User talk:Nysugar

Welcome!

Hello, Nysugar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to New York City Cabaret Law. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in New York City Cabaret Law, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at New York City Cabaret Law, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Talk:New York City Cabaret Law, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the 1926 Cabaret Law - Why did you remove is adding a link to the text of the Law disruptive?

I really do not understand why Jesse Rafe supported the removal of my link to the original text of the 1926 Cabaret Law. The Wikipedia Cabaret Law article makes references to the 1926 Cabaret Law, but does not provide a link to the text of the law.

The Cabaret Law article also states that

In proposing passage of the law, the Committee on Local Laws argued,"there has been altogether too much running `wild' in some of these night clubs and, in the judgement of your Committee, the `wild' stranger and the foolish native should have the check-rein applied a little bit."Italic text

and provides a footnote, without a link, to the Proceedings of Bd. of Aldermen Mun. Assembly of City of New York, Recommendation No. 10, Dec. 7, 1926, at 572. That is in fact what I link to.

That 1926 Proceeding is not available on line, and is only available in the stacks of the City of New York's Municipal Library. I went to the Library, and with the help of the librarian, photocopied the text of these pages, which included both the text of the law and the comments quoted by the Committee. This resource is not copyrighted by the City of New York and is in the public domain. I then created scanned the pages and provded a link to the pdf file so that Wikipedia users could make their own judgment as to the context of the quotation and the other contents of the law. The Wikipedia article also states that the law was "originally targeting jazz clubs in Harlem." By providing the original text of the law to Wikipedia readers, I leave it to readers to form their own judgment as to the targeting of the law by reading the law.

So, I just posted this one link to the original law and it is taken down and I receive a threat that this one change was disruptive editing and threatened with being blocked from editing. I disagree. Indeed, what is notable is that the current article does not provide adequate sourcing for these two statements.

Rather than be chastised, Wikipedia should thank me for taking the time and providing a link to the original law, something the authors of the article had not done.

I took the suggestion of JesseRafe and limited this revision to just one change.

So, I ask that my change be restored. I am trying to resolve this by talking about this and would like to know why providing the original source of material quoted in part and referred to in a Wikipedia article is disruptive.

Nysugar (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I added that source back. I jumped to a conclusion given that your previous edits were heavy with editorializing (including synthesis of sourced materials and injections of inferences therefrom) and saw that the domain "Zort Music" didn't seem like it would actually be a source and thought it would be material like a blog or personal essay. You're correct that the original text of the 1926 law is useful for the article. JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse

On October 15, 2017 you characterized my statement that “This so-called Three-Musician-Rule was not found in the original 1926 text of the bill.” was a “vacuous statement” and removed the statement. This original author by cites a short article whose only content is to claim that the rule was in the 1926 law.

This is why it is not vacuous.

The article as original drafted and currently has a footnote 3 to https://www.vibe.com/2017/04/nyc-law-prevents-dancing/ Pickens, Ashley (2017-04-03). "Historically Racist NYC Law That Prevents Dancing In Bars Is Being Petitioned". Vibe. Retrieved 2017-04-15.

First, Wikipedia does not at all prefer to have cites to non authoritative sources, where sources are not vetted, where sources have not editors, and especially to such an emotionally charged claim. The Vibe article is not authoritative and it is not even clear if the author has any credentials to make such conclusions. Indeed, it states the following:

“This law was established 1926 during the Prohibition era. Its purpose was to provide the city with more authority to “crack down on African American jazz clubs.” The regulations that were bundled with the law were racist including the banning of “black” instruments like the saxophone in venues that didn’t obtain the license in question. Since, the regulations have been repealed or found unconstitutional due to their discriminatory implications. But, the Cabaret Law still remains today.”

Of course this is incorrect for quite clearly states that the cracking down on black instruments was in the original law in 1926, when these rules were not implemented until 1971, and even then, the claim that regulations which discriminated against jazz were therefore racists is what some might conclude is vacuous.

So, the definition of “vacuous” is “having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence; mindless.” Quite clearly, my statement is not mindless and quite clearly the Vibe article is complete lacking in thought, since the author apparently never read the 1926 law.

The Vibe article is not the only article posted on the web claiming that something was in the 1926 law, when the authors clearly had never read the law. But, this article cites that article, and this false statement is about the only substance in the article.

So, let the Wikipedia readers read the Vibe article and then read the facts and come to their own conclusions.

So, I would like you to restore my statement that “This so-called Three-Musician-Rule was not found in the original 1926 text of the bill.”

Alan Nysugar (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disapprove of the wholesale changes made by Mexico3000, who was the original author of this article, an article filled with inaccurate statements and editorializing. I carefully point by point made changes which Mexico3000 could have objected to at the time made, but did not. Let's take the reference to "running wild" - first inserted by Mexico3000 - Mr/Ms Mexico 3000, please explain the relevance of this reference. So explain to us all why it is okay for you to put in this editorializing but then object to the factual explanation as to the use of the phrase in 1926. Then we can go one by one as to your objections. But, do not do this wholesale changing. Let's start with that one change and then move through this. Nysugar (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]