are not already directly involved in this discussion, should we include crime or health statistics? Should we go as far as removing police precincts and fire engines that serve the neighborhood? I propose removing minor details like petty crime, bodega count, or police precinct/fire station addresses, but the above concerns the removal of nearly all info about crime and health, even if the information has been there for two years. Note that I had added this information two years ago, but some of the details do not fall under WP:DUE. Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with coverage of crime or health statistics if we have independent reliable sources discussing those statistics and their significance to the subject. Even something like bodega count could be due if treated as such by sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but I would also like to hear from other editors about this matter. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a given topic like a person or place, there are basic facts we take for granted should be included even if we're relying just on an official source. For a city (or, in cities as big and as structured as NYC, boroughs/neighborhoods), we would probably assume include population, school district, schools, mayor, adjacent neighborhoods, demographics, etc. The question is how much of this should be included based just on verifiability in a source, even if that source isn't independent, and how much is too much. That seems like a question that should probably be asked NYC-wide rather than just this neighborhood, since available data will be pretty well standardized. I suspect there would be consensus for some amount of crime figures, but not for "bodega count" (I hope that was a hypothetical :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bodega count is no hypothetical lol, its currently included for most NYC neighborhoods. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I see the context. Guess I missed that before. I thought we were just listing stores, which seemed silly, but it's about food access. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a city like New York City, where crime and relative levels of crime are a rather meaningful including statistics on the major categories of crime -- murder, rape, robberies, felony assaults, burglaries, grand larcenies and motor vehicle theft -- is directly relevant. It's hardly "irrelevant trivia". As to sourcing, all crime tracking in the United States is done at the local level, then rolled up to states who share data with the federal government, as seen in the Uniform Crime Report. Outside of superhero movies, no place in the world has independent investigators going from door to door asking about crimes, and solving them. This is the job of the police. To insist that crime data is unreliable (as argued here and here) is ludicrous on its face. It's clear that these statistics on major crime categories is appropriate data for articles for this and other neighborhoods in New York City and that the CompStat source is exactly what we should be using as a reference. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alansohn about the specific crime statistics. With NYC being a major city, I think it is helpful to at least have info on what precincts serve the neighborhood and how relatively dangerous they are. Having a dearth of information on such topics is fairly useless to the reader - for example, the "Police and crime" section on Flatbush, Brooklyn, was almost totally blanked so that its text was in its entirety "Flatbush is patrolled by two precincts of the NYPD." Even useful information such as "Flatbush and Midwood's rate of violent crimes per capita is less than that of the city as a whole. The incarceration rate of 372 per 100,000 people is lower than that of the city as a whole." was removed on the basis this needed a secondary source. As Alansohn and I have mentioned several times, this data does not get collected outside the NYPD, the agency responsible for collecting it. The same applies for other types of information that has been removed.

However, as Rhododendrites points out, this data is standardized across NYC neighborhood articles, so we should discuss what types of info to exclude or include. The "Police and crime" section talks about precinct names and addresses, crime statistics relative to other parts of the city, and absolute crime statistics. In the "Fire safety" section, the info is largely the names and addresses of engines. The "Health" section talks about preterm birth rates, teenage mother birth rates, uninsured rates, air pollutants, smoker/obesity rate, fruits/veggies, self-descriptions of health, and number of bodegas per person (as opposed to supermarket access, which was a useful statistic until the Department of Health decided to switch it out in its 2018 report). I think at least some of these health stats can be removed, but not all of them, such as in the dispute above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for education sections, you seem to have added much more than is due. You also still don’t seem to understand what WP:DUEWEIGHT is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on exactly what forms of information you think should be included in an article about a NYC neighborhood as baseline facts without requiring independent/secondary sources (or point me to where you've done that)? Is it none? Or do you just disagree with some of what's being argued for inclusion? That EG (and, seemingly, others) disagrees with you on that matter doesn't mean they "don't seem to understand what WP:DUEWEIGHT is".

I still think this is a conversation best centralized, but I recognize that would be a lot of work. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think baseline facts is the information covered in a standard infobox. So like area, population, time zone, zip code, etc. I would point you to me not removing zip codes when they’re sourced to a random website but tagging them with Cn instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is we need a parameter in the infobox for "bodegas". Got it. :P

I would suggest that not everybody agrees with you that those are the only things that should be covered, even if only by primary sources. In fact I think there would be pretty broad agreement about some. There are also topics, like information about crime, which get such a massive amount of coverage as a whole for the city that there's a reasonable argument for standardizing, even if certain neighborhoods don't get as much secondary source coverage, since they're all drawing from the same primary sources anyway.

It seems like the claims you make throughout this thread are all presented in a brief, matter-of-fact way without making much of an effort to build consensus rather than saying people disagreeing with you "don't seem to understand" basic policy. I would argue that's not a terribly productive tack when you find yourself alone edit warring against multiple other editors in good standing. My two cents, anyway. Perhaps there's more backstory here than I'm aware of. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more backstory but it wouldn't be productive to get into. I’ve asked Epicgenius how extensive their additions of this information (they appear to be the only one to have added this sort of information to this sort of page) are, if we’re talking about more than the half dozen to a dozen pages already identified I’d agree with you that we need to centralize the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore for the time being the unsubstantiated allegation that I "still don't seem to understand what WP:DUEWEIGHT is", which is veering close to WP:ASPERSIONS. I understand the information in the infobox is definitely appropriate. However, deleting even basic information such as police precincts is not helpful to the reader at all (though I'm fine with deleting non-notable fire-engine info). In fact, the deletions fall on the opposite end of the WP:UNDUE spectrum - not having any community specific information other than history and infoboxes. This is especially true if a neighborhood's residents are particularly known to have health problems or the neighborhoods have high crime. Just because there aren't reliable sources now does not mean these can't be added later, it just means no one, including myself, has gotten around to it yet. At the end of the day, the goal of the article is to provide readers with sufficiently useful information, and deletions run counter to that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a neighborhood's residents are particularly known to have health problems or the neighborhood has notably high crime then that will be covered by WP:RS by definition... If theres no coverage then they can’t be known for something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This can be comparable to census data, actually. All of the data is posted by government sources, as I've kept saying. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask how many pages you’ve added this sort of information to? If its truly significant we probably do need to centralize this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 120 pages with this data. I agree we need to centralize the discussion; in fact, that's the main reason why I objected so much to the removals. If it were a scattered case of an article being overly detailed, this could be discussed on a more specific basis. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, if I had known it was that extensive I never would have tried to remove it piecemeal. It looks like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities already has a discussion about the use of US Census information so that would seem to be a good larger venue, I’m open to taking it higher or lower if thats what other people want though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the best scope for the discussion is. Of course WP Cities, WP NYC, and one of the VPs should be notified regardless but as for scope: the way NYC is organized, how its agencies operate, what kinds of data is collected, how well publicized that data is, and how things vary by neighborhood/borough/city ... just aren't the same as other cities (and that's not just New York exceptionalism). So a general RfC about what kind of data should be included for cities in general probably won't be terribly productive (no consensus/case-by-case seems inevitable) but focusing on NYC would both cover a lot of articles and be specific enough to yield some outcomes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Good point. Off the top of my head, I feel like an RFC on WT:NYC or a related page would be a good venue. I'm only concerned that it may be give an appearance of an NYC bias. WT:CITIES would be a better venue for a general discussion, I suppose, but the crux of the dispute is with NYC-specific data collection. Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy with WT:NYC or WT:CITIES, if the discussion happens at WT:NYC it will need to happen at some point in the future at WT:CITIES but I think having a local consensus to build from is probably just as valuable as avoiding the extra work of having a 90% similar discussion twice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]