Talk:South Brooklyn

	New York City portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hybrid neighborhood

Who wrote that "South Brooklyn is a hybrid neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, encompassing areas of Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Red Hook, Gowanus, Park Slope, and Boerum Hill. It is named for its location in the southern part of the original City of Brooklyn." Excuse me, look at a map, how can neighborhoods that are north of the center of brooklyn be considered "south" brooklyn?! Don't give yourselves a name that doesn't suit you.

Read the stub again. South Brooklyn is a historic name to designate the southern area below the original city of Brooklyn. The last part should resolve your confusion: "The area is not to be confused with the actual southern region of the borough of Brooklyn, usually called 'southern Brooklyn' or 'the southern tier', which spans the neighborhoods of Bay Ridge and Coney Island, for example." --Howrealisreal 15:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does that resolve anything? Where did they come up with this "historic name"...are you saying that when the original brooklyn existed there was no land below it? haha You can't be "south" if there is land below you. Look at a map - if you fold a map of brooklyn in half, all of those neighborhoods are above the midline.

I understand your confusion, but it seems you're thinking too modern. "South Brooklyn" is just a historic term— although it doesn't make much sense today— that sometimes still is used to describe parts of Brooklyn. According to Brooklyn On Line - A Short Brooklyn History: "South Brooklyn is north of southern Brooklyn because until 1894 the Red Hook area (South Brooklyn) was the southernmost part of the City of Brooklyn." Thus you see, it's just a term that has stuck. It's kind of like the way people refer to the Brooklyn Heights area as "Downtown Brooklyn" when indeed it is north and by all means not geographically "down" in the borough. --Howrealisreal 18:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if they want to say its a historic name then it should be accurate - they should call themselves South Breuckelen (not with the modern spelling of "Brooklyn"). Red Hook was the southernmost part of the village of "Breuckelen", not the southermost part of the city of "Brooklyn."

Please read about more about the history of Brooklyn. Red Hook was indeed formerly in the southernmost part of the City of Brooklyn (the borders of which expanded several times).--Pharos 16:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people serious? I agree with the person who posted above that they should call themselves "south breukelen" - and none of you have backed up your claim about "the city of brooklyn" with facts. The links you are all providing are either wikipedia links (oh yeah THATS historically factual. lol) or the other link to a website called "brooklyn on line", which sounds official until you notice that it's by someone named soyamaven@aol.com - oh yeah that's a trustworthy, factual site when the author doesn't even give their name or association to any real historical organizations. However, when I went to nyc.gov I found that a few of the historical dates did not correlate with soyamaven's...so who do you think I'm going to believe? --Mike 23:22, 26 June 2006

This is silly. Please stop referring to the comments of "that person" when talking about yourself; this is the second time you've done this. If you really refuse to believe that Brooklyn was once an independent city (and it had narrower borders in the past) then please look it up in any book in any library that has even a passing mention of King County in the 19th century. This is not a disputed fact of history at all.--Pharos 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about, I see the phrase "the person" once and it was written by me in reference to something someone else posted on here, therefore I am not talking about myself. Second, then please explain why according to nyc.gov, breukelen colonized in 1636; yet all these wikipedia articles would have you believe that the village of breukelen was created in 1646...why is that? oh because some website called "brooklyn on line" written by soyamaven@aol.com says so (so do you get all your historical info from a source that doesn't even give their real name and has no association with any real historical organizations?) Just because a web site is called "brooklyn on line" doesn't mean it's an official site with historical accuracy. Also don't put words into my mouth, where did I ever say that I didn't believe brooklyn was once an independent city? I never questioned that, I questioned the exact borders and the dates.--Mike 23:55, 26 June 2006

Well, here is where you first posted about "south breukelen" and here is where you agreed with yourself– you can see they're the same IP. I guess it's just possible you share a computer with someone and they commented too, but anyway we'll consider it a newbie mistake. As to substantial matters, there's a difference betweeen people first moving into the area and the legal founding of the village; the former number is probably more of an estimation. I never used "brooklyn online" as a source for anything; the best source on these matters is the Encyclopedia of New York City.--Pharos 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos may not have used "brooklyn on line" as a source, but Howrealisreal did, and Pharos used wikipedia's brooklyn article as a source link and if you read that article you will see that some of the "factual" information is from "brooklyn on line". (By the way, as for IP addresses, I guess pharo is a newbie as well...fyi IP addresses registered to AOL are shared by multiple users).--Jessica 09:32, 27 June 2006 (EST)

The double standard here is obviously ironic: You write from an anonymous AOL ip address and you want us to take you seriously? Yet a web site (albeit maybe not the pinnacle of authority) can be defamed because it's written by some other AOL user? (At least they give an email address.) You initiated this discussion by calling the original authors here "idiots". You have repeatedly removed my attempts to sign your posts for you. Yes, I have used Broolyn On Line as a source, but you have absolutely no sources and have clearly opted for the ad hominem argument because you have nothing of substance to say. We have gotten as far as we can with this. --Howrealisreal 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like howrealisreal proved the point of the original poster for them - from what I read here it doesn't seem like the original poster is saying they have all the facts - what they're doing is asking you to back up your "facts" (quoted ex: "where did they come up with this historic name?") with a substantial reference (rather than an aol reference) before putting it in something that's supposed to be an "encyclopedia", and you just proved their point for them. As for signing posts - well remember you could sign a post with an IP address, but that means nothing because millions of aol users could have that exact same IP address on any given day, so it really makes no sense to sign an IP address on to these comments because you can't distinguish who it belongs to.

Signing posts is important to track contributions, from individuals or ip addresses used by many people. That's a Wikipedia guideline. South Brooklyn is not a contested term and if the user just looked in some history books, they will see that. Since that anonymous user denies the Internet source as being valid, and has instead resorted to laziness to be spoon-fed information, please see this scan of a book on Google books that I found in like 2 min: [1] It starts at the bottom of page 28 and goes to the top of page 29 in the book "A History of the City of Brooklyn" by: By Henry Reed Stiles. Essentially, it says that the area that today is known as "South Brooklyn" was purchased by a guy named Lubbertsen around May 1640. The area is identifed as the "northernly side of Gowanus Cove (near but not including Red Hook)" that is obviously in the north western section of present-day Brooklyn. Do you understand now? --Howrealisreal 20:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article does have some serious flaws. First, the entire article is written with the assumption that South Brooklyn is the current name for that part of Brooklyn. However this assumption is not backed up at all by facts or references. There are only a few references to personal websites that refer to the area by its historic name. And none of the referenced websites authoritatively make the claim that South Brooklyn is the current name for this part of Brooklyn. Secondly, the author only produces references to history books when discussing this topic, but still doesn't make it clear in the article itself that South Brooklyn is, in fact, a historical name. The author uses the present tense throughout the article, making the assumption that South Brooklyn is the current name, but as I've stated above, this is just an assumption made by the author, and now perpetuated by this Wikipedia article itself. Stoicalex (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

This article is ludacris. The boundaries of these other neighborhoods would connect at one point somewhat like Elmhurst, Queens, Rego Park, Queens, Forest Hills, Queens. Ask any one in brooklyn how to get to "southern brooklyn" and you'll probably end up somewhere in coney island or gravesend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"South Brooklyn" discussion elsewhere

Just a note to direct editors here to this discussion about South Brooklyn. BMK (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic/obsolete term

@Beyond My Ken: I was going to contest these edits, but the more I look at this article the more I see I should frame these as more general comments because the article needs a serious overhaul. The two issues I would bring up about what the cited encyclopedia says are about it being obsolete and the neighborhoods it covers.

The term South Brooklyn is today imprecise, that much is certainly true. As far as I can tell, the name South Brooklyn dates back to the early 19th century around the time the town of Brooklyn incorporated the village of Brooklyn. South Brooklyn is south of the village and what was initially the southern part of the city of Brooklyn. The boundaries changed a bit, neighborhoods gained or changed names and became more numerous (in the sense of sub-sections)... so the area of "South Brooklyn" is definitely an area of unclear boundaries but to say it's "imprecise and obsolete" is not correct. Imprecise suggests it was misnamed. South Boston is also not the southernmost part of Boston anymore, but I don't think anybody would call it "imprecise." And that it is still used today to refer to an area of Brooklyn means it's not obsolete. People don't necessarily agree on what that area includes, but it is nonetheless very common in everyday use. Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, etc. are so small sometimes it's more convenient to just say "South Brooklyn".

As far as the neighborhoods, when citing that source you removed the neighborhoods other than Carroll Gardens, Red Hook, and Park Slope. That leaves a big weird gap between Carroll Gardens and Park Slope where Gowanus is as well as an awkward sliver to the west of Carroll Gardens and north of Red Hook where Columbia Street Waterfront is. I think most people would, at minimum, also include Cobble Hill and Boerum Hill, which are also south of Atlantic Ave., as well as Greenwood, Sunset Park, and South Slope, which extend south and correspond with the original boundaries of the City of Brooklyn way back when.

The rest of the article is just as problematic. It certainly wasn't named after the railroad, for example. This map prominently displays the name South Brooklyn and predates the founding of that railroad by about 20 years.

I understand that without sources this is all OR, and that's why I'm not changing it and citing my sources right now.

Some notes for me to use when I have time or for someone else to use sooner:

NY Curbed - progression of maps over time to explain South Brooklyn.
NY Historical Society has a brief video on the subject
An historical sketch of the city of Brooklyn, and the surrounding neighborhood from 1840. I didn't look too closely, but it looks like a valuable source

--— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can definitely include Carroll Gardens, Red Hook, and Park Slope in So. Brooklyn. (Let's add Gowanus and Columbia St. too, because they're part of the same peninsula/geographical area.) We can add multiple sources stating that this term is disputed, and it covers a widely varying area. Epic Genius (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No neightborhods should be added to thepart about the historical term unless there's a citation from a reliable source to support it. The Encyclopedia of New York City is an extremely good source, and it's where I got the three neighborhoods from. If someone can find as good a source that adds other neighborhoods to the historical usage, that's fine.

As for the current usage, I think you can see frmo the newspaper articles and websites I added that "South Brooklyn", while it has some currency, has not stuck for a particular combination of neighborhoods. The cites are all over the place, from the original 3 listed by the Encyclopedia, to neighborhood contiguous to them, to neighborhoods in the geographical south of Brooklyn. This makes the task of defining what the modern usage is next to impossible, It maybe that we just have to wait to see if the usage settles down, unless someone can -- again -- find a good, solid reliable source which provides a clear definition. BMK (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "imprecise and obsolete" are not my opinions, they're the opinions of the Encyclopedia, an impeccable and definitive source. BMK (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EncNYC may be a good source, but it's only one source. We need some more sources to back the different (and conflicting) claims up, so that this Wikipedia article doesn't seem like the web version of the EncNYC article. Epic Genius (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the quality of any other source needs to be measured against the Encyclopedia, which is considered to be authoritative. Besides, at this point there is not other source, and we've both looked. BMK (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on South 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:

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) 04:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]