Disco Freddy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 December 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Brighton Beach. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brighton Beach article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
The paragraph below inserted into the article is true. You can come to Brighton Beach and talk to old timers, who will thell you this. Just because something is not reported in the media, does not mean it did not happen. In 1940-1943, the media did not report on people being in concetration camps, either. Does it mean it did not happen?
"In late 1970's to mid 1980's Brighton Beach was beginning to become a bad neighborhood due to crime wave sweeping across much of America's cities. However, having just arrived and having nowhere else to go, new Russian immigrants fought bloody battles on the streets of Brighton Beach and succesfully pushed out most of the the criminal element in the neighborhood." --71.247.66.12500:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if someone can find a print source stating this observation, we can add it. we are not an investigative newspaper, but an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, if we were around during the holocaust, we probably would have struggled with adding the little info publicly available on the subject, as it was hard to verify.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As New York contains some of the highest amount of Jews in the world, Brighton Beach is a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. Jews in Russia are not 'Russkii' which identifies nationality. Jews in Russia are a separate nationality. It is therefore improper and inappropriate to call this area Russian. --204.102.211.11523:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this user is long gone, but I will attempt to explain the catch-22 of using the term Russian. The word "Russian" implies nationality. The word "Jewish" implies ethnicity and religion if the person or group is religious. The sad legacy of the Soviet Union was they mingling and wiping out of lines blurring distinctions between nationality and ethnicity and religion. You were either 100% Russian or 100% Jewish with no respect towards the absurdity of that kind of distinction and sadly no choice. So now that this neighborhood is outside of the Soviet Union, there really is no reason for someone to be harshly divided as Jewsih and not Russian or Russian and not Jewish. In fact, most people who embrace thier new lives in America are happy to indentify as Russians and as Jews—if they indeed are Jews.
Now, here's the fun/confusing part of it all. Brighton Beach has historically been a Jewish community. Russians moved into the neighborhood. The largest group came in seeking asylum from the Soviet Union for persecution against their ethnicity. Now they are in the U.S. Now they are free to be Jewish without fear. But in their minds they still have those ridiculous ethnicity/religion/nationality divisions that simply have no use here. So some of them proclaim they are Jewish and renounce their Russian past. Others are simply Russian and secular Jews. And so on and so on.
For all intents and purposes Brighton Beach is a Russian community in America. And the impact of Russian culture is much more strongly felt in the neighborhood to any American outsider than the Jewish aspect.
Actually, you're all wrong. Jews are not a nationality or an ethnic group. The notion of Jews as anything other than a religious group is a myth that comes from the old testament bible. This has no basis in reality as different Jews and Jewish groups around the world do not share common origins and heritage. Also, some Jews from Russia are ethnically Russian (the Eastern Slavic phenotype of many Eastern European Jews confirms this as obvious) just as some Jews from Germany are ethnically German. It's just a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.18.225 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the first anonymous speaks Russian since the Russian language distinguishes between nationality in the sense of ethnicity and nationality in the sense of naturalisation. A "россиянин" (rossijánin) is a Russian who is a resident of Russia, regardless of ethnicity; "русский" (ruskij) is an ethnic Russian. In English Russian means both. Perhaps the anonymous thought the ethnic sense was meant in the article. If this is the case, the description was not misleading. Mallerd (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the population numbers as that is the numbers stated in the Russian language version of this article, and as I assume that version was written by actual Russian-speaking people living in Brighton-beach or other wise more familiar with it, I trust their numbers better.
Actually, the 2000 census says that the population from the entire zip code is 77,541. How could more than 4 times that number live in only 1/3 of that zip code alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.253.212 (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "Many Russian women have started to make topless sunbathing popular on the beach.[citation needed] " that's what is says in the article but is simply not true. I've lived in the neighbourhood for a long time, I go there all the time and use the beach, and I have never seen a topless woman there, Russian, Jew or otherwise. It is not done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.188.24 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is done quite often and I've gotten into arguments with them so often, I can't even count.
Origin of map: Scharfenberg, David. "Safety Belts On? Renewal Has Its Hazards." The New York Times. November 19, 2006. - Article says "Coney Island, which has a residential population of about 53,000, is bounded by the Belt Parkway to the north, Ocean Parkway to the east and the Atlantic Ocean to the south."
I have seen sources that say that PS 100 Coney Island was in Brighton Beach:
Fertig, Beth. "Test Driving a Pilot Teacher Evaluation System." SchoolBook. The New York Times. March 14, 2012. Retrieved on October 15, 2012. "Ms. Moloney has been testing a new framework for evaluating teachers this year at the school, which is actually in Brighton Beach,"
I always hear that Brighton Beach is almost completely a Russian Jewish neighborhood with no ethnic Russians and Ukrainians at all in the area. Why aren't there any ethnic Russians and Ukrainians living in Brighton Beach by now if the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 now allows anyone to leave freely nowadays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.189.228 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Keith Williams "Brighton Beach: Old World mentality, New World reality" blog piece was a source of at least one full paragraph, and one further sentence, that heretofore appeared verbatim (quoted from that source, without appearance of quotation marks). This plagiarism has been rectified, but other editors should be on the look for further instances from this and other sources. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In yet other cases, the placements of inline citations gave appearances of sources of text that were also false. In the opening two paragraphs of the Subsection "Early development", under History, there was no mention of a contest for the naming, and no mention of a founding of a resort in 1878 (hotel only), and the location and railway access was also not in the sources that appeared. As such, contest and resort are removed (rather than insert {{cn}} tags within sentences, next to unsourced facts in a broader correct statement), and the location and railway access were left in a separate sentence given a {{cn}} tag. These are the sort of inaccuracies that temporary "citation needed" tags allow one to sort, over time (rather than leaving the text appearing as accurately sourced, when it is indeed misattributed, or worse, plagiarized). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found two inline "citation needed" tags in the lead. Everything in the lead is supposed to already be in the body and referenced so I looked in the body and found the text and the attached citations and copied the named references to the lead and removed the inline "citation needed" tags. I also cleaned up 11 bare references and listed the rest on this Talk page. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}22:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Thanks for that. However, the lead section doesn't even need references if all the stuff in the lead is cited later, per WP:CITELEAD. {{cnl}} is only needed when something in the lead is never referenced or even mentioned in the body. epic genius (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, I totally agree. The lead does not need any references but somebody had just tagged it so it was easy enough to drop already named citations in there. A bonus is that a lead is so much easier to edit in the text editor if it is free of the clutter of references (especially if the lead contains the full version of the citation and not just a named version). IMHO, only the most contentious things should have references in the lead but even then if things are that contentious then the body probably needs some work anyway. On another article I stripped all the references out of the lead by making sure they were all repeated down in the body too. I did this so I could transclude the whole lead to another article. References do NOT transclude to the other article but instead on the other article the transcluded refs show up as giant red-letter citation errors. So, another editor put all the references back in the lead but commented them out which is a compromise but will be confusing to editors that come after, and it clutters up the lead again making the prose hard to follow when in the edit window. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}23:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, "blacklisted" is a bit misleading, because NYT is NOT blacklisted by Wikipedia. The tool I used (reFILL) cannot log on to NYT.com so it marks NYT.com as "blacklisted". That's one of reFILL's quirks. We need to do those by hand, or with another tool. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Brighton Beach. 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:
The following text appeared in the lead until a couple minutes ago, where it was at odds with later 2010 population statistics appearing in the main body:
As of 2007[update], it has a population of 75,692 with a total of 31,228 households.[1]
^"Brooklyn". point2.com. Retrieved November 12, 2015.
On looking at the reference, I could find no mention to Brighton, or to the population number given. Since the numbers are discrepant with regard to the later cited census numbers, and since Brighton and the numbers are not readily apparent at the webpage given—perhaps a tab is needed or some such, but this makes this a poor source—the information is moved here until it can be verified and sourced. (Ledes should not contain information not in their main bodies, and that is dubious.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede and info box are now consistent with the article Demographics section, and the one citation that is given there. The remainder of the "US CENSUS 2010" text was not removed, but was marked with [citation needed]because the information from the census does not appear in the report cited. Please people, let's start trying to get even these basics right. No source, no confidence. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brighton Beach. 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:
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.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Brighton Beach. 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:
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Brighton Beach. 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:
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.
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 section.
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. It would be silly to redirect this to the proposed title, and there is justification in putting the dab page at the basename given the clear primary status of this topic. --В²C☎04:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No primary topic, this one is actually astonishing. There are Brighton Beaches all over the world with no connection to New York, and this New York one is not even at Brighton. If any primarytopic, the primary topic of Brighton Beach is the beach name Brighton Beach at the primary topic of Brighton. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]Brighton Beach, Brighton
But the Pageviews for Brighton the town built around famous beach are thumpingly more dramatic still 4x the size. Only North Americans would consider that Brighton Beach was anything other than the UK one. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support given the number of uses at the DAB page (even if not all have articles) but mainly because of the East Sussex beach, however if moved, the DAB page should be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No PrimaryTopic. Another famous Brighton Beach, it has no connection to a similarly named Beach in NY Pageviews are interesting but not reliable, and must not be considered definitive. They are very susceptible to systematic bias. The residents of Melbourne will be astonished to unexpectedly download the NY Beach, not even the Brighton beach. Page views don’t necessarily overwhelm original use over derivative use, and don’t in this case where the NY use is unimportant internationally. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how primary topic is determined for any other article. Page view counts are generally considered very accurate for determining how likely each of the pages are to be sought relative to each other by someone searching with a given term. Consideration for what someone in Melbourne might be astonished by, when the use in Melbourne is relatively very small, is not given much weight in primary topic determination. If you disagree, I suggest you propose a change to what WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says. --В²C☎01:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn’t be necessary to fix the guideline over this case, the long term significance clause is sufficient. The NY Beach has no long term significance internationally, and there are many Brighton Beaches in the world. Also note that no reader wanting this Brighton Beach could ever be disadvantaged by it being titled as proposed, and leaving it as it is is astonishing to many, assuming American hegemony is not already presupposed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "significance internationally" standard. You just pulled that out of thin air. The relevant usage is how likely actual WP users are to be looking for each page, and page views gives us a very good and objective measure of that. --В²C☎21:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: Page views in this instance should not be considered as an absolute measure of primary determination, particularly when the page in question is what presently holds the primary topic title. You can't know how many of those views are readers who intended to search for an alternate meaning of "Brighton Beach" (that may or may not be located in the disambig page). Simply assuming all the page views to the primary topic title are relevant and intentional for this article specifically is perhaps a little short-sighted. The worthiness of pageviews becomes particularly relevant when you're looking at an even playing field (i.e. if all articles being compared are titled in the same manner, such as with their country, region or associated city in parentheses, for instance). In saying that, I accept the disambig page doesn't exactly get alot of hits itself, although there is a direct link to a beach section on the Brighton article that is directly linked from this article. Bungle(talk • contribs)11:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: that would be a valid argument except that we know from countless other setups that the vast majority of articles are linked directly by Google and other search engines, regardless of whether they are at a base name or disambiguated, so page views are not significantly affected by whether an article is disambiguated or at a base name. That's why, for example, Sandy Beach (Oahu), despite being disambiguated, gets more page views than all other uses of Sandy Beach, including the dab page at Sandy Beach[1]. For the same reason, because of how search engines work and how often people get to our articles through them, we could move this article to a title comprised of a random string and the page view counts would remain about the same. If we do disambiguate it and look at the page views six months from now I guarantee the distribution will match what it is now... this one will remain the most popular, like Sandy Beach (Oahu) is the most viewed Sandy Beach, and thus the most likely to be sought, by a huge margin, relative to the other uses of "Brighton Beach". --В²C☎03:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bungle also makes a good point about the dab page getting so few views (1% of those landing on this article). Although it's impossible to say how many people click on the direct hatnote link to Brighton#Beaches, it's safe to assume it's not many multiples of that. We should also remember that this is the only topic named Brighton Beach with an article on WP. It's not clear from the article whether there is a beach at Brighton named Brighton Beach (they seem to be a series of named beaches), but assuming there is, it is a sub-topic of Brighton, whereas Brighton Beach is the actual name of the entire community; there is no "Brighton" connected to it. Station1 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon to have a separate discussion section in an RM. It is so as not to clutter the primary !voting discussion. --В²C☎16:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
(I could ask the same question in numerous other articles.) If the Census that we're quoting reports "American Indians", then why do we change it to "Native Americans"? (Isn't it more accurate and honest to use the exact term from the source?) Drsruli (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could add something on to the end of this sentence in 'History': "During the summer, however, people from all around the city went to Brighton Beach's beach next to the Atlantic Ocean." Alternately, we could add a second sentence just after this one. Either way, it makes sense to use Disco Freddy as an example of the beach's attractions. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done I move the references out of the lead. epic genius (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
