Talk:The Sherry-Netherland

Developed by Charles Pierre
Since at least one editor has difficulty with the statement that the hotel was developed by Charles Pierre, and the statement is unsourced, Ive removed it from the article. It shouldn't be re-added unless there's a citation from a reliable source to back it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Pop cult item dispute
An editor is attempting to add the following to the article:

"In the 1969 Academy Award winning movie 'Midnight Cowboy,' Dustin Hoffman's character Ratso Rizzo tells Joe Buck (Jon Voigt) that he can reach him at the 'Sherry-Netherlands Hotel' after setting up a con job in which Joe is burned and Ratso, who is squatting in a condemned building and could never walk into the Sherry Netherland without being ejected let alone live there, doesn't want Joe to ever find him."

Despite being an avid proponent of the value of popcult sections, I don't believe this one works:


 * 1) It's a mere mention, violating WP:TRIVIA
 * 2) It inherently requires interpretation and analysis to make any sense.  Popcult items need to be straighforward description with no interpretation or analysis.  This makes it WP:OR
 * 3) It's sourced to a copyright-violating website. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:ELNO

Unfortunately, too many strikes for this to stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am an outsider asked to discuss this matter. I am not the editor trying to insert this content. First of all, my understanding of wikipedia is that by default content should remain unless irrelevant. This content is clearly relevant. Furthermore, it adds something that is lacking from this and other posts by Ken - color. Ken's posts tend to be cut and dried verging on banal.


 * I see nothing wrong with inclusion of a reference to a movie's usage of this landmark, and it provides something else that is lacking from the few Ken contributions I viewed - context. In any case, given that content should be removed with great deference, it should not be up to one man what sort of information about a landmark is noteworthy. This post is interesting and will remain.{outsider}75.80.107.133 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it will not remain, that's not how things are done here. Please see WP:BRD for an explanation.  I have Reverted a Bold edit, and now Discussion takes place, but the contested material remains reverted while the discussion takes place.  All discussion takes place here, not off-wiki around your dinner table (or anywhere else for that matter).   If there is a consensus of editors in the discussion here that the material is worthwhile for the article, then I am overruled and it stays in.  Do not return the material to the article without a consensus again or you are likely to be blocked from editing for disruption. As for your comment on the merits of the material, you have not answered any of the policy-based problems with the material I brought up.  I'm all in favor of "color", but it must meet our standards, and this material does not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked at WikiProject New York City for some participation in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor who, granted is a friend of mine, but has valid points. The primary point being - that anything relevant remains in Wikipedia, and this content is certainly relevant. I want to emphasize again that the default on Wikipedia as to relevant content is that it remains during a dispute, so Ken is wrong there. As for Ken's "policy" concerns - at least the first two are in his own mind, and present a free-wheeling, Marx's Brothers approach to Wikipedia.

But, *sigh, to make him happy, I will address all concerns:

1) There are many Wikipedia articles where the "mere mention" of a person, place or thing in a movie or book warrants inclusion in the W article about the person, place or thing.

2) That is the most ridiculous statement ever. Everything requires explanation to make sense.

3) If this is an issue, the footnote may be removed or changed.

This "Ken" article is noted as a STUB which means it is lacking in all respects and screams out for more content. And now that more has been submitted, Ken is trying to delete it.

Ken is obviously a valued Wikipedia member with many contributions. His time would be best spent writing fresh material rather than worrying about deleting others' content. Cryellow (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, do not restore the material to the article until this discussion is finished. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: in the Wikipedia article on the Montbleu (formerly's Caesar's Tahoe) hotel casino, it is mentioned that "MontBleu and the Horizon appeared as the Nomad Hotel in the 2007 film Smokin' Aces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MontBleu Indeed, there is an entire Wikipedia article devoted to mere mentions of Mario in any film: http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Mario_references_in_film Other such examples abound. Cryellow (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because another article has material which might be better off deleted is no reason for this article to have similar information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am much more in agreement with my long-time friend and collaborator, that being mentioned in the movie makes at most a faint connection to the hotel. Such a connection certainly doesn't rate a whole paragraph here. Compromise language like "In the film Midnight Cowboy, impoverished con man Ratso Rizzo claims to live at this hotel" with the ref, might be suitable since it offers no judgement. However, I notice that the movie article doesn't mention the line, whose dramatic purpose is to reveal the character's petty pretentiousness. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So two people on here believe my post should remain as is, one says it should go, and one believes it should remain but be reduced in length. Overwhelmingly in favor then of retention.Cryellow (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read Jim's comment again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with my friend cryellow. It's a good reference and interesting. I have edited a few W articles myself and no one has ever created a fuss about what I posted. 166.194.161.161 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am returning the material to the article because after all this time the majority of those who have posted above agree with me. Cryellow (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The copyright on this 1969 screenplay expired in 1997. Cryellow (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not accurate. US copyright law in 1969 was for 95 years, so the screenplay's copyright doesn't expire until 2064. You're thinking of the 28 years of copyright for works created between 1923 and 1963, if not renewed for an additional 28 years (and those extensions were virtually automatic, it's the exceptions that are rare). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion Request: I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion Project. Beyond My Ken is clearly correct about the copyright issue and I am going to remove the link to the script source because linking to a copyright violation is a clear violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. However, the movie itself can be a allowable primary source for what is shown and said in the movie, so long as no synthesis or interpretation is required beyond repeating what is unmistakeably said and shown in the film, so I am not removing the material supported by the link. (Which is not to say that I endorse its inclusion, but that question does not involve a violation of an immediate-action policy of Wikipedia.) Once I've done that, I'll be back here to continue this opinion. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC) (Continuing:) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not find that WP:TRIVIA solves this issue, that MOS section is about trivia sections, not about individual items of trivia, and is inapplicable here.
 * I do not quite understand the WP:OR point. If you mean that what's said about what happens in the movie is not apparent on the movie's face or soundtrack, that's one thing, but I can't imagine that can't be fixed.
 * That leaves the inclusion or exclusion as a matter of consensus. Consensus is not determined only by counting, but more importantly by weighing arguments and I can see no consensus here for it's inclusion. Per the consensus policy the standard in Wikipedia is that it is the obligation of the editor seeking to introduce material to obtain consensus for doing so. I see no consensus for inclusion here. At best there is 3-1 support, and actually more like 2-2, but the arguments made by the opponents about it being a remote, marginal, trivial point are far better than those of the proponents, which boil down to nothing more than "it's about the hotel." Until a clear consensus is obtained for its inclusion, the material should not in my opinion be included in the article.


 * I oppose the inclusion of the paragraph, with or without link. With the link, it is a WP:COPYVIO, and without it, it is fluff, irrelevant trivia. Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I reposted the material without the footnote, for now. Ken is simply puerile and wants anything that he has written on Wikipedia to remain unchanged and that is not the way Wikipedia works. BTW the copyright rules for material from 1969 was for a 28 year original term, with a generally automatic renewal of 67 years, but in that the author of this screenplay died in 1987, there was no renewal. It is incorrect to say that all materials copyrighted in 1969 received 95 years of copyright protection. Cryellow (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken is the one who keeps removing the content - and I left the content off for many MONTHS while waiting for opinions from others on this issue. Finally after many MONTHS I noted that no one had voted for its removal other than Ken. One person (Ken's friend) had voted for its retention, after being shortened. All the others voted that it be retained as is. After all these MONTHS passed and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of retaining it, I re-posted it. Any opinions after the matter has been left open for MONTHS are irrelevant. Cryellow (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW: it is common to reference movies' connections to physical landmarks:  EXAMPLE: in the Wikipedia article on the Montbleu (formerly's Caesar's Tahoe) hotel casino, it is mentioned that "MontBleu and the Horizon appeared as the Nomad Hotel in the 2007 film Smokin' Aces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MontBleu Indeed, there is an entire Wikipedia article devoted to mere mentions of Mario in any film: http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Mario_references_in_film Other such examples abound. Cryellow (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Article name
See Talk:The Dakota for a discussion about using "the" in the name of an article about an NYC building. --Enkyo2 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)