Talk:Great Jones Street

Trivia
User:Beyond My Ken has implied that he asked for discussion when he hadn't, but here we are: -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVIA isn't the way to present information encyclopedically.
 * Beyond My Ken himself has said "None of your arguments counter the fact that all edits which are not supported by a citation from a WP:Reliable source can be deleted on sight."
 * Ambiguous topics are disambiguated with hatnotes or disambiguation pages, not "in popular culture" sections (see In popular culture)
 * Add cites to those you wish to keep
 * Rearrange them into the body of the article, not in an "in popular culture" list
 * User:Beyond My Ken very much asked for discussion in this edit when he asked you to follow WP:BRD, the "D" of which, of course, stands for "Discussion". That aside, your points are not well taken:
 * Beyond My Ken himself has said: "In 1997, in his book Virtuous Reality, journalist Jon Katz observed: Americans have an extraordinary love-hate relationship with the rich culture they've created. They buy, watch and read it even as they ban, block and condemn it."This paradoxical relationship can easily be observed in the way that Wikipedia deals with pop culture. On the one hand, the project's coverage of pop culture is much more extensive that any print encyclopedia would ever allow (both for fear of being quickly dated and because of snobbery), and the coverage tends to be extremely in-depth.  This is a natural result of being an on-line resource primarily written by young people, who generally give such subjects much more attention than older people, and a consequence of being easily updated so as to not fall behind the current fads and styles.  On the other hand, Wikipedia has instituted – or attempted to institute – controls on the way pop cultural references can be used within non-pop culture (or semi-pop culture) articles.  While superficially reasonable, and in line with ordinary Wikipedia policies about verifiability and notability, the underlying purpose of the controls is to be used as a tool to remove pop cultural references entirely from those articles, since the standards promulgated are generally next to impossible to meet. It is difficult to say why so many Wikipedians object to pop cultural references so vehemently, but I suspect that both snobbery and a fear of not being taken seriously enter into it.  The former is unfortunate, but probably an inevitable push-back from older editors against the prevalence of younger contributors, but the latter, the fear of the project not being taken seriously, is quite ironic, since it's much more likely that those hackles would be raised by Wikipedians' sometimes ridiculous pseudonyms than by a few carefully selected and edited pop cultural references. and he has also said: "Scenario 1: I read a book on a particular subject, written by an expert. I take information from this reliable source and insert it into the Wikipedia article on that subject, rewording it so as to not violate copyright.  The information, therefore, has been perceived by me by reading the book, synopsized by me, rephrased by me, and inserted by me, with a reference.  Anyone who wants to verify the information goes to the source, reads what's there, and checks it against what I have written. Scenario 2: I watch a film on DVD.  I take something that happened in the film and insert it into the Wikipedia article on that film, describing it as accurately as I can.  The information, therefore, has been perceived by me, described by me, and inserted by me, with a reference to the film it came from.  Anyone who want to verify the information goes to the source, views what's in the film, and checks it against what I have written. These scenarios are identical.  Describing what occurs in a media artifact, such as a DVD, VHS, CD, LP or book is not original research, as it involves no more original work that the use of information from a reliable source.  It is observation not 'original research'.  There is no more reliable source for the contents of a media artifact than the media artifact itself."
 * In other words, a media object acts as the best possible source to fulfill the requirements of WP:V in regards to that object. Additional sourcing is not required.  This is generally accepted throughout Wikipedia except by a few die-hard anti-pop culture activists.
 * The other stuff you spout is just nonsense. The popcult battle (not "trivia", incidentally, which distinctly shows your bias) was fought long ago, and your side lost.  You cannot go around labeling popcult sections as "trivia" without having good reason to do so, and discussing your reasons when asked to, and you cannot delete popcult items on spurious bases simply because you don't like them.
 * In other words, get over it, act as an admin is supposed to act and enforce consensus, don't try to override consensus with your own opinions. Now, the onus is on  you , admin JHunterJ. All the popcult items here are relevant to the subject, non-trivial, and all are sourced to the media object they refer to, fulfilling the requirements of WP:V.  If you have a problem with one of them, discuss it here, specifcally, giving your reasons. Who knows, you could be right, but we won't know until you do the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The onus is still on you, since you're determined to turn this into a battle of sides, rather than simply improving the article. WP:IPCEXAMPLES: "When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following: Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference? Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference? Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference? If you cannot answer "yes" to at least one of these, you are just adding trivia. Get all three, and you are adding genuinely encyclopedic content." Since there' no indication of any of these three, yes, I follow the broader consensus and recognize it as trivia. That recognition isn't a bias.
 * How is the death of a notable person an example of this street "in popular culture"? Even if he died "in popular culture", he didn't die in the street, but in his residence.
 * Besides simple ambiguity (handled by the hatnote), how are the book and song's use of this title appropriate to this article? Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference? Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference? If so, please add those citations, instead of posting overlong tangential harangues here.
 * --JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your arguments carry little weight. The book is about the street.  The song is about the streets.  The colloquial phrase comes from the street. There's no reason to get rid of them other than your own personal dislike of popular culture references. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your arguments carry little weight. You skipped over the part about a real person dying in a place that has an address of the street not being "in popular culture". You also haven't offered any explanation of how disambiguating the novel and song in an "in popular culture" section improves the encyclopedia over putting them in the hatnote, where readers expect them to be disambiguated. You haven't added the multiple reliable sources pointing out the reference, or shown any real-world event occurring because the cultural element covered by the reference. There's no reason to keep them other than your own personal bias toward them. There's an easy way to get someone else to look at it, though -- we could add the in popular culture template in. Which is what I did in the first place, before running afoul of your ownership issues here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested edit
Please change the comma after "brother-in-law" to a period. I was making this edit when the page was protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)