Talk:40/40 Club

Los Angeles location
A past revision of this article stated that there is a location of this club in Los Angeles. I removed this, as not only can I find no reference to the existence of such a club, I can't even find a recent reference that indicates anything about future plans for one; furthermore, there is no link to an LA location on the official website, even though links exist for the yet-to-be-opened Vegas/Macau/Tokyo clubs. -- Sesame ball Talk 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Las Vegas club
this section is either speculation or sourced from a marginally notable blog from a marginally notable writer. unless this can be better sourced, since it verges on unfavorable commentary on jay-z, i am removing it per WP:BLP. if anyone wants to add it back, just source it properly, i have no bias either way.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NYC location labor dispute
This lawsuit was settled in March of 2010 for a relatively small undisclosed amount. Candicedavis4040 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the source of this information? And how do you know that the amount is "small" if it is undisclosed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also it seems the beef may have to do with local unions.
 * It doesn't matter anyway, because the inflamatory statement is not sourced either, so it should be removed because it's not true. Or you can add that he was sued by a NY Workers Comp court, for insurance had lapsed because of an accounting mistake but, it wasn't the club's employees, but his personal employees, such as maids, drivers, cooks, etc. The amount was $18,000. Sources:
 * http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/court-orders-jay-z-to-pay-fine-ncx-20111229
 * Source http://gothamist.com/2011/09/03/jay-zs_4040_club_gets_the_union_rat.php#photo-1
 * http://www.stlamerican.com/entertainment/living_it/article_599fa4ec-d897-11e0-b589-001cc4c002e0.html NYC Carpenters Union stage protest at Jay Z’s 40/40 club

The part about the club employees seems to be that they were not paid enough, not "at all" so had to depend on tips. Even from one of the sources in the article about his lawyer not being paid it doesn't say the employees were not paid, but not paid fair wages and for overtime. (http://www.sohh.com/2009/07/jay-zs_lawyers_request_re.html)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This section is not supported by *ANY* references or sources - let alone Wikipedia acceptable sources. I agree that it is a reasonable subject for a section *IF* there are references and sources - but there are not. As such, it classifies as rumor and innuendo, not suitable for the article. Yet. I've removed it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored it with a reference from the Daily News in 2008. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a better source than Hollyscoop.com? Kind of flaky... =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Health Code Violations
But the Health Dept apparently did close the club for health code violations, receiving a "C" grade. Source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/21/jay-z-40-40-club-health-code/ http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/21/jay-z-40-40-club-health-code/ Though it's been said the club is closed for renovations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material
An editor has been attempting to remove sourced material from the article as being too trivial and too distant in time to be important, but I do not think a law suit by the club's employees and a finding of financial irregularities is insignificant. It should remain in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, removal of sourced material
An editor has been attempting to remove material from the article that is sourced to a reliable source (NY Daily News), on the grounds that it violates WP:WEIGHT. I disagree, the charges are serious ones, involving non-payment of wages, and are well-balanced by the remainder of the article. I have asked the editor involved to make his case for deletion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BMK, I'm concerned that a Special Interest Group is using Wikipedia to grind an ax with 40/40, and this in the larger picture, a labor dispute which could be argued to be fairly minor, is being promoted at Wikipedia. My complaint about "undue weight" has to do with that absolute fact that this labor dispute is a very minor side-note in the context of the history of the 40/40 club.


 * Consider Dawn Wells, who was busted for Driving While Stoned... Her "peeps" where very successful in reducing the discussion of facts about that indecent to the point where it is hardly even a footnote on that page. That set's a "president" which these 40/40 contents exceed.


 * This is the same type of thing: The only reason to blow it up to the size that it now takes up in the article is because an editor or editors have some personal issue related to labor relations.


 * Well, your opinions about labor relations are very well understood by me, I'm a long time union member and a life long Democrat. But Wikipedia is not the place to prosecute labor offenders. The paragraph represents bias.


 * Thanks for engaging me in discussion. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, getting busted for smoking pot is a complete different thing that being the subject of a lawsuit because you didn't pay your employees - you're comparing a basically victimless crime that many, many people were guilt of at the time to a stituation where an employer is screwing their employees out of their legitmately earned salary. There is no bias in the paragraph, it represents what it written in articles in several reliable sources. (We allow POV in our articles if it's supported by reliable sourced.) If you think there's another side of the story to be told, find something that says so in another reliable source and add it to the article. If you think (as you claimed in your first recent removal) that the case is settled, then find a source that says the case has been settled -- but stop removing the sourced material from the article because you don't believe it belongs there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A 3rd opinion
Preliminary

@BMK and @JS. Both of you are edit-warring.

JS is removing sourced material (RS and V of which may be questionable).

BMK is adding unsourced material.

So how do you want to go about achieving consensus ?? RobertRosen (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is deeper than just sourced / unsourced material. Both the sections on the minor (and long ago) labor dispute and the section on the closed Vegas location go far beyond fact and well into editorial territory. Wikipedia is not a soap box. =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted ! RobertRosen (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, "consensus" is not always possible when the input comes from a small number of views. Here's the thing: I don't question a labor dispute or that perhaps the Las Vegas closed after a poor showing of business. But there is such a thing as "proper weight", and "undue weight". I don't object to mentioning a labor dispute (in fact I am a long time labor union member), but I think the objectiveness of the article suffers when a section is both out of proportion and clearly POV. I think that the article as it now stands is fine, and if there is to be mention of the labor dispute, it should be no more than one small to medium paragraph, as it simply isn't a huge part of the discussion of this club to anyone other than those intimately involved in labor relations... The concept I keep coming back to is "undue weight". =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 40/40 Club. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917164029/http://www.restaurant.com/microsite.asp?rid=344361&rpid=3406 to http://www.restaurant.com/microsite.asp?rid=344361&rpid=3406

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)