Talk:Yeshivah of Flatbush

ivrit b'ivrit

It's a lie. Many if not most come out with limited hebrew speaking ability. Change it. Be honest. and as for the issues of being fair, I only say that fair means both sides of the coin, not the positive rosy picture that YOF tries to project. DLand-great job, keep it up. Also new page should be created for other yeshivas in the NYC area...perhaps some sort of portal or link into the jewish portal would be appropriate.

Infobox

You're doing a nice job on this page, DLand. I've converted your by-hand infobox into a templated one, which should make it easier to edit and read the code for; this one also has a bunch of optional fields you might want to fill in, as see over at Template talk:Infobox Secondary school. /blahedo (t) 04:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This should do for now. --DLand^TALK 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni

I'm pretty sure that there are more notable people who graduated Flatbush...please help compile a longer list. Thanks.David Betesh 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kahane

If anyone has a reliable source for Meir Kahane having attended Flatbush like me!!, then re-add him to the list. For now, I am removing his name. --DLand^TALK 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Source - "The False Prophet" by Robert Friedman. Somebody please re-add Rabbi K to the list because I do not yet have an account and this page is protected

Downside/evilside of Flatbush

I know many people love flatbush but I think a section should be dedicated to the wrongs and flaws in philosophy of this far from excellent institution. Maybe a mention about Robert Avrech's website/blog (Sephardic Secrets) about his experience at flatbush and the many comments on the page that validate what Avrech is talking about. I myself have strong words of commentary on the way yeshivah of flatbush is run and was wondering if any one else had similar feelings

I have read Avrech's website. Most of the accusations and allegations there are highly anecdotal and would not qualify as a reliable source. By the way, it's Seraphic Secrets, not Sephardic Secrets. --DLand^TALK 05:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Note on Wikipedia Rules

I believe that rule 4 states:

"Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Dispute resolution.) "

Steven Esses' turn as president deserves to be recognized, and rightfully so. Your continued attempts to stop the publishing of articles about him should be stopped immediately. I am personally disgusted by the lack of freedom of speech. Nothing printed has been false, and until the day I die it will be my personal goal to make sure the truth lives on. I find it most appropriate to quote Mr. Esses here, for as he said, "if the truth fails to be heard by the ears of the young, they will never grow to be mouths of the old." Good night and good luck.

-Deep Throat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggum613 (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Vandalism. --DLand^TALK 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A message from the founder of this article

Hey, this is David Betesh, original founder of this article. I heard that there were problems on this page, so I decided to intervene. Flatbush is the school I was brought up in and I don't think any negative opinion about Flatbush should be posted about Flatbush. If the negative thing is proven true, then it deserves recognition. As for student life, I am sure we can briefly mention certain former S.G.O. Presidents and other notable students even if they are not famous and notable in the world at large. As for the rest of the article, it came out great! Who could think that starting one paragraph in April can turn into a large professional wikipedia article. David Betesh

Well... not exactly. At Wikipedia, we are firmly dedicated to maintaining the Neutral Point of View, no matter what - whether it is positive or negative. If there is a legitimate, relevant, notable negative point that is properly sourced and referenced, then it is every Wikipedian's duty to keep it on the page, no matter how strongly one disagrees with it. As for the former SGO Presidents, they don't belong on the page either. --DLand^TALK 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Technical note - you should never delete material from talk pages, even from your own posts, unless its offensive or vandalism. If you want to "change your mind" about something you wrote, you can strike it out by using strikeout symbols, like this:

<s>SAMPLE</s> becomes SAMPLE

Thanks, DLand^TALK 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We?

"At Wikipedia, we are firmly dedicated to maintaining the Neutral Point of View, no matter what - whether it is positive or negative."

DLand... are "we" kidding ourselves. That's like me saying, "We hear at Yankee Stadium truly believe in A-Rod to bring us back to glory"... while it's just a fan whose saying it! You don't work here. Now Steven Esses on the other hand... he can do whatever he puts his mind to, for as Steven esses said, "I can do whatever I put my mind to."

"Citation needed"

Concerning the Hagaddah, Dr. Wolowelsky is quoted as saying "Yeshivah of Flatbush is responsible for publishing the first Sephardic Hagaddah in North America ever". He said so in class, and there is no need for further citations. David Betesh

I believe you, David, but that's not verifiable. Maybe you can try to dig up some kind of written documentation. --DLand^TALK 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If your questioning the citation of the Hagaddah then let us question your citation of students getting accepted in to Columbia, Upenn, and Brooklyn Honors... citations are needed there as well. No one this year and last year was accepted to Columbia. This year no one was accepted to Upenn.

Baruch Goldstein

Baruch Goldstein never graduated yeshivah of flatbush... he left in his junior year through a program to attend YU one year in advance. Therefore he isn't considered an alumnus.Orel dagmy 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alumnus means former student, not graduate. Change was reverted. Alansohn 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Stat Story From Flatbush Page

You can't remove one of the biggest stories to ever hit that high school just because it is bad for Flatbush's PR. What else in Flatbush history recieved the same amount of attention and media coverage? You should be ashamed, it is an abuse of your power. You can't remove the Vietnam War from American history because it didn't reflect well on the United States. Please put the story back in the Flatbush page.

Perhaps the inclusion of the possibility of the email being fraudulent should be included? If nothing else stop deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.155.61.2 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

editing disabled

whoever has editing power, can you add that baruch blumberg is also a nobel laureate or however you spell it

also, as long as editing is disabled...

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.
  2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and Wikipedia:Notability.
  3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability. 24.47.151.139 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

the lack of the rabbi statdmauer incident (which was in New York Magazine) and the overall tone of the article (school philosophy, continuous words praise,success, and positive things) sound just like the above

Note to writer of the above: Look at any High School or College's website, and you'll see much of the same thing.

excellent acceptance rate

changed to have been accepted, unless someone can show statistics that prove the previous.

Add Brandeis University to the list of prestigous universities..we send a solid few there every year.

We need more history

there were a few fires i recall? there used to be dances and whatnot lets write about those!

School Publications

might it be a good idea to add the schools various newspapers/magazines? I've seen other schools do it and it looks nice.Slapshot01j 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, if you're up to it. There is other information that could be added that is of a higher priority, though. A good model for a top-notch article on a high school is Stuyvesant High School - it's a featured article on Wikipedia. --DLand^TALK 15:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also compared to Flatbush Stuyvesant is a top notch high school, not just its article, Flatbush no longer lives up to its reputation. Asthenization-Creator 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about adding information about Flatbush, not comparing it to Stuyvesant as a school. --DLand^TALK 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing really, just putting down Flatbush, similar to how you keep trying to agrandize it Asthenization-Creator 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted the publications I could come up with. Didn't take that long, so don't feel bad erasing it if you deem it necessary.Slapshot01j 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hagler Controversy

Who gets to decide whether the Hagler controversy is of 'encyclopedic' value? It relates to free speech issues in the school, school administration and management and how a school that calls itself the "standard of excellence" lives up to that name by eliminating dissenting opinions. Over 800 students know about the controversy and it is quickly spreading. Parents having heard about the controversy have felt that this issue has tipped their decision in enrolling students in the school. I know this from first hand experience but that is 'original research' and thus does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Simply because it has not made the NY Times should not be the deciding factor for its inclusion in Wikipedia.

You asked: "Who gets to decide whether the Hagler controversy is of 'encyclopedic' value?" The simple answer, on Wikipedia, is consensus. Currently, the consensus of editors has concluded that your section doesn't belong here. I'm sure it will make a very interesting article in The Phoenix, but for Wikipedia it just doesn't cut it. --DLand^TALK 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rather clearly defined rules requiring material to be attributed using reliable and verifiable sources. The fact that the only "source" used for this incident is a link to Facebook does not qualify. Nor is it clear that a student suspension has any encyclopedic value, even if it had been covered by a major newspaper. Based om all of these criteria, the "Hagler controversy" does not belong in this article. Alansohn 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you two, DLAND and ALANSOHN are the keepers of the 'truth' and wikipedia rules in most areas concerning yeshivas. Censorship is a terrible thing even here and the threat of calling it 'vandalism' is nothing more than that. Shame, Shame. In addition the section meets or exceeds the Wiki Guidelines:

A perfect Wikipedia article...

   * fills a gap; search for existing or related articles on the topic first.
   * has a good title so it can be linked to and found easily and follows existing naming conventions.
   * starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.
   * is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.
   * is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.
   * branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject.
   * and branches in; editors have found and edited other significant wiki pages which make mention of the topic and link them to the article.
   * acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
   * is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.
   * is of an appropriate length; it is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or sister projects.
   * reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles.
   * is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.
   * is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.
   * is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.
   * is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.
   * follows standard writing conventions of modern English, including correct grammar, punctuation and spelling.
   * includes informative, relevant images — including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it. Each image should have an explanatory caption.
   * may not be attainable. Editing may bring an article closer to perfection, but ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians. Perfection may not be achievable, but it's fun trying. For more information, see our editing policy.

What you are not supposed to do is what you two do and that is to simply revert because YOU don't agree.

Neither one of us is claiming to be the "keeper of truth" or any such thing. If you want to add valuable information to the article, there is nothing stopping you except Wikipedia content policy. The supposed "Hagler controversy" is unsourced and unencyclopedic, as mentioned above. --DLand^TALK 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is valuable information, you and Alansohn are just claiming it isn't. It is unsourced, as it most of the article, especially the sections on student demographics, post-high school, community interactions, sports, academic teams, and student government. As for Encyclopedic value, the entire article isn't of encyclopedic value, the rules were already bent to allow for the article's existance, therefor they are less stringent here then they might be elsewhere.

First, you misunderstand Wikipedia policy on sourcing. It may help to read WP:ATT and WP:CITE. The part that I want to emphasize is this: Ideally, everything on Wikipedia should have a reference. However, in the real world that is impossible. As a result, WP policy dictates that unless a piece of unsourced information is either dubious or likely to be challenged, it should not be removed from the article. If you want to challenge that information (provided that you have a valid rationale and are not just trying to make a point), then the burden of proof is on the other editors to provide a source.

Now, you are correct that most of this article is unsourced, and that is unfortunate. However, it doesn't pose an immediate problem unless that information is controversial, unlikely, or challengeable. As far as I can tell, none of the current article is any of those. Your "Hagler controversy" on the other hand, is being strongly challenged by multiple editors. As a result, you need to provide a reliable source if you want the information to be included in the first place. The source has to be such that demonstrates that the information is encyclopedic as well, which brings me to my second point.

You say that "the entire article isn't of encyclopedic value, the rules were already bent to allow for the article's existance [sic]..." You may want to take a glance at Category:High schools in New York for a small glimpse of the thousands of Wikipedia articles about high schools and secondary schools in general. However, a little squabble over the suspension of one student just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article - and unless consensus changes, the "Hagler controversy" can never have a place in this article. I hope this clears things up. --DLand^TALK 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as something remains unchallenged it has consensus, similarly consensus isn't a majority vote so even if 'multiple users' (only 2 Dland and Alansohn) disagree it can still be acceptable. A fair amount of the information is controversial, depending on your frame of reference. From someone in the position as a completely outside observer, why would the school have such a large Sephardic community on 'Student Demographics'? The school is officially an Ashkenaz school, having a such a large number of Sephardim is unlikely and certainly dubious. In the 'Post-High School' section, I don't think that many kids go to Israel because Flatbush concentrates more on secular studies, that's doubtable. Also 30 college credits? Few graduate with even 10, where'd that number come from? Can you even take that many APs in 4 years along with the regular courseload? in 'Student Governement' the school selects who they want to win, not the student body. For example a student called Jack was a big underdog in this most recent election, but the administration liked him so he won. What's your source that the student body actually selects the winner? In 'Community Interactions' why are you allowed to put a citation needed tag, why isn't that either left without one or removed? Can anything just have a citation needed tag to make it acceptable? Also how are you allowed to quote the school's own website? That'd clearly be a POV source.

Just because there are many articles regarding high schools and secondary schools doesn't make them notable. Look in any physical encyclopedia, notice how *none* of them are there. The fact that WP permitted the schools to have their own articles bends the rules, WP is clearly not a regular encyclopedia and therefor the rules are different for what may or may not be considered to be of enyclopedic value.

As for the 'Hagler Controversy' itself, it demonstrates the school is unwilling to admit it may not be as good as it once was and also demonstrates a restriction of free speech. A number of parents (at least two I know of personally) have decided not to continue enrolling their children in the elementary school and eventually not apply to the highschool after hearing the 'Hagler Controversy'. The effects of it may soon grow and Flatbush may lose a large number of potential students. That's a pretty profoud effect for "a little squabble over the suspension of one student." The fact that it has the ability to provide such a profound effect makes it of encyclopedic value. 24.47.151.139 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette"

• Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.

Based on this, the lack of a response will be considered a failure of following this etiquette. Additionally it will be considered as if you 'have no response for it' and are conceeding it, you're just not following the etiquette and admitting it.

Had Dland and Alansohn not editted the main article in the interum between this post and my last post it could be argued that you haven't yet read my latest response. However, since you both have editted the main article, I can assume you have read my response and are simply not following proper etiquete by answering it.24.47.151.139 06:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not that we have no response for you - it's just that this "debate" is getting so ridiculous that it's beginning to seem pointless, speaking for myself. Despite this, I'll gratify you with a brief response:

The unsourced statements that you claim are controversial are simply not. Just because someone can make up something totally ludicrous doesn't make it a counter-argument worth considering. What you wrote about Wikipedia not being a "normal" encyclopedia is true (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). The standards of inclusion are much more liberal than those of a paper encyclopedia. However, that doesn't mean that there are no standards at all. Note that one of the things that Wikipedia is NOT is an indiscriminate collection of information. Regarding the questions you asked about the "citation needed" tag - see WP:ATT for explanation and clarification. --DLand^TALK 02:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements

Most of the entire entry on Yehivah of Flatbush is unsourced. Does that mean it should be removed in its entirety? Examples include the sections on student demographics, post-high school, community interactions, sports, academic teams, and student government. Most are factually correct but not sourced. As such, why are they different from the "Hagler Controversy".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.151.139 (talk • contribs).

• I think you're running into some general confusion between what belongs in an article about a school, and what you think belongs in an article about this school. I have seen no reason to believe that this incident is encyclopedic in any way. If you have verifiable and reliable sources to support this story and show that the outside world deems this incident to be notable, please add them. I will be more than happy to help you use the appropriate format. If sources cannot be provided this material will be removed and may be treated as vandalism. Alansohn 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The outside world deems almost no high schools or elementary schools relevent, look in any physical encyclopedia and try and find the "Yeshivah of Flatbush" entry. This being wikipedia, the rules are different, the outside world has no say. The people that do have a say are individuals who see articles and want to correct something they belive to be an error or include something they deem to be notable. In an article of true notability such as the Civil War, pumpkins, and even bumboo, there are true references and information to base an article on. However, for a school, for most schools, their articles don't have verifiability and reliability because the information simply doesn't exist in those required formats. Such as with the examples cited above; the sections on student demographics, post-high school, community interactions, sports, academic teams, and student government. How do you know any of that is correct? What's your source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.151.139 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

The "Hagler Controversy" is a petty in-school event and if we included every incident like it, the website would be 600 pages long. end of story. stop trying to be funny, it doesn't belong on.

What be wrong if WP was so thorough that all its articles were six hundred pages? That'd make it an extremely detailed and impressive entity. No humor involved random person, read above in the 'Hagler Controversy' section for a unintentional, yet applicable, response to your post.24.47.151.139 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Stadtmauer controversy can be considered different because in addition to having been a public media story, it was a highly significant event within the upper administration of the Yeshivah at large. The hagler contraversey is no different than, i.e. throwing rabbi kronman's desk in the pool, the class-switching prank of 2005, and the prank in 96 which involved students coming to school in their prom tuxedos. These are all events that are only significant within the school and are of no interest to anybody outside the direct Yeshivah of Flatbush sphere. Thus, it is plainly obvious that the insistance on putting the "Hagler" incident on the page is simple attention seeking. There is absolutely no reason for it to be on, as it has absolutely no encyclopedic value to anybody who doesn't go to Flatbush, or have a child who does. This is not so with the Stadtmauer issue, though if you check above even that was questionable at the time.

Stadtmauer Contraversy

He simply chose not to return. He didn't quit abruptly, rather he simply did not renew his contract, as was his right. The sentance about the DVD retrospective should remain, but not the sentences after that. They have been deleted.

Once again, unless someone can provide some, there is no evidence that there was a "failed effort to find a replacement," nor do I see how he "left a vacuum at the leadership of the school." This seems to be hyperbolic.

Reason for Discussion Page

The point of the discussion page is to discuss reasons for edits, and then make them. Additionally it's to work out any disputes regarding issues on the article. If DLand and Alansohn won't continue discussing it here then how can either of you accuse me of vadalism when I act, I'm following proper protocol. Now either respond to the sections on this page called 'Hagler Controversey' and 'Unsourced Statements' or either I or another will do the proper edits as put forth by those sections. The proper edits may still be made if your counter-argument isn't successful.

re: Daniel Henkin

The bit about him leaving to Ramaz is quite irrelevant here. At the conclusion of the school year, that entire section will be re-assessed, but for now it should remain as it was before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.115.3 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

notable alumni

who the heck is bryan eisenberg? sounds like hes marketing his stuff through wikipedia. i am taking him off. THEMlCK 07:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

editing issues

sorry to break in on all this. out of curiosity, what is the hagler incident? its ok to go through a page and edit for writing and suchlike, right? i did a lot of that last night, with maybe a factual wrinkle or two, which id of course submit to being taken down if it were thought they should be. (is that even a choice? yeesh...) ZevWil 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing a page for writing is not only okay, it's what we're all about. As for your other question - earlier in the year there were one or two people who were lobbying to have an incident regarding a current Flatbush student, featured on the wikipedia page. As you can see above, it was agreed upon that this is not worthy to appear on the page, and discussion is closed on the matter.Slapshot01j 23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Student Demographics

The phrase "shrinking Modern Orthodox, Religious Zionist" is POV and I substituted Ashkenazic for now.Slapshot01j 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

flatbush selectivity/demandingness

i know its nice to find a source (r' altshul-related one) that refers to flatbush, particularly when its so positive. however, even with the way its phrased now, its almost an unfair plug. for one thing, the piece seems to be outlining r' altshul's cv, praising him and his accomplishments at every step, not so much for the school itself. i dont mean to turn this into a discussion of flatbush's merit, but how many people see flatbush in the same light at this point? hebrew education is still near-unparallelled, but on the whole, it seems ramaz and some of the others rock yof. thoughts? ZevWil 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

also, should this be in history and mission, if on the page at all? ZevWil 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Zevwil, the page refers to flatbush as one of the most selective and demanding schools of its kind in North America. As far as Modern Orthodox Jewish day schools go, I don't think that statement is controversial, flatbush vs. ramaz arguments aside.Slapshot01j 00:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the source? You are correct, I'm sure there is a better source out there somewhere. If you can find one, feel free to make the switch.Slapshot01j 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

stadtmauer and 2005 dvd

Hmm...I was looking through the page history and couldn't pinpoint when the point about the DVD was removed. Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilditup1 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The piece about the DVD was deleted, because it was completely unverifiable. The line about the Summit dedication was also deleted, because there was nothing contraversial about it. IMO, the controversy section is just fine the way it is.Slapshot01j 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Why isn't it valid to say "some have speculated"? We'll never get an official commment from the school that that's why the DVD was delayed, but EVERYBODY KNOWS that that was the reason (watch it again, and try to find Stadt in it)Bilditup1 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, wikipedia is not interested in truth, it is interested in verifiability. Please refer to WP:V, and read the opening line. While we personally are in agreement that this was likely the reason for the delay, it is - to use your own word - "speculated," and as such has no place on the wikipedia page.Slapshot01j 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then I'm gonna make my own wikipedia, with beer, and hookers ;) Ha...and the point that some have speculated isn't verifiable either, unless facebook counts as a reference ;) Bilditup1 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

on the haggaddah

As for the claim we make about the Haggaddah, all we need is a proper reference to the Haggadah itself, as Rabbi Harary and Rabbi Kassin both make the claim in it that it is, indeed, the first Passover Haggadah printed in North America for Sephardic Jewry. I'll dig up the book next time I go back to BK and post it here then... -eli (Unless the book itself is not a good source but for pete's sake, none of us are going to go through old news articles to verify this.) Bilditup1 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper

Shouldn't there be a link included to the Phoneix, the schools newspaper...they recently put it online but I lost the link so if anyone has it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.71.157 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Joel Wolowelsky

He is listed in the Alumni section. Did he go to flatbush? THEMlCK (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"yeshiva" instead of yeshivah

Why is the article named "Yeshiva of Flatbush" when the school's name is actually spelled "Yeshivah of Flatbush," with an H. I have no idea how to change this. THEMlCK (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved the page to "Yeshivah of Flatbush." THEMlCK (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)