Talk:Essex County, New Jersey

New Jersey Unassessed High‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Current Problems, very POV, factually inaccurate

This section needs a tremendous amount of work. The overall im pression one gets is that the taxes are so high, because, as is written in the article, the tax money is going to fund "ghetto east". Although there is SOME factual basis for the author's claims, I know that the bulk of my property taxes goes to Bloomfield.

Don't get me wrong, see my userpage for my political bias. This just needs a lot of work.

Its a VERY complicated issue, and even the counties with no "ghetto" pay enormous property taxes.

Further, I suspect that this is the work of User:Mr._Treason, a vandal from a year ago...

Roodog2k (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found this part to be somewhat POV, I mean the "ghetto east", sure there are some parts of the city of Newark and surrounding ares that are not the nicest places, but it's not "that" bad. This was obviously someone who the last time they paid attention to New Jersey was in like the 70's or something.

population density

the article previously stated The county is the seventh most densely populated in the nation, after the five boroughs of New York City (each of which is a unique county), Hudson County, and San Francisco County in California, which is made up entirely of the city of San Francisco. Alternately, Essex County could be described as the most densely populated "suburban" American county, since the six counties denser than it are all mostly, if not entirely, made up of a city or several cities.

This isn't true. First of all, seven counties are named there (the five boroughs plus two), not six. Second, there are other counties with population densities greater than Essex (6298 per square mile), including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (11234 per square mile; the city and county are legally the same); Suffolk County, Massachusetts (11788 per square mile, contains Boston). I suspect that there are others, probably others containing major cities, but don't have the time to look for them right now.

Anyway, Essex County is not "suburban". Well, maybe some parts are, but no one has ever called Newark Suburban, so there are even fewer grounds for such a designation.

Livingston's Jewish Population

The Essex County, New Jersey and Livingston, New Jersey articles have conflicting statements.

The former states "...and especially Livingston, where the population is reportedly nearly 60% Jewish", while the latter states "Livingston is approximately 30% Jewish, one of the higher percentages of Jews in any American municipality".

60%, while certainly possible, seems innacurately high and I would be very interested in seeing the data to back it up. LoveOfFate 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk Page of the Livingston, NJ article for more on this conversation. MKaiserman 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even newer stuff posted on the Livingston Talk Page on the changes on this page and the Livingston, NJ page regarding the Jewish population of Essex County and Livingston. MKaiserman 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute TONE/CONTENT

Overall, the whole county section needs objectivity. The tone of the article itself seems intent on demonizing and marginalizing the minority (ie: black) population of the "inner-city". It is highly sensationalist to say the three eastern Essex cities are the most "dangerous", "deprived", "poorest" in the nation. It is also incorrect. According to the 2000 census (since then, reported crime is down since 1999), in NJ alone, Atlantic County alone has a higher total crime rate, 10 counties in Florida have a higher rate see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/00ccdb/cc00_tabB6.pdf) ALSO, regarding poverty, If the posters were willing to look at census reports, they would find that African-Americans in the Newark metro area (including those 3 cities) have the top 3 highest household income for African-Americans metro areas in the country, (after Oakland,CA and DC/Atlanta) This is a classic example of how complex the picture is and how the use of superlatives do not tell the full story.

There are definitely neighborhoods in Newark, et. al that are the most deprived and/or backwards in the nation for sure. But to paint the whole of eastern Essex cities with that broad brush is grossly misrepresenting the facts. This is a mixed income area with many stable neighborhoods and different types of people and different income levels. There are estate areas in South and North Newark, East Orange, and Upper Irvington. The trend in the last 10 years has been a rebuilding of cities, not deterioration.

The vote on succession does not deserve such detailed focus and it has the making of someone who is using it for political purposes.

remove sections

The editoralizing and apparently original research found in the two sections really bothers me. Its mostly uncited, and the use of weasel words color the article in such a way to exaggerate the issues and has the subtle effect of blaming Newark, East Orange, and Irvington for the counties issues.

Further, the other section ~~in Demographics~~ desribing where certain ethnic groups are migrating is pure speculation and at best an accurate emerical observation. No matter what, its unverifiable and further supports the tone of the article, which I would be inclined to call racist, if I were not assuming good faith.

I think we should consider removal of those sections.

Roodog2k 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roodog2k 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed section

OK, removed the section which was more demographic information. This included commentary which was mostly emperical observation regarding demographics. Anyway, I kept the cited material, since it relevant and interesting, and merged that back into the demographic information. Roodog2k 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EssexSeal.jpg

Image:EssexSeal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]