Talk:Flatbush

message: It is located in the far southwestern part of Long Island.??
is this correct?
gevaldik! 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I'd also add, that it would be great if someone more knowledgable than myself could put a section distinguishing Flatbush the neighborhood from Flatbush the area which includes several other neighborhoods and then could list them all.  I'm assuming the complete list would like something like as follows: Flatbush proper, Ditmas Park, Fiske Terrace, Prospect Park South, Prospect-Lefferts Gardens.  I'm definitely not sure about this list and I don't want to start creating truthiness.
There are also seems to be some disagreement within the text on the page as it exists now that an adept historian really needs to clean up regarding the classification of Midwood.  In the section on History, it says "Midwood was an alternative name for Flatbush into the early 20th century."  In the neighborhoods section, however, it says, "Many consider Midwood to be a part of Flatbush, but historically it was part of the neighboring former towns of New Utrecht"  On the Midwood page itself it says, "it was part of old Flatbush, situated between the towns of Gravesend and Flatlands."
I would think in the long run, we would want two separate pages, one for the region and one for the neighborhood proper, though there clearly isn't enough information on this page to support two separate entries.  I'm curious if anyone knows if the general area is actually just the borders of the historical Village of Flatbush? Dwinetsk 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhoods 

message: The image :Image:Ebbets Field aerial.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is now a claim for fair use of this image. I don't believe it should have gone to this level, but any discussion of Flatbush without a picture of Ebbets Field takes away from the article as a whole.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.230.163 (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Ebbets Field aerial.JPG

message: "Of those 79.8% were Black or African American, 14% were Hispanic or Latino, 6.5% were White, 2.8% were Asian, 0.4% Native American, 5.7% were some other race and 4.9% were two or more races."
I am no mathematician, but that is 114.1%.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.126.173 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: .1% is due to rounding error, and 14% is due to the fact that "Hispanic" is an ethnicity not a race and so the 14% counted as Hispanic are also counted as members of some racial category. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Percentage 

message: It is really pocessive and inapropriate to remove nice images taken at dusk and list of dominant roads and Yeshivas from this page.
Have this become a personal thing ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you make it so. The basic policies of WP call for editing in a collaborative manner, and stress that discussion should be about edits, not editors. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it ipersonal for you and you should exclude yourself from this page.  Your denying that dozens of Yeshivos exist in Flatbush.  That is just a denial or reality and even a causal look at google maps can show you.  So if it is not personnel, then explain yourself for removing valid information?  Why does it both you that hundreds of Jews schools exist in Flatbush?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 04:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only one making it personal, and are misconstruing my actions entirely. I never denied any of the above. The only thing that bothers me is your making statements of opinion not backed by sourcing, and putting them back in the article repeatedly. Wikipedia does not allow editorializing (that is, unsourced, unattributed commentary given in WP's own voice). Please refrain from further grand statements about importance, world history, etc. unless referenced to a specific page number in a reliable source. Also, as noted previously, Wikipedia expects you to comment on content, not on editors. Please see WP:NPA. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Flatbush, 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131017183129/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_nta.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_nta.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flatbush, 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/20080924152119/http://www.prospectpark.org/history_nature/historic_places/h_lefferts to http://www.prospectpark.org/history_nature/historic_places/h_lefferts
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Yeshivas that are in Flatbush TODAY have been show and referenced as the some of the largest in Jewish History and are historically important.  Why is it that this is causing any controversy?  14 thousand STUDENTS in the neighborhood Yeshivas is HUGE.  How can anyone look at Chaim Berlin, the Mireer, the Chofetz Chaim and Torah V'das, all lead by the most published and followed Rosh Yeshivas in our lifetime, not considered remarkable as a group and in world history?  Maybe you are aware of another time in history when so many students have been services with such worldwide reach?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 06:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeshivas in Flatbush

message: you have removed a number of valid  tags without providing a source for the information as you are required to do before removing them. Are you planning to do so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of  tags was warranted, but I don't think the simultaneous deletion of nearly 5,000 bytes of reliably sourced content was; is there any reason at all for removing it? jp×g 01:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JPxG. The removal of  was a mistake; I was trying to revert the 5-kilobyte deletion, especially as the deletion occurred while discussion was still ongoing on another page. Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  Its undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cn tags  

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: procedural close. Flatbush is requested for move in a conflicting RM discussion. Consider contributing to the open discussion at Talk:Flatbush if you would like to propose another alternative. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Flatbush, Brooklyn →  – The Flatbush in Brooklyn is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Flatbush". 
I requested a move at Talk:Flatbush and there is an ongoing discussion, with an emerging consensus that the disambiguation page should live at "Flatbush (disambiguation)". I had suggested "Flatbush" being a redirect to "Flatbush, Brooklyn" but  suggested that Brooklyn's Flatbush be moved to "Flatbush" and I like this idea better. 
I looked at other neighborhoods in :Template:Brooklyn and some articles use ", Brooklyn" while others do not: "Bushwick" redirects to "Bushwick, Brooklyn", while "Boerum Hill" and "Park Slope" are their own articles. 
This is in line with WP:NYCPLACE: "Neighborhoods within New York City are identified by the standard  when not at the base name".-Ich (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 December 2023 

message: Although I can see the rationale of David Fuchs' December 18 argument for eliding the Kensington material in the opening paragraph, there are a variety of reliable sources (from the 1933 Brooklyn College internal socioeconomic study to the 1939 WPA guide to the 1945 Brooklyn Protestantism report to the 1966 Thelma E. Smith annotated bibliography and map to various writings by the late CUNY sociologist Bill Helmreich, including the relatively recent "The Brooklyn Nobody Knows") which place the western Kensington tracts in the historical (and even contemporary, viz. Helmreich) neighborhood boundaries. To defer to the interpretations of a 1928 newspaper article in lieu of subsequent publications (such as Barrett McGurn's "Flatbush-Behind the Name" in the November 18, 1962 edition of the Herald Tribune) seems a bit shortsighted. (Even The Times contradicted itself in "Historic Flatbush: A New Frontier for House-Hunting" [October 13, 1985], which takes in the Kensington tracts south of Church Avenue.)
Obviously Herbert Ballon fundamentally muddied the waters with his master's thesis (which basically merged Kensington with a substantial chunk of the Victorian developments in addition to placing PLG and many of the central Flatbush apartment house blocks in East Flatbush), while "West Flatbush" and "Kensington" continued to enjoy some degree of recognition throughout the postwar period (i.e. Mimi Sheraton employing both monikers in a 1979 review of the now-defunct Saul's Appetizing for The Times). This was further complicated by relatively early planning documents (i.e. the Community Council of New York's "Brooklyn Communities" from the late 50s; the 40s and 50s New York Market Analyses) appending the Kensington tracts to all or part of Borough Park (probably because of the relatively homogeneous population vis a vis the beginnings of diversity in central Flatbush) -- a relationship officially codified under Howard Golden in the 60s, in any case -- while other residents have expressed the feeling that they lived in a liminal area ("kind of Flatbush" in the recent comment from the Erasmus grad in the NYT Upshot neighborhood map, Ken Thompson's derivation of "Kenmas Park", Seymour Stillman's proposal for the recognition of "Culver" as a distinct area in his 1948 MIT urban planning master's thesis) and so on despite the profusion of (yes, primarily inadmissible) anecdotage indicating that many residents of the area considered themselves to be Flatbush residents until the late 1960s. (To wit: "Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy" [2008] states that Shanker's East 4th Street house from the period was in -- you guessed it -- Flatbush.) 
While the sources are comparatively nebulous (part and parcel of doing Brooklyn history between the Great Mistake and the gentrification era, alas), the case for presenting this area (along with comparatively ironclad Midwood) as a part of the historical Flatbush boundaries probably exceeds that of Crown Heights, which was always tantamount to its own thing (usually classified as the "Eastern Parkway district" or something along those lines, although the Brooklyn College self-study uses "New Flatbush") despite the inherent ambiguities of PLG, Pigtown and the Ebbets Field area (right at the township border). Save for PLG (intractably Flatbush from a historical vantage), those areas are kind of analogous to the portions of the town of Flatbush that were west of Dahill and on the Borough Park grid, I suppose.
Anyway, do what thou wilt, Wiki friends -- just spitballing some ideas. 209.2.227.159 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at. The article at present explains that the current neighborhood is smaller than the old town boundaries, which did indeed contain Kensington and large chunks to the west that are not really considered part of Flatbush anymore (Flatbush's southern boundaries are also interestingly what was the town of Flatlands, but I haven't really found any sources at present that discuss that shift.) The article section on neighborhood boundaries mentions Kensington along with the other neighborhoods/subneighborhoods that have since drifted out of the general Flatbush definition to their own separate identities. I also have no idea what sources you're referencing for most of the above, so cannot evaluate them; but for the most part, as neighborhood boundaries are nebulous, it's not trying to be an exhaustive description of all the different boundaries people have proposed. As for the lead, it's not substantially different than what was there before I started editing, focusing on the current neighborhood boundaries, which I think makes sense insofar as while the article covers both, it's the latter that is probably most germane to discuss first for readers (it also specifically doesn't try and give precise geographical boundaries there because they're diffuse.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence of western Kensington tracts in historical Flatbush