Jump to content

Talk:Coney Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleConey Island has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
October 6, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 26, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that New York City's Coney Island (pictured) has not been an island since the 1930s?
Current status: Good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jennychen717.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Once home to many Jewish resident"

[edit]

The demographics section states: "Once home to many Jewish residents, Coney Island's main population groups today are African American, Italian American, Hispanic, and recent Russian and Ukrainian immigrants."

This suggests that the area is no longer "home to many Jewish residents." But in reality, a large portion of the Russian and Ukrainian immigrant community here is actually Jewish. This should be fixed. 67.87.217.163 (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Moved from article because of copyright concerns, and because they're closer to promotion than anything encyclopedic:


From a Souvenir Folder (postcard folder) of the 1930s:

Coney Island is one of the most famous playgrounds in the world. Located in New York City at the eastern end of Brooklyn at the mouth of the Atlantic. It is about five miles in length and about three-quarters of a mile in width. Accessible by fast Subway, Street Cars and Busses and Excursion Steamers.

It is not unusual to find over 1,000,000 people spending their Sundays or Holidays at this Amusement and Bathing Resort. The Boardwalk is second to none.

Among the many famous places of Amusement at the Island, are Steeplechase Park and Luna Park. There are many exhibits and side shows which are procured at great expense, showing rare freaks of nature and daring feats of skill.

These and other amusement spots at Coney Island attract large crowds throughout the season which usually runs from Easter Sunday until the middle of September. The Grand Finale of the season usually ends with a Mardi-Gras which lasts a week. Each night a pageant is held with floats and spectacles which are very impressive and colorful and a Carnival spirit prevails.

From Fortune Magazine, August 1938, "To Heaven by Subway"

"[Coney Island] is the home of sixty bathhouses, two big amusement parks (Steeplechase and Luna), seventy "ball" games, thirteen carrousels, eleven roller coasters [see http://home.nyc.rr.com/johnmiller/ci_tbolt.html], five tunnel rides, three fun houses, two waxworks, six penny arcades, twenty shooting galleries, three freak shows, a variety of other games, rides, shows, and souvenir shops, and some 200 eating establishments--more than 500 separate enterprises in violent and continual conflict--perhaps the greatest concentration of independent little businesses in the world." Vicki Rosenzweig 22:12 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Name of Coney Island

[edit]

An anon, in good faith, believes that Coney Island is named after the island of the same name in Ireland. He cites a PBS story[1].

First, PBS is not famed for doing a very thorough job on local history. Their primary source for this claim is a 1924 "document." They don't state what the "document" is, but it is ill placed to "prove" anything about the name of Coney Island. Also, the article gives a bunch of explanations, they just end with the Irish island one because apparently that is the most colorful. I am altering the claim to accurately reflect the contents of the article. The bald claim that the other explanations are wrong and it is named after the Irish Coney Island is unsupportable. -- Cecropia 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the 1924 "document" is for a different claim, that Coney is named for a "Konoh (Bear) Tribe." The claim that it is named for the Irish Island is a popular legend in Sligo, Ireland, where "that" Coney Island is, and the claim is from an article in the local newspaper. -- Cecropia 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section on the name is poorly structured and frequently repetitive. It could do with a thorough re-write. (I know, I know. When I get the time...) -- Picapica (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Irish 'coinín' (kun een) is the word used for a rabbit. 86.45.134.138 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word coney is also an English word meaning rabbit, and was in fact used with that meaning long before the word rabbit became current. A parallel use of coney was as a euphemism for vulva, (cf. beaver) with the pronunciation cunny (itself another word for cunt); which led to the word coney being avoided in favour of rabbit in most ordinary usage. The expression no money, no honey (sexual companionship is unavailable if one is poor) was originally no money, no coney, a usage lost after the term coney became virtually obsolete.
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and NPOV

[edit]

This article needs a clean up and an NPOV check. A quick run through found NPOV statements such as "Coney Island's excellent and sun-drenched beach remains a major attraction." Páll (Die pienk olifant) 09:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of the POV has been taken care of by now. Useight 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper Cars

[edit]

The section on bumper cars is pretty rediculous and not encyclopedic at all. I would clean it up, but I don't even know where to start. Someone should have a look at it. Papercrab 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tackled it. It was complete POV and sexist to boot. I only edited the amusements section though; I couldn't figure out how to work with the rest. DanielEng 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Island plane crash

[edit]

Although I am not sure that this isn't better left as its own article, if the consensus was that it be merged here I don't have a problem with that - I'll do it, so the information they gathered isn't lost, and if further discussion here results in not wanting it in this article, it can easily be removed. Oddly enough, I live in NY and have no recollection of this accident, from just last year. Tvoz 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOwever, when I went to do it, the original aricle had much too much detail for this article, so I boiled it down to a few sentences - and I am not convinced that it belongs here. I set up a section called "Accidents", thinking if anyone wants to research and write up something about roller coaster accidents at Coney Island, that could work - but as it is now, I think this is not all that appropriate for this more general article about COney Island. Any thoughts? Tvoz 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge and deletion - it belongs where it has now been placed in Aviation accidents and incidents in 2005. Please leave it in place with all other aircraft accident articles. Ardfern 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me - I didn't think it belonged here anyway, as per above. But the proposed merge and deletion was talking about a separate article for the COney crash which we were asked to merge here - I don't see an article named Aviation accidents and incidents in 2005 but maybe the name is slightly different. Tvoz | talk 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An accident article should not be merged with an amusement park article. The categories in which these articles naturally belong are different. Hmains 19:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula

[edit]

Just out of curiosity, how is Coney Island formerly an island as I am guessing that it wasn't dragged by ships to be attached to the mainland. Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I am from Britain not the USA so we're not really knowledgable about specific areas of the US.

Thanks v. much in advance! --Xsamix 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was filled. Gravesend Bay and Sheepshead Bay were once joined by a channel, now filled in. Several former small islands in New York including Furman and Belmont Islands had garbage, earth and other filler material dumped into the waterway, and built over. Randalls Island and Wards Island still have separate names, but are no longer physically separated. Do some British cities have similar former islands? Jim.henderson 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that answer, Jim! It would be great to move this information to the main body of the article if it can be sourced. -Armaced (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Hole

[edit]

Where is it? I was there this past weekend and didn't see it, but it is very possible that I missed it. Astroland wasn't even open yet, though Deno's was. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found, visited, and written up on Wikipedia. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

Goodness, this has become a big article for such a small part of Brooklyn, though the material is mostly worthy. See WP:SIZE. Perhaps the time has come to make a separate article of the long section about controveries of the future. Jim.henderson 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced lead

[edit]

The first paragraph of the lead is about geography and is neat and precise. The second is about the glorious past of the proprietary amusement parks, and how baseball is what's important about the present. This presentation is unbalanced since, as the body of the article says, there's plenty else to do at Coney and always has been. Better, seems to me, to halve what the lead says about baseball, and add a sentence or two to hint at the other attractions that are detailed in the various sections. Jim.henderson 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Img of Aquarium

[edit]

The text of the img said: "The New York Aquarium opened up in 1896. It currently occupies 14 acres by the sea in Coney Island, and boasts over 350 species of aquatic wildlife". The previous photo mismatches the text under a photo. The previous photo of exit to ocean has been constructed in 90-s. The text of photo tells about the Aquarium, instead of about gate to ocean.

Article update of current development

[edit]

The article has a flag on an unsourced and undated quote from a NYTimes article about the development situation. A Google news search shows that things have moved on from the developer's drawings mentioned in the article. Does anyone else want to do a rewrite of this section? Lots of articles out there since this is the end of the season, particularly http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0735,demause,77638,2.html and http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nycone295350481aug29,0,2384713.story. --Tinned Elk 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major editing needed

[edit]

I haven't actually read this in a while, and I am quite surprised at how it now reads. The sections "Summer of 2007" and "Development efforts and controversy" are way, way, way too long - disproportionate to the rest of the article. There should be a short, maybe 2-3 paragraph summary about development, not the tome that is now there. This is an encyclopedia article about Coney Island overall - its history, culture, tradition, etc - not an article about the current development plans or about Thor Equity. These sections make the article read like an annual report and it never used to. Also, you don't include things like "at the time of this writing" - this is not a news report. I'm inclined to just lop all of that stuff off, considerably shortening those parts, but I'll give editors a chance to look at it. Tvoz |talk 07:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of ongoing shenanigans related to Coney Island development makes fascinating reading and I for one would be sorry to see it removed. (On the contrary, I'd be very eager to find the results of investigation into related questions: Just who is Joe Sitt? How did he get his start? Whose money is behind him? What is the connection between the timing of NYC concessions on his behalf - and their percipitent withdrawal - and campaign contributions made on his behalf, perhaps through other companies, to campaigns of Giuliani, et al? I don'g doubt that investigations in this area have the potential to become an important issue in the upcoming presidential race..
Notwithstanding Tvoz's remark, corruption and political manouevring have been a signature part of Coney Island's and the surrounding area's development almost since the first small clam restaurants made their appearance; and this aspect is almost ignored in this otherwise exemplary article. (Examples include Robert Moses' passive support of lawless youth gangs in the early 60s; and long periods during which organised crime operated prostitution and even gambling racing tracks without legal harassment).
Understand what is at stake does not really require too much imagination. There is no natural law that Coney Island must be split between low income housing and cheap entertainment. With adequate political support, I could imagine it turned into one of the most expensive residential districts in America with, say, luxury sea side housing being combined with ultra fast hovercraft transport to Wall Street.
If the community sense is that this section ought to be moved or scaled back, I hope it will find a new home elsewhere in Wikipedia.

--Philopedia (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs to be edited down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.127.126 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it would be useful to put a lot of the information in the "Summer of 2007" in the "Development efforts and controversy" section. While a lot of the "Summer of 2007" information is very interesting, I don't think that the play-by-play from a single summer is appropriate here. Also, the whole section isn't sourced. Flyte35 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant

[edit]

What about the Elephant? http://www.mmcsl.net/coney/html/page009.htm Jooler 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music

[edit]

Bruce Springsteen's "Tunnel Of Love" song video has Coney Island amusements/shore in it I believe...or else some other amusement park. Verification needed.76.17.252.73 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)etsryan[reply]

Handball

[edit]

No mention of handball? I don't know if handball started here BUT it was DEFINITLEY popularized and mastered here. Coney Island is the mecca of handball and there is no mention of it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.120 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question...

[edit]

Does the Image:Animatronic depiction of waterboarding from Coney Island.jpg merit mention in this article? Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting but I don't really think it needs to be mentioned here. This article is way too long already.Flyte35 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

videos

[edit]

removed re Wikipedia:Trivia sections--Work permit (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

I split the development section into a new article, and summarized it here. I think the summary I wrote needs to be made shorter still. --Work permit (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another split(Popular culture)

[edit]

I reiterate my suggestion for a split of the chapter Coney Island in popular culture onto it's own page. ----DanTD (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive, but I think the list would need to be made into prose. Also, references would need to be added. Otherwise, the split off article would (or should) end up being deleted. In which case, you might as well just delete the content now. The content would still be in the history buffer, so it could be used as a template for a new article when/if someone is willing to put in the time.--Work permit (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for adding references. The only question is where to start. ----DanTD (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One way is to start is trying a google book search on a phrase for a really notable entry. For example, I tried a search for coney+island+woody+allen. Here is the result [2]. You notice the first book's entry has as a header "coney island at the movies". That sounds promising. Here is the resulting entry in the book [3]. You'll see that you can weave a number of movie entries into prose, using this one reference. Then and build up the article from there. And of course, throw out any etries that wind up too "trivial" to mention.--Work permit (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering IMDb for the movie section, but those are goo too. ----DanTD (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB really won't be very useful here. You're looking for references that cite coney island as a notable feature in a movie, song, etc. IMDB is ok for information on casts and directors, but not really useful or reliable for content. You may want to take a look at this thread on citing IMDB. If this task is really daunting, you could start small. Delete the trivia content in the article (don't forget, its still in the history buffer), build up a new section using references such as the book (and refering back to the deleted content). Then, when the section is in good shape, split it off into a new article. Or, work in pieces, cutting out subsections and working up from there. In any event, you'll really need to make this into prose. The current "list" format is useless and probably should be deleted.--Work permit (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to tell you this, but the first link isn't showing up anymore. ----DanTD (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Island References

[edit]

I'm going to start populating this section with references, if you're willing to spin it into prose

  • Immerso, Michael (2002). Coney Island: the people's playground (illustrated ed.). Rutgers University Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-8135-3138-0.--Work permit (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent wording

[edit]

From the current article: "Coney Island still maintains a broad sandy beach from West 37th Street at Seagate through the Coney Island and Brighton Beach to the beginning of the community of Manhattan Beach, a distance of approximately 2½ miles (~4.0 km)." This does not parse. - Jmabel | Talk 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New etymology

[edit]

Currently sifting through "Some yeares travels into divers parts of Asia and Afrique" by Sir Thomas Herbert (written in 1638 about journeys undertaken in 1626). There is some text where Herbert is describing their approaching the island thus:

"...we let fall our Anchor (14 leagues ſhort of the Bay of Soldania) and went a ſhore upon a little Ile (3 miles round) corruptly call'd Cony Ile, from the Welſh cain-yne or white Ile, where we kill'd many Conies (or Cats rather)..."

This predates the 1690 map mentioned by over 50 years. I'm not suggesting it's factually accurate, but it's worth investigating, no? I'm usually a Witionary editor, but I thought this was worth mentioning here. Je-crockford (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However is he writing about North America here? The title of the work you're referencing says only Africa & Asia. Additionally, Soldania redirects to a bay in South Africa...--Ashanda (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true, in which case I'm struggling to find any islands surrounding South Africa which would have previously been referred to as "Cony Ile". Jakeybean (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon inspection of Google Maps it appears to be referring to Dassen Island. I'll proceed to move the discussion there. Jakeybean (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The split is made. I finally added Coney Island in popular culture onto it's own page. Make whatever changes are necessary. ----DanTD (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Here is a map:

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology cleanup for WP:OR

[edit]

this version of the Etymology section was wholly sourced to primary sources (interpretations of historical maps) making it WP:OR. This could all be true but we need a reliable secondary source on this since the only secondary source in the section (PBS) contradicts the claims made. I have removed/reworded the OR[4]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section reworked a bit[5] with some map evidence worked back in in a hopefully less OR form. Map evidence seems to date back to the edits of an IP editor[6]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More OR

[edit]

Changed more interpretations of historical maps that fall into WP:OR. We can not make the claim "In the early years (1639) of their settlement, the Dutch used the name Conyne Eylandt ("Rabbit Island")" based on reading a primary source map, and the supporting secondary source (Douglas) simply re-quotes what is on the maps, it does not make this claim. We can also not discount a PBS source just because we think we see something significant in a map. Historians analyze, evaluate, interpret, and synthesize material found in a primary sources, not us, for example (Douglas) points out the earliest date for the map is 1670, not 1639, and the attribution to Vingboons is dubious. Rm further iterations of maps, the 1656 Visscher map actually dates to 1685 and the added secondary source makes no claim as to its content. Other "map claims" rely on WP:OR - examination of the map itself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text that you've left retains the essentials of what I tried to add, so I'll gladly stop trying to make a contribution to a topic that you're apparently very possessive about. The following is just so you can make some improvements yourself. The text is less clear than my text, as for example the rabbits explanation now precedes a mention of Conyne Eylandt, which now also has no translation to "rabbits island". It's also less accurate. For instance Hunter, with whom you seem to be on a first-name basis, wrote "The hand-painted Vinckeboons map of 1639 shows Coney (Conyne) Island as ..." (page 165) and "Conyne Island [sic] appears in the hand-painted circa 1639 map Manatus gelegen op de Noot Rivier attributed to Joan Vinckeboons". This seems to conflict with your saying "(Douglas) points out the earliest date for the map is 1670, not 1639" and the current text "A Dutch map of Manhattan and environs from around 1670, believed to be a copy of a 1639 map" The ca. 1639 date is confirmed on numerous other sites besides the Schwartz and Ehrenberg one I added, but these you'll reject as they do not mention Coney Island (for whatever rule you've misinterpreted for that). The LOC has a facsimile of the hand-drawn map. This copy was created between 1665-1670, perhaps that is where the confusion comes from. Your text is also less informative. E.g., you removed the text on it being depicted as a peninsula in 1639 and a true island in 1651/1656; the subject of its status as an island is discussed in some detail by Hunter. Another unnecessary loss of information is the removal of the 1656 Visscher map; wikimedia only has a picture of a 1685 copy, but the scholarly reference you deleted explains in detail the 1656 and 1651 origin of it.
Citing a secondary source, in this case an anonymous People&Events page on a PBS site (originally added in 2006 with the comment "what a bunch of speculation, but sort of entertaining", does not trump (rinsing my mouth now) logic, especially combined with a number of expert sources that speak against its unsupportable conclusion that an Irishman came up with the name in the 18th century. I beg to differ with your speculation above that the author of this piece was a historian. It is also very easy to claim that something is WP:OR; in fact, I could do that for anything you've added to wikipedia. It'll get very annoying really soon. For example, to claim that interpreting a secondary source (Hunter) writing that (the Dutchman) Vinckeboons named the island "Conyne Eylandt" on his hand painted map of ca. 1639 to mean that the Dutch in 1639 used the name "Conyne Eylandt" is "original research" is just annoying (as well as absurd). There must be oodles of wiki guidelines that you can quote arguing against your own behavior. Afasmit (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not clear, making a claim Conyne Eylandt = "rabbit island" on interpretation of a primary source (a map) is WP:OR, placing that claim ahead of others in a section is contrary to WP:NPOV, and not citing reliable secondary sources that directly support a claim is contrary to WP:V. The text I have retained is what I have always retained through several WP:OR cleanups: some very old maps seem to show some variation of the islands historical name going back to XXXX date... based on what we have that is all we can say. I deleted further "map claims" because they were redundant (1670 seems to be the source map) and also strayed into what seemed to be a WP:OR claim: "well, we see "X" in map "Y" and map "Z" therefor we can draw obvious conclusion "M"". Its a good treatise for some historian but it we have to wait for that person to write it, we can not make or imply claims based on that. Please note: Douglas Hunter, Half Moon: Henry Hudson and the Voyage That Redrew the Map of the New World, page 278 notes the "Manatvs gelegen op de Noot Riuier" map is a 1670 copy and questions its attribution to Vickeboons. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, very good 1776 Coney map here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Coney Island. 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, 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coney Island. 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) 16:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coney Island. 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) 03:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whats this article about? The neighborhood or the peninsula?

[edit]

According to this nyc.gov document:

"The peninsula that now contains Coney Island and three other Southern Brooklyn neighborhoods..."
"There are four primary neighborhoods on the Coney Island peninsula...Sea Gate ...Coney Island...Brighton Beach...Manhattan Beach"

Other sources also describe Coney Island peninsula [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. So two definable different topics.

The lead sentence of this article says:

Coney Island is a residential and commercial neighborhood

The very first section says:

Coney Island is a peninsula

Further, the first 16 body paragraphs describe the peninsula. Related articles such as Brighton Beach have some strange MOS:SUBMARINE going on re: "...along the Coney Island peninsula and facing the Atlantic Ocean"... the link does not take you to Coney Island peninsula, it takes you to an article that says its about another neighborhood (Coney Island).

So... this looks like a WP:CONSPLIT to me, Coney Island and Coney Island peninsula. Noaccountaccount (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same. The Coney Island neighborhood includes Brighton Beach and Sea Gate, as well as Manhattan Beach (and the part of Coney Island that is not part of these three neighborhoods), which are also part of the Coney Island peninsula. The area that is named Coney Island on its own is what's highlighted in the infobox. This is similar to the situation in Flatbush, Brooklyn (with Prospect Lefferts Gardens, etc.) or Upper East Side (with Yorkville), in which these neighborhoods contain subsections as well as areas that aren't part of a subsection. So please, let's not create unnecessary articles about geographical areas just because part of the larger neighborhood isn't included within any subsection. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Noaccountaccount: Actually, you know what, this situation is a little like Harlem, where there's a narrower definition of Harlem (covered in that article) and a greater definition (covered within other articles with a brief explanation in the Harlem article). Over the years, the definition of Coney Island has narrowed, as has that of Harlem. So feel free to split the peninsula article, but I think Coney Island (peninsula) would be a better title. However, even by the narrow definition, Sea Gate is considered to be part of the standalone Coney Island neighborhood. epicgenius (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coney Island (peninsula) sounds good. As for what part is Cone Island, The info box map shows west 37th Street to Ocean Parkway, and this checks out. Sea Gate, Brooklyn has its own article and, again, is defined, to west 37th Street. I think we have to go with reference. Noaccountaccount (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really trust these sources as reliable sources though, due to being realty sources, which are (in)famous for arbitrarily changing the boundaries of neighborhoods. Luckily, as Sea Gate is a gated community, we know its exact boundaries. Less clear is whether Sea Gate is part of Coney Island, the neighborhood. epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Supreme Court Appellate Division-Second Department, 1938 defines Sea Gate (as an area separate from Coney Island) and nyc.gov - Chapter 17 Southern Brooklyn page 337 gives us 4 Southern Brooklyn neighborhoods on Coney Island Peninsula - Sea Gate, Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Manhattan Beach. So I think we are safe in saying Sea Gate is a separate neighborhood, and I am not seeing any source that says otherwise.

The only problem I see now is - should this article be about the neighborhood or the island/peninsula called "Coney Island"? Looking it over, an awful lot of this article is about the island/peninsula. It may be a better idea for there to be a Coney Island (neighborhood) article so that just things about West Brighton / Coney Island neighborhood can be moved there. We also have WP:ASTONISH, people doing searches and following links may expect to arrive at an article about the "Island", not the neighborhood. Noaccountaccount (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noaccountaccount, the vast majority of this article is actually about the neighborhood between West 37th Street and Ocean Parkway. This seems to fit as all of the modern-day amusements are located in that region. Besides that, I count eight sections that talk mostly about the neighborhood of Coney Island: Amusement parks and attractions; Demographics; Police and crime; Fire safety; Health; Post offices and ZIP codes; Education; and Transportation. There are only two sections that I can definitively identify as being part of a peninsula article: Name and Geography. About 80% of the History article is about Coney Island (neighborhood), Brooklyn, as well.
So this article should really be about the smaller neighborhood (which is more synonymous with its history as an amusement location) than about the larger peninsula (which contains a much broader history and not associated as much with the amusement area). The peninsula is purely a geographic term, and should be treated as such. The meat of the details is about the neighborhood, which includes its roller coasters, amusement parks, etc. By contrast, Brighton/Manhattan Beach and Sea Gate didn't have any of these amusement destinations, as they were already developed as residential neighborhoods by the 20th century.
We had this problem as well when splitting Hudson Yards (development) and Hudson Yards (neighborhood), Manhattan. The development was a small part of the larger neighborhood, and only the things related to the development were split off to the former of the two articles. epicgenius (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is still WP:ASTONISH/WP:SUMMARY/basic subset logic. The base article should be the SUMMARY overall area (the Island), then sub-neighborhoods. There are some 300 descriptions of this area as the Island in Wikipedia alone. Amusements were not just in the Coney neighborhood, a couple of race tracks were not. The lead paragraph of this article still describes the Island. This article was converted over from the Coney Island article to describing the sub-neighborhood less than a year ago, probably should not have been done.
Two other problems I noticed. The main topic is un-referenced, no references as to the actual description of the Coney Island neighborhood - no reliable sources at all. We can see it does exist but that will need fixing. The other problem is other sources contradict the map in the info box - popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov and eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu give us another neighborhood, West Brighton, that takes up part of Coney neighborhood. Google street maps also includes this neighborhood. Needs to be described somehow. Noaccountaccount (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noaccountaccount, not quite - the phrase "on Coney Island" can refer to either the neighborhood or the peninsula. For instance, we say "on the Upper West Side", "on the Upper East Side" quite frequently. It will not go against WP:ASTONISH to say that the neighborhood is the base topic. I'd argue that since most amusements are in the Coney Island neighborhood, that is the primary topic.
As for West Brighton (as described in your source), that definitely isn't its own neighborhood, but a census designation area. In fact, "West Brighton" is an old name for what is now Coney Island (neighborhood). From this exact article (cited to Cross, G.; Walton, J.K. (2005). The Playful Crowd: Pleasure Places in the Twentieth Century. pp. 14-15), By the early 1900s, West Brighton had gradually become the most popular destination, and as such, became associated with the lively amusement area of Coney Island.
As for the no references as to the actual description of the Coney Island neighborhood - no reliable sources at all - I think the Encyclopedia of New York City (ref 6) is a reliable enough reference. According to the book, Neighborhood in southwest Brooklyn (2000 pop. 106,120), bounded to the north by Coney Island Creek and the Belt Parkway, to the east by Ocean Parkway, to the south by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the west by Norton’s Point. (page 299). I do agree that we need more references. The map in the infobox is taken mostly from Google Maps and the Encyclopedia of New York City. But since NYC neighborhoods don't have firmly defined boundaries, that may be as good as we get. Macaulay Portfolios, while extensive, is not really that reliable since it's a work by college students and isn't thoroughly vetted.
In any case, with only two people discussing this, we should probably have more input to this discussion. In the scenario that the neighborhood article is split, then the peninsula article should probably be split as well, with Coney Island redirecting to Coney Island (disambiguation). epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the version a year ago was basically divided. First two sections were about the peninsula, the next five (most of History, as well as Theme parks and attractions, Demographics, Education, and Transportation) were about the sub-neighborhood. I strongly disagree that adding info in the neighborhood should not have been done - on the contrary, I felt it was quite necessary as this article was extremely unsourced. Furthermore, the lead section still sounded like it was about the neighborhood, with the sentence The residential portion of the peninsula is a community of 60,000 people in its western part, with Sea Gate to its west, Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach to its east, the Lower Bay to the south, and Gravesend to the north. epicgenius (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I promise this is my last post for tonight. Both the Macaulay and NYC Portfolios sites draw their definition of West Brighton from the NYC Neighborhood Tabulation Areas map, which is at best tenuous at describing neighborhoods. For example, in Queens we have Elmhurst-Maspeth, right next to the actual neighborhoods of Elmhurst and Maspeth. These should really be taken with a grain of salt. epicgenius (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the topic to say if Coney Island (peninsula) should be a separate article -- is there much to say, beyond that it used to be a barrier island, and is now a peninsula consisting of three neighbourhoods there's extensive individual articles on. But that it redirects to the Coney Island#Geography and climate section which doesn't discuss it all, other than in an image caption, seems unhelpful. I think these two different meanings need to be made more clearly distint in the lead section, even if one sense greatly predominates. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"New York Beach" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New York Beach. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#New York Beach until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Coney Island shore
Coney Island shore
  • ... that New York City's Coney Island (pictured) developed into a resort area after the construction of five railroads there in the 19th century? Source: (1) Cudahy, B.J. (2009). How We Got to Coney Island: The Development of Mass Transportation in Brooklyn and Kings County. Fordham University Press. p. 71 (2) Cross, G.; Walton, J.K. (2005). The Playful Crowd: Pleasure Places in the Twentieth Century. Columbia University Press. p. 14.
    • ALT1:... that the amusement area of New York City's Coney Island (pictured) is one of a few in the United States that is not mostly owned by any one entity? Source: Judith N. DeSena; Timothy Shortell (2012). The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City. p. 153.
    • ALT2:... that New York City's Coney Island (pictured) has not been an island since the 1930s? Source: Kadinsky, Sergey (2016). Hidden Waters of New York City: A History and Guide to 101 Forgotten Lakes, Ponds, Creeks, and Streams in the Five Boroughs. Countryman Press. p. 200.

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: AGF on offline source. I agree that ALT2 has the broadest appeal and is the most interesting. The ALT0 could work if it was explained why the railroads were built there, but it would then become too long-winded. SounderBruce 20:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1645 "Indian deed"

[edit]

I believe this is the document referred to. The idea of "a gun, a blanket, and a kettle" appears to be quite apocryphal.--Pharos (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coney_Island&oldid=1265554565"