Talk:Prospect Lefferts Gardens

Requested move
moved. Since there is only a weak opposition to the name and the opposition is based on an even-split in usage, and since (per WP:AT) there is a preference for non-hyphenated names, I'm closing this as moved. --rgpk (comment) 21:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Prospect-Lefferts Gardens, Brooklyn → Prospect Lefferts Gardens — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC) In discussions with local inhabitants, it has been determined that the neighborhood is most properly referred to as Prospect Lefferts Gardens without a hyphen. According to Bob Marvin, an oft quoted and local resource, some of the confusion appears to stem from the naming of the historic district "Prospect-Lefferts Gardens" which was given a hyphen for unknown reasons by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The historic district, however, is only a part of Prospect Lefferts Gardens and this would not result in the overall name having a hyphen. Few residents refer to the complete area as having a hyphenated name and either its usage here is incorrect or has gone out of use.

Please also amend Prospect-Lefferts Gardens to redirect to the new location.

--Plognyc (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plognyc (talk • contribs) 04:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I support removing the hyphen from the neighborhood name (Prospect Lefferts Gardens) and ONLY using it when referring to the Historic District (since the use of the hyphenated name started with the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission). I was a member of the PLGNA Committee that worked on the Historic District designation in the '70s and recall being surprised when LPC added a hyphen but no one wanted to make an issue of such a minor point when we were very anxious just to get our Historic District established by the City. The name "Prospect Lefferts Gardens was coined c.1968 by the Prospect Lefferts Gardens Neighborhood Association (PLGNA) and that organization has NEVER used a hyphen in the name.

"Robert Marvin" — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobMarvin11225 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do we have any sources other than "discussions with local inhabitants"? Dohn joe (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. More specifically, local inhabitants refer to individuals such as Bob Marvin who were involved with the Prospect Lefferts Gardens Neighborhood Association in the 1970s and later. This is the primary source of information since it was PLGNA that created the name of the community itself. --Plognyc (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it would be much, much better to have a reliable source showing how people write the name of the neighborhood. Could you provide some links from local newspapers talking about the neighborhood, for example? Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are many links I can provide which refer to the community's name without a hyphen.

An article from a local newspaper

A popular Brooklyn website

PLGNA - Prospect Lefferts Gardens Neighborhood Association website

The Citysearch website

--Plognyc (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, for now. My searches in Google Books and the New York Times show about an even split between "Prospect-Lefferts Gardens" and "Prospect Lefferts Gardens". I don't see a strong enough case to rename the article, but I'm open to new evidence. Dohn joe (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I also have a cite here from the New York Times also showing it without a hyphen. New York Times

I would have to disagree at this point that you're open to evidence. I live in the community and am in contact with the people who actually named the community. In this case where Google searches are clearly going to contradict each other, Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is not going to resolve this. If anything, it's the hyphen on the Wikipedia page which continues to proliferate the name of the community using the hyphenation. I gave you a link to the organization which named the community. They don't use a hyphen.

Also looking at your searches, you are confusing some citations of the historic district (which does have a hyphen) with the greater Prospect Lefferts Gardens which does not. Additionally the local sources I provided should be given far greater weight. If the Brooklyn Paper calls it "Prospect Lefferts Gardens" I would consider that extremely compelling.

--Plognyc (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just calling 'em how I see 'em. Most of the sources in my searches predate the creation of this page, and indeed the creation of Wikipedia, and they still seem pretty split to me. And it doesn't seem to matter what kind of source it is: newspapers, magazines, travel guides, books, essays, government docs, scholarly articles, etc. are all split in including or excluding the hyphen. Same for sources that don't expressly discuss the historic district - they're split. As for being open to new evidence, if you can show that the trend in newer sources is to exclude the hyphen, or if there's a reliable source that says, "The hyphen only applies to the official historic district", or something along those lines, I'd be glad to reconsider - it's only a weak oppose. Dohn joe (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. As the reliable sources section states "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." It's clear that sources that are local to the neighborhood refer to it without a hyphen. These sources are more credible in the same way that a source in Shanghai would be more reputable about that city than a publisher in Los Angeles.

You ask to "show that the trend in newer sources is to exclude the hyphen" but each time I respond to your requests, you then simply do your own research and make a new argument. You asked "Could you provide some links from local newspapers talking about the neighborhood, for example?" I did so. You then rebutted it with a new argument ignoring local newspapers and stating that a more comprehensive search showed that usage was split. --Plognyc (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to take in all the evidence. And I still see an even split wherever I look. There are several Brooklyn-based sources that do use the hyphen - see this book, published by Brooklyn College Press; or this one, written for the Brooklyn Historical Society. Overall, the split between hyphenation and non-hyphenation is so close that I think either name would be acceptable as a title. But conversely, that means that I don't know if there's sufficient evidence to move it. Dohn joe (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. One of the books you are referring to is from 1979. I do not find that compelling. I am going to have to get some primary source information - such as a letter from one of the founders of the community - and appeal the decision. Hopefully someone will allow us the right to determine the name of our own community? The reliable source guidelines state "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think we left common sense behind at some point here. I have already agreed that Google searches are clearly going to contradict each other and Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is not going to resolve this. Hopefully that doesn't mean that the entry can't be changed just because whoever created the entry happened to choose to hyphenate the name. --Plognyc (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Most gentrified neighborhood?
This seems hyperbolic. Source? 24.45.47.134 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Article says "...one of the most gentrified". Should be sourced, though. BMK (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (uninvolved comment; page watcher) The statement now says "Prospect Lefferts Gardens has been gentrifying quickly" based on the NY Times source. Epicgenius (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - none of the paper sources I have with me had anything useful. BMK (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)