Talk:Brookline, Massachusetts

History

"The Town of Brighton was merged with Boston in 1874, and the Boston-Brookline border was redrawn to connect the new Back Bay neighborhood with Allston-Brighton. This merger created a narrow strip of land along the Charles River belonging to Boston, cutting Brookline off from the shoreline. It also put certain lands north of the Muddy River on the Boston side, including what are now Kenmore Square and Packard's Corner."

This is written confusingly; can someone clarify? Was this "narrow strip of land" within Boston prior to the annexation or was it part of Brookline? What lands "north of the Muddy River" are we talking about when where it meets the Charles divides the land into eastern and western parts? What exactly is trying to be said? Was part of the Town of Brookline annexed into Boston to connect Boston proper with Allston? Criticalthinker (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right that this could use some work. The description of the original boundaries seems to make more of Smelt Brook and the Muddy than the Charles. The loss (Brookline land transferred to Boston) of the strip of land along the Charles is evident in the map that's in the article, so the answer to your last question is yes, but maybe it could be clearer. The business about the land north of the Muddy really only makes sense for Kenmore Square in my opinion. I may take a stab at fixing some of this later unless someone else cares to. Philly6097 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Found this map from 1852, and it helped me understand this a bit better. It looks like the town used to "hook" along the northern side of Muddy Creek until it meet the Charles in an embayment. Still not sure what the current city line follows, but "north" makes sense in the description. I'd probably still reword this a bit.

Also, it'd be interesting to find out how if Brookline voted down annexation that part of its land was used to connect Allston-Brighton with Boston proper, and how Boston was able to annex that part of the "hook" from Brookline. In some states and as early as this happened, it was probably an act of the legislature, but that is just a guess. It may have even been a separate annexation vote of the small bit of territory involved, or maybe mutual agreement between the two municipal governments. However it happened, it'd perhaps be worth a mention in that paragraph somewhere. Criticalthinker (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I took a hack at this. I cut out the reference to Packard's and Kenmore Square almost entirely, as it doesn't seem that important to describe the exact contours of the annexed piece. That said it's a tricky problem and I don't know what best practice is. There are a lot of smaller articles that could touch on aspects of this. I also don't always know what needs to be described in words and what I should just leave people to find out from maps. If you haven't found it, I highly recommend the Boston Public Library's Leventhal Map Center website; make sure to check out Atlascope. Still plenty to work on here. Philly6097 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. I think the inclusion in the description of well-known areas is clarifying. I'd actually leave that in. Mostly, I was just seeking clarification that Boston did annex land from Brookline despite the vast majority of its turning back annexation, and then asking if anyone knew the mechanics of how Boston went about that, whether it was a legislative fix, mutual agreement, or a local referendum. If someone knows, they could simply add how that land was annexed from Brookline that ultimately cut it off from the Charles; I think it's at least mildly interesting since water access is usually a pretty significant thing for municipalities, especially further back in time. But, thanks for reworking this a bit. It helped. Criticalthinker (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Uncited and NPOV

"The town has a history of racial discrimination in zoning, which has led to a disproportionately wealthy population and a very low percentage of Black residents, at only 2.5%."

There were no sources attached to this. Does anyone oppose/have a strong reason/suggestion why this should NOT be removed as WP:NOSOURCES, not to mention WP:NPOV? @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is from the lead. The lead summarizes the body, and doesn't need separate references as long as the corresponding statements in the body are cited (MOS:LEADCITE). In this case, the sentence in question is summarizing the Housing and zoning history section. The sentence does seem to adequately summarize what that section says, and the section seems to be adequately referenced, with at least one citation in every paragraph. I don't see any NPOV issue, since the three claims (racial discrimination in zoning, wealthy population, and low percentage of Blacks) are simple statements of fact and are all referenced. CodeTalker (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalker [sorry for the extremely tardy response]: I've been reviewing the article, and the parts that could be seen as WP:NPOV, and noted them and my significant concerns with including them on this. Before I begin, I would just like to admit that I just realized I was erroneous with regards to lead citations (sorry!). Anyways:

1. "The town [Brookline] has a history of racial discrimination in zoning, which has led to a disproportionately wealthy population and a very low percentage of Black residents, at only 2.5%." - this is ok, but only if it would actually exist somewhere else in the article. See below. Also, there are no sources for the "racial discrimination" part.
2. "In 1843, a racially restrictive covenant in Brookline forbade resale of property to 'any negro or native of Ireland.' "- this is a major issue. It was attached to three citations. The first one is to a book, "The Color of Law". I don't actually have the book with me, but if you look at the next to citations, it is clear this is not an appropriate or fact-based statement that should be included. The second citation is "Santucci, Larry (2019). 'How Prevalent Were Racially Restrictive Covenants in 20th Century Philadelphia? A New Spatial Data Set Provides Answers' (PDF)." This is not relevant. I believe the user who edited this mistook THIS Brookline (Brookline, MA), for the Brookline likely mentioned in that file (Brookline, PA). The third citation is " 'Documenting Racially Restrictive Covenants in 20th Century Philadelphia' (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 21, 2020." Yet again, it is clear that the Brookline of this article is not the Brookline in the sources. I genuinely do not believe, therefore, that there was any "racially restrictive covenant" that is documented, and this must be removed immediately.

Anyways, just wondering your thoughts.

Have a great day!

-@Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

1. The "racial discrimination" statement in the lead is summarizing the Housing and zoning history section which says "Template:Tq". This paragraph is cited to [1], which says "Template:Tq" The "racial discrimination" statement seems supported by this source.Template:Pb2. The statement about the racially restrictive covenant is supported by the same source as item 1, although the date does not agree (the Boston Globe source says it was in 1855). Regarding the three citations currently attached to the statement, I also do not have access to the Color of Law book. However the second source clearly mentions Brookline, MA even though its overall topic is Philadelphia. On p.7 it says "Template:Tq" The third source makes the exact same statement; on p.248 it says "Template:Tq". I don't understand why you think these are talking about a different Brookline; are you basing that conclusion solely on the fact that the source titles mention Philadelphia?Template:PbOverall I don't see any problem except possible for the issue of the date of that first covenant. One source says it was in 1855 and two others say it was in 1843. This may require more research to resolve than I have time to do right now. CodeTalker (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)