Talk:Manhattan Municipal Building

Manhattan Municipal Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 14, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skyscrapers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Manhattan Municipal Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Helmsley Building and the Manhattan Municipal Building both have "basements" above ground, since both are located above underground tracks? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Helmsley Building.

I work in this building :) I just wanted to someone to address why does the inscription in the front of the building say "New Amsterdam"? Is it to make the Dutch feel good that they colonized New York before the British defeated them, and renamed it to New York?

72.80.34.133 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it lists all the names the city has been known for. The central engraving says Manhattan.

Re the in pop culture section - we need some sources for these. Right now there's none, even for the claims for which there might be some source (e.g., Seinfeld one re: Elaine's workplace). Neutrality^talk 18:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken - since you've reverted again: can you point to a policy that says that pop-culture sections are self-referencing? I have never heard that before. Neutrality^talk 18:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop cult entries source themselves, in exactly the same way that "Plot" sections in film or book articles do, as long as they are straight-forward presentations which involve no interpretation or analysis, in which case there needs to be a cite. I am not adverse to discussing any specifics about any of the items here, but you will not find consensus anywhere for the wholesale removal of popcult sections, so please do not delete them in toto again. Thanks. BMK (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does any policy support that idea? Wikipedia:Verifiability seems to say the opposite: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable ... Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Neutrality^talk 19:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content (not a policy, but an interesting essay), says: If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essay, not policy. That plots and non-interpretative popcult entries are self-sourcing is absolutely standard stuff.

Is there something specific in the content that you want to discuss? I'm open to that. BMK (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "standard stuff" there must be some policy that indicates that it's exempt from the sourcing requirement, surely? Neutrality^talk 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to find any policy that allows you to delete popcult sections en masse, so this discussion is going to go nowhere. If you'd like to discuss the content itself, I'm more than happy to do so. BMK (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "exempt" from sourcing requirements, it's self-sourcing, just as every plot section in every film article and most book articles are. Again, this discussion is going to go nowhere, you're paddling upstream against a tidal wave. Discuss actual content, please, and I'm happy to respond -- and maybe even agree that specific items should be removed! BMK (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is proposing en masse deletion. The question of sourcing relates to the content itself - that's what verifiability means, no? My concern is straightforward: If there's no references, the editor or reader has no idea whether the content is made up. I have no idea if, for example, Elaine from Seinfeld really did work at the Municipal Building, or if "Gotham City Hall" is based upon the Municipal Building (doubtful, since Gotham isn't based wholly on NY, I don't think). The point is that readers shouldn't have to watch the series/work to find out.

Also, as a side note - there's really no reason to be so sharp in tone. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. I suppose having come up against this issues many, many times before, and with editors significantly less reasonable than you, has caused me to go on the defensive too quickly.

As for your substantive objection, there is no requirement that the reader be able to confirm the information at the snap of a finger. Many of the best sources for some subjects are only available in specialized research libraries, yet they are, by definition, verifiable sources. The same is true of a popcult item. It may be inconvenient to seek out a particular episode of a particular TV series (although much less so today with the wide variety of sources available), but it's no less inconvenient than finding that research library which holds a book cited. Convenience to the factchecker is not a factor that's considered in determining verifiability. BMK (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, both "Gotham" (Batman) and "Metropolis" (Superman) are indeed based on NYC, although, of course, the tone and style of the two "cities" has diverged significantly over the years. BMK (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the first thing - No problem. We have all done it.

On the substantive point - do you have a link to some conversation on the issue in the past? I'd like to read it. (If there hasn't been a discussion, or there's been only small-scale discussions, I am inclined to start an RfC because, as you note, this issue could tend to crop up repeatedly, and it bears on some important/core concepts).

My concern is not really based on the convenience to the factchecker. Rather, it's based on the very strong preference for secondary or tertiary, rather than primary sources, as reflected in

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. (This in turn, I think derives from a desire to avoid even the appearance of original research). This is because "interpretative" vs "non-interpretative" material is a very, very tricky line that I am extremely, extremely wary of. For example, the Batman thing exemplifies the problem. Sure, maybe a building in Gotham is based upon the Manhattan Municipal building - but the movie itself doesn't say this; it requires some outside knowledge extrinsic to the work itself to figure that out - hence the necessity for a source in such a situation. Neutrality^talk 19:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, concerning the building, I agree with you that it is exactly the kind of thing which requires a citation, because it's not self-sourcing, the way the content of books, movies and TV shows is. It needs someone to say "Hey, I based this fake building on that real building", or, at the very least, a third party saying "This building in the filmn is quite obviously based on that real building." It's a good example of what is not self-sourcing, and I will go and tag it now. BMK (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise proposal - and to avoid an RfC, which is time-consuming, I have gone through each entry individually and made edits, keeping in mind the

trivia guidelines (which notes that "in popular culture" sections are "frequently just lists of appearances and mentions, many of them unencyclopedically trivial

...")

Ghostbusters – added source, expanded slightly. This is significant.

Crocodile Dundee, added source, expanded slightly. This is significant.

The Jerky Boys: The Movie – deleted: no evidence to support claim; even if true, it’s trivia

The Professional – added source with photos, modified caption so it focuses on the building and not trivia.

Batman Forever – removed, as discussed above – original research, synthesis, etc., probably wrong; IMDb does not list the Municipal Bldg as a filming location (it does list Surrogate’s Court)

Seinfeld – removed. No evidence to support claim and even if true, it is so insignificant as to be trivia. At least three articles collecting NYC locations on Seinfeld never mention the Municipal Building here, here, here. The “Elaine” article on the Seinfeld

Wikia

never mentions it.

Damages – removed as trivia. IMDb says that the building appears in the title sequence along with other buildings, including Grand Central, NY County Courthouse, and the U.S. Custom House. No evidence that any action actually took place at the Municipal Building in the show.

Video games – removed as not supported and, even if true, trivial. The Grand Theft Auto thing refers to “Liberty City” (not NY – it may be based upon it but this is original research/synthesis). “Crysis 2” features the Manhattan landscape but there’s no indicating that the Municipal Building itself appears, and if it does whether it is particularly significant.

I hope this is amenable to you so we can move on. This all seems pretty clear-cut to me. Neutrality^talk 22:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don;t do that again. You already know that there is a standing objection to blanket removal, so your judgment alone is not going to be sufficient here. If we -- and any other editors who wish to join in -- come to a consensus on this talk page, then fine, but you are not going to be able to do this unilaterally, I'm afraid. I'll get back to this later, right now I'm too annoyed at this high-handed tactic to discuss each item civily. BMK (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article with a compromise proposal - and additional sources - is a "high-handed tactic"? You're kidding, surely? This is how articles are made, through

being bold

and give and take. I put in a lot of work - due to your objections - finding and reading various sources, evaluating each entry, and coming up with some improved text.

Thoroughout this conversation, you haven't cited a single policy. I asked for a link to past discussion that you've alluded to, and you haven't provided one. When I've cited to the guidance in

WP:BURDEN: the editor who adds challenged material has to provide a source supporting its inclusion. This you haven't done. To get outside input, I've started an RfC, at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability

.

Do you have any substantive comments on my entry-by-entry breakdown, above? Neutrality^talk 23:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in your haste to restore the (in some cases factually dubious) entries, you added a duplicate entry for The Professional (which, as I had explained, I left in). Neutrality^talk 00:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I've readded the citation needed tags:

• Web searches aren't showing any evidence the Elaine Bate's character worked in this building. With 180 episodes of Seinfield, stating to another editor that, rather than challenging an unverified statement with a tag in the hope that another editor knows where the shot might (or might not) appear, they should watch each and every episode to test the statement, isn't really helpful.
• The building may or not appear in the games concerned, but as we're claiming that it isn't even called the Manhattan Municipal Building in them, but goes by another name, asking for a reliable reference that this is indeed the same building is reasonable from my perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NB: the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? might be relevant here. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I agree with your reasoning, sort of -- or, rather, don't disagree enough to pursue the matter. BMK (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW that discussion, in which I took part, has not been closed, so there's no consensus at this point. BMK (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC on verifiability items in popular culture sections has been closed. The conclusion was: "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." --Aervanath (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will remove the unsourced/primary-sourced pop culture refs, per the RfC result. Neutrality^talk 19:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan Municipal Building. 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/20090409064432/http://gothamist.com/2009/01/08/manhattan_marriage_bureau_gets_make.php to http://gothamist.com/2009/01/08/manhattan_marriage_bureau_gets_make.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409064422/http://gothamist.com/2008/10/05/manhattan_marriage_bureau_gets_read.php to http://gothamist.com/2008/10/05/manhattan_marriage_bureau_gets_read.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find out who carved 'Manhattan' and 'New York MDCLXIV' on the front of the building https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3625859944148379&set=pcb.1023526611482963 207.96.121.94 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Meg Nei[reply]

There are two sources in this article supporting the claim thst the model was Munson.

One is an archived NYC page - it doesn’t say who the model is, so should be removed. Here it is https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200909/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/html/about/civicfame.shtml

The other source is a blog https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/audrey_munson_new_yorks_civic_fame_and_miss_manhattan_san_franciscos_worlds/

It cites (and links to) a 1913 article from the New York Sun that says Munson was the the model for the statue on the Municipal Building, which it names as “Civic Pride”

That blog also notes and links to coverage of the blog’s author in a 1996 NYT piece about the blog author’s “obsession with Miss Munson”

In the article on Audrey Munson, there are different sources for the claim that she is the model.

One is a link to the Smithsonian Institutuon Research Information System (which I assume is very reliable!). It doesn’t support the content - it says that the model was Julia Baird, and cites several scholarly sources. Link - https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=15K89019L41P6.1276&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!5808~!16&ri=1&aspect=Keyword&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=civic&index=.GW&uindex=&oper=&term=Weinman&index=.AW&uindex=&aspect=Keyword&menu=search&ri=1

The other reference is a citation (no link) to the 7th article in a series of 20 articles that Munson wrote in 1920 and 1921 that were syndicated in Hearst newspapers’ sunday editions - the series was called “By the ‘Queen of the Artists’ Studios’” (with a long salacious subtitle). I obtained that article and read it. Her article doesn’t say anything about Civic Fame — it is about a visit to Paris, meeting the models there. There is however a little box (by the editors) which says that she was the model for “Civic “Pride” (similar to the New York Sun

In my view the Smithsonian reference is more reliable by Wikipedia standards.

At minimum what the Smithsonian ref actually says should be in the content!

One could say “according to the Smithonian the model was Julia Baird; according to some contemporary accounts the model was Audrey Munson.” Or something like that.

Am also posting this on the Munson article 24.90.99.162 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

where can we find information on which city committee determines the lighting theme and what it is? 2604:CA00:17C:3581:0:0:C60:631F (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]