This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub 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.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
A past revision of this article stated that there is a location of this club in Los Angeles. I removed this, as not only can I find no reference to the existence of such a club, I can't even find a recent reference that indicates anything about future plans for one; furthermore, there is no link to an LA location on the official website, even though links exist for the yet-to-be-opened Vegas/Macau/Tokyo clubs. --SesameballTalk21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this section is either speculation or sourced from a marginally notable blog from a marginally notable writer. unless this can be better sourced, since it verges on unfavorable commentary on jay-z, i am removing it per WP:BLP. if anyone wants to add it back, just source it properly, i have no bias either way.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter anyway, because the inflamatory statement is not sourced either, so it should be removed because it's not true. Or you can add that he was sued by a NY Workers Comp court, for insurance had lapsed because of an accounting mistake but, it wasn't the club's employees, but his personal employees, such as maids, drivers, cooks, etc. The amount was $18,000. Sources:
This section is not supported by *ANY* references or sources - let alone Wikipedia acceptable sources. I agree that it is a reasonable subject for a section *IF* there are references and sources - but there are not. As such, it classifies as rumor and innuendo, not suitable for the article. Yet. I've removed it. =//= Johnny Squeaky22:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has been attempting to remove sourced material from the article as being too trivial and too distant in time to be important, but I do not think a law suit by the club's employees and a finding of financial irregularities is insignificant. It should remain in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has been attempting to remove material from the article that is sourced to a reliable source (NY Daily News), on the grounds that it violates WP:WEIGHT. I disagree, the charges are serious ones, involving non-payment of wages, and are well-balanced by the remainder of the article. I have asked the editor involved to make his case for deletion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, I'm concerned that a Special Interest Group is using Wikipedia to grind an ax with 40/40, and this in the larger picture, a labor dispute which could be argued to be fairly minor, is being promoted at Wikipedia. My complaint about "undue weight" has to do with that absolute fact that this labor dispute is a very minor side-note in the context of the history of the 40/40 club.
Consider Dawn Wells, who was busted for Driving While Stoned... Her "peeps" where very successful in reducing the discussion of facts about that indecent to the point where it is hardly even a footnote on that page. That set's a "president" which these 40/40 contents exceed.
This is the same type of thing: The only reason to blow it up to the size that it now takes up in the article is because an editor or editors have some personal issue related to labor relations.
Well, your opinions about labor relations are very well understood by me, I'm a long time union member and a life long Democrat. But Wikipedia is not the place to prosecute labor offenders. The paragraph represents bias.
As I have said before, getting busted for smoking pot is a complete different thing that being the subject of a lawsuit because you didn't pay your employees - you're comparing a basically victimless crime that many, many people were guilt of at the time to a stituation where an employer is screwing their employees out of their legitmately earned salary.
There is no bias in the paragraph, it represents what it written in articles in several reliable sources. (We allow POV in our articles if it's supported by reliable sourced.) If you think there's another side of the story to be told, find something that says so in another reliable source and add it to the article. If you think (as you claimed in your first recent removal) that the case is settled, then find a source that says the case has been settled -- but stop removing the sourced material from the article because you don't believe it belongs there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is deeper than just sourced / unsourced material. Both the sections on the minor (and long ago) labor dispute and the section on the closed Vegas location go far beyond fact and well into editorial territory. Wikipedia is not a soap box. =//= Johnny Squeaky04:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "consensus" is not always possible when the input comes from a small number of views. Here's the thing: I don't question a labor dispute or that perhaps the Las Vegas closed after a poor showing of business. But there is such a thing as "proper weight", and "undue weight". I don't object to mentioning a labor dispute (in fact I am a long time labor union member), but I think the objectiveness of the article suffers when a section is both out of proportion and clearly POV. I think that the article as it now stands is fine, and if there is to be mention of the labor dispute, it should be no more than one small to medium paragraph, as it simply isn't a huge part of the discussion of this club to anyone other than those intimately involved in labor relations... The concept I keep coming back to is "undue weight". =//= Johnny Squeaky01:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on 40/40 Club. 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:
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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
