Talk:42nd Street (Manhattan)

directions

coming from upstate...can I get a rough estimate of how many blocks btwn grandcentral/42nd st. and madame tussands located if walking with kids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.173.32 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Madame Tussands is located between Seventh and Eight Avenues and Grand Central is at Park Avenue, so I would say about five or six blocks. About a mile of walking. 67.22.244.97 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Eman91

For future tourists, consider the Times Square Shuttle (aka 42nd Street Shuttle) instead of walking. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Movie Goers in 42nd-Street Theaters

How could the authors of Sleazoid Express know with any degree of certainty what the makeup was of the movie goers? Did they do an exit survey of the patrons? Is the audience makeup described in the article what is described in the book, or was it serially modified by various contributors to the article? What precisely is a "low-grade Italian American mafiosi"? I believe this passage is grossly speculative, racist, bigoted and contrary to Wikipedia's strict standard of avoiding abusive language. Philantonia (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's possibly the case, I don't know the source. What are the author's credentials? Was the statement opinion, based on a casual knowledge of the area, or does it come from someone who's studied it for a long time? The 42nd Street movie theatres in the 1960s-1980s is not an unstudied phenomenon, so I'm sure there are sources out there that can support or oppose the views presented - have you read any of them to see what they say?

These are important questions, and if you have some input on them, why not make the case that the source should no longer be used? What you shouldn't do, however is to remove the sourced information without any idea of what lies behind it, simply because you disagree with what it says. From my own personal knowledge, the description of 42nd Street when it was at the bottom is pretty much correct, although perhaps conveyed in overly flamboyant manner. One really didn't want to walk the blocks from 9th to 7th Avenues after dark, and when you had to, you kept an eagle eye out.

So what I'm saying is that sourced information shouldn't be removed unless there is a consensus to do so. You can do that by impeaching the quality of the source, or you can do that by bring up information from a more reliable source which contradicts it, but it's up to you to support your desired edit, and simply calling it "racist" isn't going to do it. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that the description of the movie goers changed no more than about a week ago, it would appear that it is still a work in progress. For material of this nature to be treated as sourced, it should be taken directly from the source work and set off in quotations. At that time, the merit of the source can be properly reflected and qualified in the article.Philantonia (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sourced information which is not directly quoted should be treated any any differently than sourced information which is paraphrased -- the only question would be if the current ncarnation in some way misrepresents the source - which is clearly stated in the text, so there's no danger of it being mistaken for Wikipedia's voice. I'll check and see if the source is available online anywhere. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You have, in effect, justified my edit since my "current incarnation" does not "in some way misrepresent the source". My edit does not remove any sourced material, but only expresses certain elements in a more general way. For example "pimp" subsumes black pimps, Asian pimps, white pimps etc. Is it germane to the article that only black pimps are mentioned? I believe that with sourced material, it is incumbent upon the contributor to use discretion, good taste and sensitivity to include only what is germane to the article, and which would not be construed as abusive to some readers unless, of course, there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't see how that applies here. Also, removing sourced material is equivalent to adding material which may not actually be included in the source (which is sometimes done). You did not question the recent edit that elaborated on the definition of the theater goers. Furthermore, you don't have any authority to establish a moratorium on further activity since, indeed, I did not remove any sourced information but, rather, only tailored the language so it would not be regarded as abusive by many readers.Philantonia (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the paraphrase with direct quotes from the book. Unfortunately only the Preface and Introduction are available online (on Amazon), so I could only draw from that source. I'm not sure I'm that much interested in looking for something more along the lines of what we had that I'm willing to spend $12 to buy the book, so, unless another editor has access to it, and can provide better quotes, this will have to do. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the future, please don't break WP:BRD. When your Bold edit is Reverted by another editor, go to Discussion immediately, and leave the article in the state it was in to begin with. Trust that the process will work and don't continue to revert while discussion is ongoing. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)