Talk:Stamford Hill

Untitled

Stamford Hill: North or East London? i always thought of it as North London especially as it has the N' postcode but until recently i didnt realise it was actually in the Borough of Hackney which is classified as East London (i always sought of assumed St' Hill was part of Haringey). I guess its one of those wierd boundary anomalies which no one probably 100% knows the answer to. (unsigned by Dr Girard)

St H was always a part of Hackney/St Newington, and always the furthest edge. St H was the furthest extent of the Hackney Turnpike Trust, so it was where the 'metropolitan' roads were made up to, historically. Later, it was the terminus of the trams. This is reflected in Haringey starting a couple of hundred yards down the hill on the N. side. These areas need to dovetail somewhere, and it might as well be here 8^) Kbthompson 11:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Point of View

A rather partisan set of amendments have been added today (27 Nov 2006); while I welcome all contributions, it is a wiki protocol that it should not be partisan. If the unknown contributor would care to correct the mis-links, mis-spelling, apply some measured balance and add some citations for their stated opinions, it would be much appreciated.

I do know that there are planning problems felt very deeply by the community in SH; but LBH apply some of the most relaxed planning controls in the UK to the community. There is a wider community that needs to be taken into account, also; as well as nationally applied planning controls.

Wiki is intended to be encyclopaedic and doesn't provide a platform for unsubstantiated points of view. Kbthompson 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a story out there which is part of the lifes of many OJ's is Stamford hill. Whilst i apologise for my spelling mistakes which i will repair with time, you are free to point out where factual in accurecies occur. I have tried to give both sides of the story and feel free to add an outsiders dimension. However if you happen to be unaware of somthing, it is possibly still true.

I know a little, which is always dangerous. Personally, I would always like to see articles which reflect well on both LBH and the Hassidic community. I feel you put your PoV, a little strongly on the negative side. Wiki is intended to be encyclopaedic, and not partisan. I put the warning signs up to give you the opportunity to revise your text. By posting here, you do agree to the wiki editing process. I understand the difficulty in explaining the issues, the community is really quite unique in Europe. Conflict is always difficult to review in a balanced way - but see for instance Broadway Market], where there is also a dispute. The story is told by reference to reputable and well known news organisations. I would suggest that is the route you take, and not attempt to draw your own conclusions for the reader. Is that fair? It would also be better, and earn more respect, if you signed in (many use a nom de plume). Kbthompson 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How many times is small stamford hill in the media? can you substantiate everything on your articles? besides, does the stating of the Shabbat siren portray Stamford hill in a bad light which is the impression i get from your edit on the first dispute.

I am not intereted in portraying anthing or anyone in a good or bad light I am providing info some of which may be hard to substantiate online. I can only ask you to stand on SH friday dusk and you will hear the siren!

By the way, the shabbat herald is only on in the winter, when shabbat comes in earlier and the summer, when it might disturb other residents as shabbat comes in in the late evening hours, it is switched off —Preceding unsigned comment added by Similairnametoyou (talk • contribs) 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I provide references for anything I write, I certainly have no problem with the Friday dusk siren, and I don't see why you got that impression. I merely state that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedic entry, and so should contain material that can be substantiated.

Removing the 'requires work' flags will only get your IP banned for vandalism, so please don't do that. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and would hope that your contribution can be rewritten to be suitable for inclusion as an encyclopaedic entry. Kbthompson 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC

Well the lack of info with regards to the OJ community is what made me write. But seeing that you seem to bee intent on denying any detailed insight into life here for the majority of Stamfordhillians i will allow you to rewrite history and im sorry i didnt mean to exist.

Whilst the LDF dispute is somthing i cannot yet find online documentation for, the present SH artical is if not wrriten very well factully correct and substantiated.

I hope somone in the wider community can ADD an outsiders perpective though.

I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing, and not saying that mine is the only perspective in the world. I value your contribution, and merely say it needs to take a more encyclopaedic viewpoint. I did contribute a lot of the historical information for SH (that at least is verifiable). It moved the article from 'harmless' to 'mostly harmless'. I think you probably have a lot to contribute on the diversity of the Jewish OJ perspective, and I for one, would like to see it here. You do have strong opinions about the local situation, and that does show through. I'm sure you're well able to edit your own material, and I've tried to give you that respect. Please do give it a go. Kbthompson 14:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? A balanced article from Ynet. The article on SH would benefit from a picture of Haredim, but it should be someone willing to have their picture used. Kbthompson 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote Stamford Hill today para, wikified, corrected sp, thumb'd image (thanks for adding it). Removed 'under fives' as the BBC article referred to Stokie. Will revise final para to indicate pressure on accommodation, link to Jewish Life article and to indicate controversy. I hope the unregistered user agrees with this incorporation of his substantive changes into the article. Kbthompson 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the under five article is relevant as Stoke Newington minus Stamford hill does not have a boom of under fives. The bbc is almost certainly refering to Stamford Hill which is often misnamed as Stokie. Please reinsert highlighting this.

You cannot infer what the BBC says (even if they're wrong), the article says:

In the UK, the birth rate is higher but not enough to sustain population growth. Two groups, however, are more likely than most to heed the Tories' call. The rate of teen pregnancies here is among the highest in the world; and there's a mini baby boom in the fashionable middle classes. In London's Stoke Newington - the new Islington - there are said to be more children under five than anywhere else in Europe.

There is no reference to Hasidim, nor to Stamford Hill. The ONS does this data by ward, look at the census data for Stoke Newington (in article). I disagree, the full article is here. The Jewish population of Stokie forms less than 3%. Figure 2.1:Population density 0 to 19 year olds might help your case. If, and when, I approach the final paragraph I shall refer to it.

I hope that satisfies you. I'm neither seeking to shut you up, nor deny what you say - just find a form of words which is not partisan and based on evidence - as suits an encyclopaedic entry, and is agreeable to all. Hope that helps. Kbthompson 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kbthompson, I do agree with and thank you for the revamp of my article. However the bbc article is relevant as the bbc must be refering to Stamford Hill as Stokie does NOT have a baby boom. I used to live in Springfield and I clearly remeber Post being addressed to stoke newington so it would make sense for the beeb to refer to "this part of the world" as Stoke newington making the BBC article true. At the end of the day there is a baby boom as you seem to know and the baby boom is in stamford hill. Otherwise please explain what the bbc is refering to. Most under fives in Europe is a staggering Stat which should reside somwhere in the article.

Hi, again. I've gone back to the census data. This table is interesting. I looked at New River, as this specifically covers Stamford Hill. There is a significant spike in 0-4 year olds, but not that great a difference between the Jewish and Christian communities (about 5 to 4); the significant thing here is more that there is a corresponding spike in the number of 20-24, 25-29 and 30-34 year olds - all in prime child bearing years! - right across religions. It's the nature of housing in the area that attracts couples with young children (as well as its relative safety) that accounts for the baby boom. For me that was unexpected. Looking at central Hackney gives similar spikes, but not as pronounced. LBH had better get busy building the schools!

I'll try to revise the rest of the article later today. I hope it meets with your approval. Kbthompson 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've revamped that para into 'Stamford Hill Today', indicated the controversy based on the Reuters/YNet article. Linked in the additional census tables and LBH children booklet. I think it is balanced and evidential, and includes your point of view. I hope you agree it is now 'more encyclopaedic' and fairly represents the argument, allowing a reader to draw their own conclusions. BTW: I knew some of the Orthodox communities in NY, having been to Williamsburg and seen some of the communities in upstate NY. Kbthompson 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to live in Stamford Hill and can explain the discrepant use of the locality name Stoke Newington. The former Metropolitan Borough of Stoke Newington did not include Stamford Hill, which was the northernmost part of the Borough of Hackney. However, the N16 postal district, which includes a large part of Stamford Hill, is known to the Post Office as Stoke Newington. So both are right! Redaktor 14:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Population

How come two sources indicate there are around 20,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews, while census figures indicate the total Jewish population is under 9,000? Is there any reason not to believe the Census is more accurate in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.125.61 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many factors here, firstly many Jewish households did not specify their religious affiliation (this is not a mandatory part of the census form) as the article indicates. Also, the term "Stamford Hill OJ community" does not refer to OJ's living within the stamford hill boundaries. A large part of this community actually live in Tottenham but still identify themselves as being members of the Stamford Hill OJ community. And finally, the census was carried some time ago and given the phenominal growth of this community this would also add substatially to the 2008 head count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.139.71 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I try to fix errors, but I have no idea what someone is trying to say here...

The Adeni Congregation synagogue (Nahalat Yosef, named after the original Adeni synagogue in Yemen).

Anyone have a verb? Derekbd (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the second sentence of the article uses both the spelling 'Chasidic' and 'Hasidic'? PortholePete (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare = pre-enlightenment

And, consequently, I have deleted one rather silly comment 129.67.43.239 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stamford Hill. 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/20110604100055/http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/gla/publications/factsandfigures/dmag-briefing-2006-27.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/gla/publications/factsandfigures/dmag-briefing-2006-27.pdf

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) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)