Talk:New York City Cabaret Law

Nysugar's comments
The article as originally posted is inaccurate in multiple ways. To start this discussion, first the original author needs to read the text of the 1926 Cabaret Law, which, unfortunately the writer did not do.

The next thing the author has to do is to read the current text of the law - for example, no where is there a reference to three persons dancings. This is just myth.

The author has made no attempt to be objective, and even leaves out the citation to the Harvard University published work of the only historian who has written on the subject of the enactment of the law.

The author does not even mention that his essay is subject to much dispute.

The original knows who I am since part of my real name is in my user name and knows how to contact me, but I do not know who wrote this piece. That author should contact me to mediate this. The author has seen my more extensive writings on this, and is unable to refute any of the statements I made, or any of the edits I have made. Nysugar (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Alan D. Sugarman


 * Hi Alan D. Sugarman, unless you are making allegations of sockpuppetry by the various editors of this article, whom are you referring to as the "the author"? Many editors have taken the time to try to explain in edit summaries how your personal essay is not appropriate here, and you have also been silent on your own talk page. Wikipedia is about sourcing and collaborating, not going rogue and insisting your version is the best one and then providing no rationale or sourcing, all the while flouting established conventions such as a our manual of style. JesseRafe (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Sugarman, please cease relentlessly harassing this page with your long-winded personal conspiracy theories. Please have respect for general wikipedia protocol and realize your rants are borderline incomprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexico3000 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re October 23 comments and wholesale rejection of changes by JesseRafe: Mr. Jesse Raffe: You state: "your edit summaries make no sense, full reversion, why are you CITING the name of the article and calling that both clear AND policy? Absurd, absolutely not on both counts, please take to Talk, this is not y...)

First of all, I have provided no research which is original. For example, you are stating that if I cite to a 2010 Book published by the Smithsonian that discusses Running Wild that this is original research. Someone else writes a sentence referring to requirements of NYC City and and provide a reference to the actual publication of New York City which describes this is more accurate detail, and you say that is original research. I correct typos and you object to that. You asked me to do individual changes and I followed your instructions, but you responded with an irate rant. You asked me to provide original research, which many other commentators did not do, and I do so, and then you accuse me of original research. Look, I am citing to authoritative sources as required by Wikipedia policy - others have not and cite to the echo chamber sources that are disfavored by Wikipedia.

In another post you say: "You have links on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia wherein there is information about what is and is not appropriate to include. "OR" is "original research", which you have already been warned about enough times I thought you'd be familiar with the abbreviation. You say "it invites a discussion". No, it absolutely does not. It is an encyclopedia article, it should only contain bare neutral information. Not your pontifications. Please take any further edits you may have to the article's talk page first. Every other editor on the page has reverted you. JesseRafe (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)"

Look, the fact that the people the fact that those who put up erroneous unsourced information or sources to web blogs is not surprising for they do not wish to be called out for errors.

Anyway, am citing sources for facts and these are not Original Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.

Also, this is really interesting. Mr. JesseRafe you made this change:"(cur | prev) 17:41, 29 September 2017‎ JesseRafe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,802 bytes) (+95)‎ . . (→‎History: additional NYT source about origin of law being the perceived "running wild"-ness of the patrons)". I then put in something from YOUR source that actually shows you misquoted the source in you comment and to be more accurate. And then you challenge ME with original research. The Times Article was pretty clear and I accurately referred to it, much more accurately than you. Do you want to take this to mediation.

Anyway, Mr. JesseRafe, I suggest you respond to each careful change which I made. There are more misstatements in this. I guess eventually if you persist with your outbursts we will have to go to mediation.

I do apologize for not understanding all the ins and outs and jargon of Wikipedia, and I am learning them. One thing for sure that I very much understand is that Wikipedia article should be accurate.

As Wikipedia states "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." By that standard NOTHING that I have written is original research.

And once again, I ask why you believe that sourcing to a vibe blog article with an unmistakenly false fact by an unpaid intern constitutes a "reliable source" as defined in the Wikipedia OR policy.

So, I anticipate your thoughtful statement as to why any of the changes I made are original research. I carefully summarized the statement in the article in the NY Times which you added, without changing it meaning, and to the relevant issue of the purpose of the 1926 law. Do you disagree???

Nysugar (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is my last try talking to you, as you a clear example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, none of my recent comments said anything about OR. You even quoted it verbatim in this wall of text! Perhaps you would be better served starting a blog with the particulars of local laws than going in depth here in an encyclopedia with your interpretations and your apparent belief that the topic is open for discussion. This is an encyclopedia, as such the whole article must be in an encyclopedic tone. Find a source that says it's open to discussion and then say that the source says that, the article, however, cannot be so "open". Your most recent edits were largely nonsensical and your edit summaries did not match their content. You moved a citation to the name of the article and called that policy? No, it's a cite to a fact, not the name of the article that requires citation. You grandstanded about adding a cite to Smithsonian? OK, kudos. Just cite it and move on, we are here to build an encyclopedia not seek vainglory or point fingers about who didn't cite what, who cares? There's no source, then source it, and move on. You're an WP:SPA who it seems is WP:NOTHERE to meaningfully contribute, but if left unchecked would just make this useful simple article a personal piece of purple prose on an arcane subject to crow about. Please try to make more sense, and perhaps consult Rule 17 of Strunk and White before your next rant if you want a detailed point-by-point response, not ~700 words of baseless charges and finger-pointing. JesseRafe (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Jesse Rafe I have looked at your talk pages and see that much of your discourse is of this tone. So, this is what I am going to do. Make a post with a single change. And then you can remove it with an explanation as to that change. Then I will post another narrow change and again you can respond to this exact change and nothing else. Etc. I will give you time to make your comment. Then we can collect all of this and decide what to do without name calling. So, I will start with the change posting the official New York City Department of Buildings handbook on the Cabaret law compliance. Let's see if you dare claim that is beyond the scope of the article or is "OR." Sorry if I am new to Wikipedia, but, I will take your suggestion to only do one post at a time and see what you say. I also ask you again here to defend allowing the Vibe post to remain. Please do not discuss anything else. Just those two issues. And let us keep the discourse civil. I have provided valuable changes to this article that no one can dispute. It is a better article thanks to me. p.s., I looked at my 1962 edition of The Elements of Style which is in the bookshelf just above my monitor. For your role as a moderator of some type, try an S&W, Approach to Style Rule 1. Alan D. Sugarman Nysugar (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Jesse Rafe - I corrected the text to remove the statement that the repeal passed unanimously, which had cited to another of the kinds of junk sources you have allowed to remain in this article. It is only trivial if the reader knows the total number of members of the Council. But, you know better because you know that everyone reading this is aware that there is one vacant seat out of 51 in the City Council so the vote was really 44 out of 50. Everybody reading this knows this. In the meantime, as the arbiter of accuracy and what is clear and not clear, when are you going to delete the citation to Vibe that does not meet the Wikipedia standards for sources. Anyway, you are welcome for my correcting yet another factual error in this Article. I used to trust Wikipedia. After this experience, no more. Nysugar (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You really need so much attention, don't you? What a savior complex, I removed the ref you disliked that said it was unanimous. You think you're such a hero, because you found one error? And you need to crow about it again and again? Please find a new hobby or, at the very least, another article to incessantly nitpick and demand obeisance for trivial editing. Who was on maternity, who was absent, who was abstaining is literally trivia! 44-1 is sufficient. We're all volunteers here, and I fix errors constantly, do you want me to brag to you each time I do? I wish I could spend more time fixing things here than responding to you. Goodbye. JesseRafe (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)