Talk:Last Exit on Brooklyn

Gyan reference

I have removed the citation to a Gyan Books publication, and added a cn tag. Gyan books is a mirror of Wikipedia content [1] and thus not a reliable source. [2] Please do not re-add the Gyan reference. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, while some Gyan books may contain Wikipedia content, I don't believe this one does. But in any case the ref was redundant, the ref at the end of the sentence verifies the whole sentence, as it was updated recently to replace a previous source which only verified the recipe but which had gone dead, so no replacement ref is needed. Yworo (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

Article passed GA with Wikia link. Stronger arguments needed from multiple editors for its removal. WP:ELN is that-away... Yworo (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Seattle Wiki link in the external links section of this article. The link is useful, informative, and complies with WP:EL and does not meet WP:ELNO because of lack of conflict with the part about "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

See the article's talk page where about fifteen people have praised the article. For a small coffeehouse which closed in the early 1990s this is a substantial review. This content and this review process may not be very good, but it is the best to be expected, good enough, and did purport to follow an editorial review process in its creation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"This content and this review process may not be very good" hits the nail on the head I'm afraid - this does not count as "good enough" for the purposes of WP:EL. Also, as Ed pointed out, the site does conflict with the "substantial number of editors" provision of ELNO12. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Link fails on several points of WP:ELNO, particularly #2 (it presents large amounts of unverifiable research of questionable accuracy) and #12 (83 editors is not "substantial", particularly given that "substantial" has conventionally been interpreted in the context of this guideline to mean hundreds or thousands of editors). It also does not meet any point of WP:ELYES that would justify its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

cut and pasted from Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, which is linked below Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• My first questions with a link to a specific page on a specific external wiki is always: "How much of the external info is not already in the Wikipedia article, how much of the information that is on the external wiki that is not yet in the Wikipedia article could reasonably be included in our own Wiki, and of the information that is on the external wiki that is not and cannot be incorporated in our local article is actual of extra value to the reader, does that help with the further understanding of the subject (as opposed to being 'just' more info)?" .. I generally find that the answer to most of those questions are 'almost none'. That is why open wikis are generally discouraged (I can not judge this specific case, I cannot access it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In this case, there is much info that is not included, everything that can be sourced has been included, and the information that cannot be incorporated is of actual extra value to the reader. That's why I included the link in the first place and the article passed its GA review with the link intact. (Three notes: I formerly edited as Yworo who started this discussion, I was not involved in the creation or subsequent editing of the Wikia article, and I was a regular customer at the Last Exit from ~1977 - 1988 and find the Wikia article's anecotal infomation to be entirely accurate.) Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to note that the Wikia article was originally created in 2005 by a long-standing and well-respected Wikipedia editor, User:Jmabel, who has been involved at Wikipedia since 2003, an admin since May 2004, and has over 84,000 edits here. The Wikia article achieved stability in approximately 2009, when it was 4 years old, and continued to be tweaked until last year. Jmabel's last edit was in 2012, and he most likely continues to monitor it. I hope you won't consider it "canvassing" to notify him of this discussion. Skyerise (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I was asked to comment. I don't continue to monitor it in any active way; looked at it about a year ago, it remained basically accurate. Much of the recent prose was not up to my writing standards, but (as here on en-wiki) I try not to assert too much ownership over wiki articles if additions seem basically accurate. I'd like to keep the link -- as much as anything because it remains a pretty good read -- but obviously I have a potential conflict of interest on linking to something I largely wrote, about a place where I spent several thousand hours of my life. - Jmabel | Talk 15:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Skyerise:: You say 'the information that cannot be incorporated is of actual extra value to the reader' .. why can it not be incorporated? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No sources. Surely you aren't suggesting using Wikia as a source? Skyerise (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, that made the point, then. No sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Right, that's why it can't be used as a reference. But external links are not required to be sourced. They are only required to "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". This criteria is met. It does not contain misleading or inaccurate information, and as an external Wiki article, it has "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". The last criteria does not require that it be recently edited, which the person arguing against the link incorrectly asserts. Therefore, it's inclusion does not violate WP:ELNO and the article was given GA status before the removal of the link. Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • "They are only required to 'provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article'" is not true. Meeting this criterion, even if we assume that this site does, only means that it does not fail ELNO#1.
        • "It does not contain misleading or inaccurate information" - how do we know that? As you point out, it isn't sourced, and without sourcing its contents are unverifiable research.
        • The site does not have a substantial number of editors, and so does not meet ELNO#12. Indeed, it does not appear to have met this criterion in the past, either - 88 5-edit editors ever is not usually enough to meet muster at ELN.
        • Since GA reviews are not required to check ELs, the inclusion of the EL at the time it passed does not mean the EL should be included
        • WP:ELBURDEN notes that disputed ELs "should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". Since you do not have such a consensus, I am re-removing the EL. I suggest reopening the discussion at WP:ELN if you wish to seek wider input. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I know that it does not contain "misleading or inaccurate information" because I was there; as was the primary editor of the Wikia article, User:Jmabel. It was a coffeeshop, it started the whole Seattle coffee culture: it had atmosphere and related anecdotes which are not encylopedic but which are of great interest to readers. What is your problem? Mumble mumble mumble. Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
            • As I said, unverifiable research and generally a link that does not contribute to the encyclopedia. We're not a repository of every link that might be of interest to anyone. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Seattle Wikia Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is to draw attention to the discussion at Talk:Last_Exit_on_Brooklyn#External_links. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Last Exit on Brooklyn. 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/20111007010202/http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/media/news/2010/1/21/LPBCurrentNom_EOliveWay.pdf to http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/media/news/2010/1/21/LPBCurrentNom_EOliveWay.pdf

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Last Exit on Brooklyn. 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/20111130175243/http://crosscut.com/2007/09/27/mossback/7823/It-s-the-end-for-the-Last-Exit/ to http://crosscut.com/2007/09/27/mossback/7823/It-s-the-end-for-the-Last-Exit/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning Last Exit to Brooklyn?

Selby's book? Clearly inspiration for name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.86 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Clearly?" what's your source? Irv said it wasn't. Brooklyn Ave actually dead-ended there when the Exit was founded. That was the origin of the name. Skyerise (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Irv said it wasn't."

What's your source? That would be worth adding to the article. PK-WIKI (talk) PK-WIKI (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that it's "interesting" to add a denial to an article for a claim which is not in the article in the first place, due to a lack of sources for the claim itself. That's a backhanded way to add the unsupported claim to the article. Irv was asked, he denied it. That may or may not have gotten into print in one of the sources already cited. Since you are the one who finds it "interesting", I suggest you be the one to do the actual research. Not all uses of the word "Brooklyn" are references to Brooklyn, New York. The establishment was on dead-end Brooklyn Ave, which wasn't connected through to Pacific St until 1977 or so. Skyerise (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The counterculture coffee shop shares all but 1 letter with the counterculture novel published only three years earlier. WP:ASTONISH indicates that the connection or lack thereof between the two names should be explained if it exists in reliable sources. Naming his dead-end Brooklyn Ave coffee shop as a pun on the name of the famous novel seems likely, but I'd love to read the owner's statement about the names. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither the alleged connection nor the denial are discussed in easily accessible reliable sources. I'd suggest the Seattle Library newspaper collection. We simply don't have the sources necessary to discuss it. Feel free to do the research. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Get Cisski started about his philosophy of The Last Exit _ or his philosophy in general _ and you're in for a long night. In spite of the Exit's bohemian image and existentialist name (a play on Hubert Selby's grisly '60s novel, 'Last Exit to Brooklyn'), Cisski is neither a beatnik nor a bohemian.

"I didn't even want to call the place `The Last Exit,`" says Cisski. "Paul Dorpat (the writer and photographer who was about to start the underground newspaper, The Helix, at the time) suggested that. If I had had my way, I'd still call it The New World Cafe."

Last Exit, many returns: 20 years and many fads later, laid back U District coffeehouse show no signs of slowing down — The Seattle Times, June 20, 1987 PK-WIKI (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)