Talk:Bushwick, Brooklyn

Stupid New Netherland Template

this new netherland template is total crap. it makes the article look like crap. 2 questions: how come brooklyn lacks an ugly template like this, and how come manhattan lacks an ugly template like this?

this template is further example of rich white people trying to keep a community blighted.

I don't think I see the template as "crap", but I may not agree with the current format/layout. If someone wants to research the history of New Netherland, Bushwick would be relevant. It is supposed to "float" to the right, so whitespace to the left should be avoided if possible. In my browser, whenever I click on a link in the template, the template "moves", and that may be why it's "ugly." But if it is converted to a template in the footer, the moving would probably be eliminated. Also, playing with the placement of images and the template may be helpful.

Brooklyn has this template. Since there is no link in the template to Manhattan, the template is not included in that article.

If you want to see a page that I think has a bad layout, see Gravesend, Brooklyn. Tinlinkin 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

24.189.7.86 06:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Seamus

Assault In Precinct 83

So a couple weeks ago I moved the New Netherlands box down to the History section where it seems happier. Brooklyn has a whole History article, so that's where the NN box is.

Anyway, what's with this "eight more assaults" than another precinct, and similar numbers? This kind of annual comparison is microscopic; the numbers are bound to fluctuate by half a dozen or more from year to year for reasons that little do do with whether a place has become safer or more perilous. An overall comparison of crime numbers for all parts of northern Brooklyn coving a few years might bring out information of statistical signficance, but the "New Bushwick" statistical presentation is pretty much useless as it stands. Jim.henderson 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

the point is to illustrate that Bushwick is comparable to Williamsburg. If you want to get rid of it, or perhaps just make a reference to that weekly numbers are similiar and avaibale on the compstat sight then feel free. Noremacmada

Most of the violent crime in the 90th Precinct occurs in the South Side and East Williamsburg sections. Bushwick has a high violent crime rate, higher then Williamsburg.

Nightlife for WHITES?

"Nightlife for white residents remains a problem, and they will need to commute to Williamsburg or Manhattan for their own brand of excitement."

This is such a racist statement, and stupid besides. I'm Puerto Rican (that's right- FROM Puerto Rico) and just moved into the neighborhood, and while my crowd is the hipster and artist set, I am very much not white. Ignorant hateful punks.

-Gaby from Guaynabo City and now Bushwick!

Okay then, if you know of nightlife spots, for hipsters, families, or whatevers, please include them. I'd love to know where to go locally. I think its wrong to sayt nightlife for whites as well, and I have no idea who added that word. noremacmada

Starr Space, Silent Barn, Northeast Kingdom, Space Space, Collision Machine, Bushwick Starr. Check out bushwickbk.com, there's been a big investment in the neighborhood and it remains more underground, probably in the way Williamsburg itself was 15-20 years ago. And the wording really does need to be addressed. It's nightlife for anyone who is interested in that kind of nightlife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.8.15 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Strand(ed)

I added the (ed) as a translation as a translation fro colonial english to modern american english. While in colonial times, the humor in and the root of strand appeared clear to Bushwick residents, who must have found this region surrounded by bog and swamp inaccessable to be "stranded" from the rest of bushwick, no one today will ever feel that williamsburg is geographically stranded from the rest of mainland brooklyn. The articles cited call the land "the strand," 310 years later, I think its safe to say that if they spoke todays english they'd call it the stranded. noremacmada

Eh? Today "strand" has been verbed, but was this already true 300 years ago? Alas, I'm not near my books, but "strand" is Old English for "river bank" or "beach". Eventually it came to be used nautically as "beached" meaning run aground upon a strand, but I thought in Shakespeare's time this hadn't happened yet. Lacking direct evidence, isn't it more likely the term "Bushwick Strand" referred to mudflats along the Left Bank of Newtown Creek? Jim.henderson 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Reads Like An Advertisement

Such as the Neighborhood section needs a reworking, it definitely is not objective in the least. That the "adventurous sort can cross Flushing Avenue, stroll down Knickerbocker Avenue" is not only a terrible way to put it but offensive as well. "The New Bushwick" section is also terrible, seeming like its just an advertisment for real estate agents trying to sell apartments to young "hip" kids in Bushwick. --Vsthesquares 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism

This article is written largely subjectively and has areas of blantant racism. "African Americans and Puerto Rican migrants, who were poorer and had a lower social class than their white counterparts," for example. Saying they were both poorer and of a lower social class is redundant for one, but what it the need for "than their white counterparts"? "The neighborhood's character becomes less like Williamsburg and more similar to that of neighboring Bed-Stuy and Brownsville, Brooklyn once crossing Gates Ave" is also really offensive. Is it because there are a lot less "white people"? The neighborhoods each have different very distinct characters to them. For example, Bed-Stuy is largely an african-american neighborhood with a long history of being a very afro-centric arts and cultural center. While Bushwick has a very different history with once being a area plagued by the mafia, which caused a flight of people. afterwards the area of the world immigrants moved in from was more Caribbean and Latin American countries, largely Dominican and Puerto Rican. Saying they have similar character is untrue and straight out racist. --Vsthesquares 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you about the "adventurous" and other strange descriptions here, you're revising history quite a bit in the second part of your comment. Bushwick plagued by the mafia, which caused a flight of people? Uh, no. Knife fights and robberies by Puerto Ricans and blacks starting in the 60s is what chased out tens of thousands of Italians and Germans. Same as in the Bronx, same as in Harlem -- yes, Harlem! East Harlem was solidly Italian until just the 1950s. Be wishy-washy and overly-sensitive and deny and obfuscate and accuse me of vicious racism, but the fact is, blockbusting would not have worked if the newbies hadn't lived up to their reputations. Your reading of the Gates Avenue comment shows you don't even know anything about Bushwick, you're likely some activist outsider defending the poor dumb darkies from evil whitey. How insulting for them. If you knew anything about or spent some real time in Bushwick, you'd know south of Gates Bushwick gets blacker. That's why the comment about Bed-Stuy and Brownsville (which I think is stupid only because it's so passive -- just say it gets more African-American!) is there. My Italian grandparents were born and raised in Bushwick - there was mafia, duh, and it was always a rough neighborhood as most middle-class areas of NYC were, but don't try to change history and pretend there was anything near the level of random, violent crime, decay, filth, and fire as there was after the Italians LEFT.

funny, because actually i spend almost all day every day in Bushwich since i work there at a community organization called Make The Road By Walking. I think I know the neighborhood pretty damn well. (Vsthesquares 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

I think what people need to realize is this. Crime has nothing to do with color. It is true when the Puerto Ricans and African Americans arrived violent crime (especially robberies for example) did rise. However Puerto Ricans and African Americans are not programmed to commit crimes. It has to do with the economic situation these newcomers were in. Middle class replaced by lower income. Those social problems that come with poverty only got worse as more and more lower income people moved into Bushwick. It effected everyone in the community so those who could leave, left. Those who could not stayed. Not everyone in Bushwick today is a criminal. Unfortunately there are a lot of criminals. Both petty and more serious due to the economic situation in the area. You have kids running around today in Bushwick doing whatever the hell they want. I would go as far as saying most kids. That's becuase their parents or mother which is more likely in Bushwick had them as a child herself and could not provide for them. If they are now not working multiple jobs to try and get out that hell they are strung out on liqour, drugs, or sex. Either way the kids do not get the guidance they need. As a result they are raised on the streets and in Bushwick there is nothing but negativity on the streets. For some kids they don't even get a break at home. So less to do with color, more to do with economic situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

whah whah whah...move out deek. The Bushwick you live in is not the Bushwick I live in.

let me know when you are ready to hash out our two viewpoints and have a neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacmada (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographic History of Bushwick

This has always seemed a little hazy to me. The 1939 WPA Guide to New York City says that the neighborhood was still mostly German-American at that point. If African Americans and Puerto Ricans started moving in "after WWII" then did they arrive at the same time as the Italians? It seems like the Italians came and went pretty fast. Sylvain1972 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was Italian and German, but it was German long before it was Italian so maybe they were sticking with historical facts. African-Americans started moving in after WWII in limited numbers, and Puerto Ricans didn't come until the 1950s, again in limited numbers until the 1960s, when the remaining Germans and all the Italians started leaving in droves.

It seems you are right, and that Italian immigration began after WWI and continued steadily until the early 1950s.Sylvain1972 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Hipsters" are invading this page and it should be locked and revised. THe section of neighborhood starts out by saying adventurous hipsters.. what the fuck is that. I guess the invasion is begging.

I agree a lot of people with obvious real estate interest have been looking to Wikipedia to try and advertise neighborhoods. Usually stretching the truth, or in other words lieing. Bushwick is a low income Puerto Rican community with significant numbers of African Americans and now Mexicans and Dominicans. The community is of the lower income strata, a high poverty neighborhood, and there are many social problems. Only recently has the community been expierencing renewal (well rebuilding) and honestly it has been at the expense of the residents. Since many hipsters can't afford to live in Manhattan real estate agents have been trying to generate hype and convince people to move to Bushwick due to it's proximity to the island and mass transit options. Of course they do not want people to see the scope of the community's problems. They hope for displacement through gentrification. As a result there is a severe low income housing shortage in the area and an unnecessary abundance of luxury condo and co-op units, specifically aimed at "hipsters". Most of which is unaffordable to local residents. Now no one knows for sure if Bushwick will ever gentrify. The area is home to a significant permanent low income population which resides in public housing provided by the NYCHA and other programs. Also the real estate market in NYC is changing and expected to slow overall. That means while places like the Upper East Side may see a slight decline in property values, places like Bushwick may see disinvestment. So basically this is supposed to be factual not an advertisement. The real issues in the community should be stated. "Hype" and advertisements should not be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the situation in terms of real estate and housing but thats not the point. MANY parts of this article are biased and it tries to de-humanize its current residents (puerto rican,black ...everything except hipter) and simply makes them less of people compared to the hipsters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.233 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the hipster propaganda begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.233 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So feel free to edit as you seem fit. The first paragraph "Neighborhood" is the only one in the article that seems to try a little too hard to push the area. I also dispute the last statement in the last paragraph "Community Organizing in Bushwick". Make The Road By Walking is still making plenty noise in Bushwick. Educating the locals on the exploitation of the community.

The first paragraph "Neighborhood" should be deleted and replaced with "Demographics" and "Land Use" sections. "Historical Bushwick" is fine. "Decline" is fine. "New Bushwick" is weird, what does it have to do with a new Bushwick? It discusses East Williamsburg and Ridgewood, Queens. Should be replaced with a small paragraph describing gentrification and it's effects on the community. Transportation is fine. Parks, transportation, are fine. "Community Organizing" should be expanded and again the last statement about being pushed aside is disputed. Maybe make it a subsection of a gentrification section? Notable residents is fine. I will give it a try later.

Okay I added some useful information and eliminated the last of the advertisements/hype. Added "Signs of Gentrification And It's Effects On The Community", "Demographics", and "Land Use" sections. Reorganized too.

BTW, here is a video of an anti-gentrification protest in Bushwick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmZHl5vvVYc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if this page is being invaded by activist whack jobs. Why on earth would you not want new people with money and stable lifestyles to move into your neighborhood. The article needs to recognize the fact there are indeed two Bushwicks, the old Bushwick made up of those unfortunate souls who've lived there all their life, through the riots and the gang wars, and new Bushwick, a safe, cheap place for twentysomethings to live. I can understand providing the negative light on the area, but you must shine the positive light on it as well for it to be neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacmada (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There have always been two Bushwicks. I was born in(1968)and lived in the area of Bushwick known as "Wyckoff Heights" until 1984. Until the 77 blackout I remember all the beople on my block (Himrod street between Cypress & St. Nicholis Aves) as being either Italian or Greman. Even after the blackout of 77, the area of Bushwick north of Wyckoff Avenue never saw the arson, abandonment, and rapid demographic shift that the rest of Bushwick saw. Wychoff Heights has always looked and felt more like neighboring Ridgewood than BushwickScootie68 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be factual and show the current state of the area. Not advertise. Statements like:

"It is fifteen minutes from Manhattan by either of the two subway lines serving it."

"Cheap Space for Hipsters"

These statements are just ads, trying to make the area appealing to White hispsters:

"Residents of the former artists colony in Gowanus are already making plans for moving to Bushwick"

What does this matter? Who cares?

"The neighborhood is 25-50% white"

Yeah right. You should be more specific and mention they are Hispanic White if you want to add that. Non-Hispanic Whites are a minority in Bushwick, there are still less Whites in Bushwick today then there were in the 1970s believe it or not. Only now there are more younger Whites, when at that time most left were senior citizens.

Also, two Bushwicks? Spanish Barrio problems? Look, enough with the racism. I have been following your edits for some time Noremacmada and this is not the first time you have added statements like that. Last time you changed it from "Today's Social Problems to "Minority Social Problems". I don't know if it is intentional but it makes the longstanding population sound inferior. As though anarchy is taking place involving the Blacks and Latinos but White non-Hispanics are somehow immune. The social problems effect everyone in the community. From the Puerto Rican kid raised up by his mother living below poverty to the hipster living in some loft blogging on the net all day across the street. When you live in the ghetto you deal with the ghetto problems. You might not be starving, but you have to live among your neighbors. You have to go outside sometime. Bushwick has a lot of problems with violent crime, there are a lot of robberies in the area and that effects hipsters. Vandalism is a problem. GLA's, larceny from vehicles and homes, burglaries. Never a guarantee, but a real concern. Neglect from the city which still exist. Why do you think the place is so filthy and run down? I agree a Hipster might not have to worry about getting gunned down 24/7, it's not like he or she is selling crack (hopefully not), but you think a group of kids robbing random people gives a damn about skin color? In fact they see someone White and they instantly think money. What about someone pissed off about the rent going up, blaming it on Whites and smacking around the first White person they see. It happens. Yes it can happen in in a middle class White community in Queens too, but not with nearly the same frequency. Violent crime is unfortunately common in Bushwick. Very common. It is on another level entirely to be honest.

Bushwick as it is now is poor as hell, poorer then I have personally ever seen it and I have been in Bushwick height of the crack epidemic. I grew up in the South Bronx in the late 1980s and I am Puerto Rican myself. What is going on now is a rebuilding, nothing much has changed for longstanding residents. Only now the rent burden is at an all time high and it is harder to make ends meat. Other social problems are the same. You think crime was bad before, it still is. Kids get jumped, shot, stabbed in Bushwick all the time over petty bullshit. From stares to bumped shoulders, from escalating arguments, problems with girlfriends (and men). Domestic violence is still widespread. Only real difference is these days less people are getting killed over drugs and overall less people are dieing from wounds. Back in the late 80s people were getting killed like crazy over crack spots. Today, you can have 20 people selling marijuana on a block in Bushwick and they will all make decent money (to poor, decent means they can afford designer sneakers, clothes, extras they can't on typical paycheck). What about police sweeps? Sweeping up everyone and I mean everyone in front of a building or on a corner, happens all the time in Bushwick, and do not act like White non-Hispanic people do not use drugs. Those are just some examples.

It's obvious you personally want to keep the page an advertising piece, however the facts are the facts. It is fair to mention gentrification, it is an issue in the community, but you take it too far, to the point of hype. One paragraph for each category is great. The decline history is important and is significant in time, Almost half a century. The last paragraph which describes social problems in the area currently which still exist and are cited with statistical sources.

---the problem with that statistical sources is that the chart is scaled improperly. Additioanly, there is no baseline, we don't know if bushwick is closer to the bottom or the top of its wide range. I could produce a chart that makes Bushwick look like any other place in Brooklyn.

Your argument for neutrality is ridicules considering Bushwick is a low income community that in recent years has been experiencing some gentrification after neglect for decades. The place is going to sound negative when described. There is much more to Bushwick then cheap rents for hipsters. Gentrification is a small part of what the neighborhood is about. Neutrality is truth, not trying to make the area seem better then it is.

--Gentrification is a huge part of what this neighborhood has been about since 2003. When census data comes out in four years I'll be proved right. Anecdoatally, get on the J train at Kiosciusko or Myrtle or the L anywhere in Bushwick and you'll see young fresh faces on the platform. These people make up the neighborhood and they contribute economically. Why do you think all the buildings are being rehabbed? Now, if you are willing to accept a paragraph explaining the recent gentrifcation phenomenon, then i am willing to accept the paragraphs explaining how poor and hard up the long time residents are and how gentrification is adversely affecting them. I also willing to move the 15 minutes to Manhattan clause to transportation, if park space gets put into land use above projects.

BTW, is there a particular reason you must delete the photo tour by Time Magazine. Unfortunately that is the REAL Bushwick, not the advertisements in the New York Times. If you want to hide the truth from a prospective resident (a hipster in your case), good luck trying to hide that reality when they get there.

--There is no way a white serbian took all those pictures, it's all poses

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2007/boogie_bushwick/

Wikiwiki718 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

--Additionally, those photos are extremely stylized and have a goal of communicating one photographer's idea. They are certainly not representative of the Bushwick that I live in. 24.188.79.147 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rebuilding "the New Bushwick" Section: Reconciling Old with New

Demographics

We keep the racial data, and I drop my objection to your questionable crime data which comes from the same source. We then include in demographics the gdp as of 1999 and compare it to that of Brooklyn in 1999.

Parks?

OK, the bickering about gentrification is getting old, so how bout we add Maria Hernandez and Irving Square to the parks section? 24.188.79.147 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries

Is it possible to provide street boundaries like is done for Bedford Stuyvesant, East New York, or Brownsville?

Bushwick does not border Brownsville or East New York. It borders Ridgewood, East Williamsburd, and Bed Stuy. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.212.216 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph "Low-income" mention

Is it really necessary to call a neighborhood low-income in the first sentence? I realize that there may be truth to the description but there certainly has to be a more fair lead sentence. Is a neighborhood defined primarily by the income of it's residents or by other qualities like geography, architecture, industry, or by some quirky idiosyncrasy? I'm on the fence about it myself and I'm not sure whether is helps or hurts the residents.Warrenking (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

There should be more than just 5 sentences in the introduction to the article. To that end, perhaps including some of information regarding history or politics should be as I did here: [1]. Also the picture in the introduction can be kept yet it should perhaps be re-sized as to not dominate the article. Also a map is perhaps more informative in the introduction that a picture of Knickerbocker Avenue. The Bed-Stuy article does a good job of demonstrating this, in fact it was the inspiration for my creating the same map with Bushwick highlighted.--El Mayimbe (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Performed some rearranging to match the style of other articles in the Brooklyn, like Brooklyn Heights and Bed-Stuy. I hope these changes make the article a little more streamlined.--El Mayimbe (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • User 173.52.176.83, seems to be very attached to his article and is constantly reverting edits. I address him/her on his/her talk page, [2]. If a consensus cannot be achieved then the only option is reverting and requesting page protection. I would hate to do that because the editor believes he/she is doing the best thing for the article. And with some guidance could actually contribute a lot.--El Mayimbe (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC

Laying out the case for page protection

The article as written currently conforms to the standards for all other neighborhoods in Brooklyn. it contains, like all other neighborhoods

1. A photo demonstrating the quality of the housing stock
2. Statistics on the people
3. A history section
4. Notable Residents

The Bushwick article is non-conformist in its inclusion of:

1. Public servants
2. Education infrastructure
3. Parkland

Knowing the Bushwick page well, having written most of it myself, I do feel that perhaps Bushwick's representatives should be spun off into their own category page and Bushwick's history should be spun of into its own article. Furthermore, I feel that the article is somewhat dated, lasting having had a major revision and addition in 2009.

As far as shifting boundaries, I could care less. But they should be listed in nearness to Manhattan, as that is how the vast majority of Bushwick residents experience their passage of them.

PUBLIC SERVANTS DO NOT NEED TO BE LISTED TWICE. THEY ARE SCUM. THEY ARE BELOW DETESTABLE. THEY GET ONLY ONE MENTION. QUIEN HACE LA REYNA? They go in the public servants section in the body.

Your little non-conforming community board map belongs in the article I agree; but again, it does not conform to the Brooklyn neighborhood standards...further it should be placed below the shot of Knickerbocker Ave that both defines the neighborhood and is also where all the commerical revitalization money has been going for the last 5 years, so clearly the City and State inform that view. But, because the article is so large, its table of contents is also large, creating the situation where your CB map plugs a nice hole at the top of the article.

What I'd like going forward

For hipsters/artists/yuppies/transplants/real-estate agents/investors in the neighborhood, etc. to stop messing with this wiki article that describes Bushwick with a neutral and objective tone and to stop trying to discuss changes in demographics when through to 2010 Bushwick is about 89% hispanic and black... Look up census data 2010 for the breakdown of the neighborhood demographics... This is not meant to sound racist though i'm sure I will have a hugh backlash for these comments but white folks don't need that much attention... If the demographics in a neighborhood were 90% white and asian and 9% hispanic and black there wouldn't be so much need to obsess over the fact the black and hispanic folks typically make their presence felt along such and such streets and avenues... because that would sound racist...

Same notion should apply to all races... Furthermore if there has never been a section for the hispanic dominated restaurants, barber shops/salons, community centers, etc. then the 10-15 locations that cater to the new group does not need to be included either unless there is some special importance or historic significance to these places...

By the way, this is not coming from an angry neighbor, or an upset renter whose been priced out or whatever... I live in Ridgewood.. this is simply coming from an objective standpoint seeing the incredible amount of interest that gets placed into these neighborhoods as soon as a couple of white folk move into the neighborhood...

74.72.180.138 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So what do you want?

Because I know I do not want hack politicians to try to associate themselves with what is not their work. In terms of white people, the article does not overly dwell on the changes in the neighborhood save to say that artist and professionals have been moving in. The article does not assign race to these artists and professionals, and presumably, someone from any ethic background could be an artist or a professional.

The article as written is very neutral, and in fact counciously avoids race, save to say that Bushwick is noteably uniform in the ethnicity of its residents and that its residents are predominimantly Latino. We also have pictures with Puerto Rican Flags in them.

I don't understand why we have to portray Bushwick as some impoverished ghetto. I'd rather portray it as hat it is: A vibrant and fulfilling nieghborood in the shadow of Manhattan that has made it through the dark years of mafia infestation, the Great Society, and the crack epidemic, and is finally getting to experience a little bit of the good life in terms of attention from private and public capital. Instead of fighting against the change, we should be asking how to turn it into something positive for all.

After all, who really wants to go back to the bad old days when you go out and sit on your stoop and three crackheads come by trying to sell you a bicycle they just stole from some kid for $10. Do you? Really?

I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacmada (talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

response

The only reason why I said what I said was because some poster had originally posted a comment on here about including the changes in demographics specifically towards the wyckoff and irving avenues to give people a sense of where the white people are moving too... you cannot tell me that does not sound ridiculous...

If I were to post on here that Maspeth is mostly Polish but the hispanics, blacks and koreans are on these avenues... that would sound ridiculously bad... It would seem like I'm telling the people which avenues to avoid for fear of stepping into diversity... well here the proposal by the person's comment that I removed was that we do the opposite by encouraging folks to move into these areas that are now becoming predominantly white...

I am perfectly fine with the way Bushwick is described on this page... It is exactly what it's supposed to be... objective. I don't think I have ever seen a neighborhood page had so many changes over the past couple of years as this one... It's like everyday people are looking for new things to include about the latest cafe that opened up on 56 himrod st. (random example, not really the case) or the latest condominium that opened up on wilson ave... These are not things that need to be posted on this page...

This page is supposed to include facts about this area and granted it should follow the changes which it has... I noticed you mentioned how this page has pictures of the puerto rican flags on it like it is a problem... You do realize that the Puerto rican population alone of hispanics in Bushwick outweighs the whites and asians by far in this neighborhood... This area is still about 50-60% Puerto Rican and Dominican and then another 20% all the other different hispanic communities... then its 20% black with most of them being Trinidad, Jamaica, Guyana, as well as a strong African American group as well typically along the Bed-stuy border but begin to make their presence felt more so past Wilson throughout. and then come the rest... The ghetto white and asian folk that have lived here for decades... and the new group maybe about 7% which includes the new artist/hipster/investor group mainly comprised of whites and asians...

So, is the page wrong? No it's not... It's simply an objective page about the changes that have taken place in the neighborhood but still remain about 90% working class minorities. Once again, this page is not here to be an advertisement... This page is supposed to describe OBJECTIVELY the neighborhood in it's entirety...

And for the record, crime is up in the area from last year... and the murder rate last year was higher than it was in 1998 when Bushwick had 12 murders... Last year has 13 murders and the crime rate had shot up from the previous year as well... Not exactly safe to walk around yet...

198.61.20.166 (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So then the current version is okay

I agree that the current version of the article is objective. I do not understand how the posters comment "We also have pictures with Puerto Rican Flags in them." can be percieved as having a negative connotation unless, for some reason, the person reading finds something disagreeable about pictures of three pieces of red, white, and blue fabric stitched together. It seemed to me like the poster was highlighting the fact that the article openly acknowledges the predominant ethnicity both textually and graphically.

As far as crime "shooting up", I'm not a statistician....well actually.... But really, assaults and robberies are in line with the city's average. If you can't walk around in Bushwick, then where can you walk around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.133.8 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the current version is good

I just finished reading the whole article... and the information that everyone has put on here describing it's history is fantastic... the whole article reads like a dream and describes it in it's totality. From the german breweries, to the italians mainly from sicily, to white flight, through the blackout, to the effects of revitalization and gentrification making the neighborhood attractive for artists and professionals... And the schools, city members, actors, parks and everything is broken down so neatly... Unless any dramatic changes in the neighborhood occur, the article should be left as is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.180.138 (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to an article is supposed to convey a very brief, very high level description of the topic. When the introduction delves into migration patterns and history, it it too low level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacmada (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

response

You have a serious obsession with this site. I urge you to read about 85% of the other wiki articles and their page long introductions before you come up with another problem on this page...

24.193.29.210 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rbgnyc

I undid the edits by this contributor. I am assuming good faith, yet the edits are quite biased. The contributor can edit so long as it is conducive to the improvement of the page.--El Mayimbe (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Exact population ( 2010 ) : 129,239

The exact number of inhabitants of Bushwick is 129,239 ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_nta.pdf ). To correct it in the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCFC (talk • contribs) 13:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bushwick, 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/20090103072810/http://www.ufcw.org:80/awake_bushwick/about_bushwick/index.cfm to http://www.ufcw.org/awake_bushwick/about_bushwick/index.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824040003/http://www.upfromflames.com/uff_path/uff_path_demographic_changes.html to http://www.upfromflames.com/uff_path/uff_path_demographic_changes.html

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} 00:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bushwick, 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/20090206234317/http://rbscc.org:80/default.asp?menu1_Id=5 to http://www.rbscc.org/default.asp?menu1_Id=5

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} 04:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bushwick, 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081211145909/http://www.myinsulators.com:80/glassfactories/brookfield.html to http://www.myinsulators.com/glassfactories/brookfield.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081211084240/http://www.nyc.gov:80/html/hpd/html/about/bushwickwalkingtour.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/about/bushwickwalkingtour.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 15:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bushwick, 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/20090206234317/http://www.rbscc.org/default.asp?menu1_Id=5 to http://www.rbscc.org/default.asp?menu1_Id=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bushwick, 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/20120520140551/http://www.blockmagazine.com/block_stock_barrel.php to http://www.blockmagazine.com/block_stock_barrel.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209175026/http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php to http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php

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) 22:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Bushwick, 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/20160518054401/http://centropr.hunter.cuny.edu/education/puerto-rican-studies/story-us-puerto-ricans-part-four to http://centropr.hunter.cuny.edu/education/puerto-rican-studies/story-us-puerto-ricans-part-four
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927013303/http://www.bklyngenealogyinfo.com/Town/Bushwick/Bushwick2.html to http://www.bklyngenealogyinfo.com/Town/Bushwick/Bushwick2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114115912/http://www.bklyngenealogyinfo.com/Town/Bushwick/Bushwick4.html to http://www.bklyngenealogyinfo.com/Town/Bushwick/Bushwick4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114115917/http://www.bklyngenealogyinfo.com/Town/Wmsburgh.html to http://www.bklyngenealogyinfo.com/Town/Wmsburgh.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/hpd/html/about/bushwickwalkingtour.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.industrialnewyork.com/rail/2003515bushwick/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228022408/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs083pct.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs083pct.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505135205/http://velazquez.house.gov/index.shtml to http://velazquez.house.gov/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227173430/http://brooklynlibrary.org/branch_library_detail.jsp?branchpageid=96 to http://www.brooklynlibrary.org/branch_library_detail.jsp?branchpageid=96
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227193843/http://brooklynlibrary.org/branch_library_detail.jsp?branchpageid=202 to http://www.brooklynlibrary.org/branch_library_detail.jsp?branchpageid=202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829010503/http://usps.whitepages.com/post_office/11237 to http://usps.whitepages.com/post_office/11237
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525030524/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/home/home.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/home/home.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714121201/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/developments/bklynbushwicke.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/developments/bklynbushwicke.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024041206/http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/about/bushwick-walking-tour.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/about/bushwick-walking-tour.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714163520/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/developments/bklynpalmetto.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/developments/bklynpalmetto.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426051107/http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/B412/ to http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/B412/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509082357/http://acharlesny.com/aboutac/aboutac.htm to http://acharlesny.com/aboutac/aboutac.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9418676

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) 16:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• HipHopStreetartinbushwick.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Nightlife

Why is a venue like Mood Ring included under "nightclubs" but places like Bossa Nova and Sultan Room keep getting removed?

Sicilians of Bushwick

This thread is dedicated to all Sicilian immigrants/Sicilian Americans past and present who remembers the tight knit community and stronghold of Bushwick, Brooklyn. 24.44.28.93 (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)