Talk:The Players (New York City)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The true name includes an apostrophe, thusly: The Players' Club.[[New_Interational_Encyclopedia] The redirect of February 1st, 2007 is an innacurate edit. Velocicaptor 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the true name, as indicated by their website included as an external link, is "The Players", and not Players Club or Players' Club. Accordingly, the initial citation tag for the name is being eliminated. JohnClarknew 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To update this page with the latest news, Marmelstein, is estimable, promotion of the club is not. To delete references to the published action taken by the attorney general regarding the Players because of its lack of governance prior to the election of Lynn Redgrave as president who contributed her time and money to straighten it out is considered to be POV. Indeed, a newly formed nominating committee managed to oust her. But the record as written and referenced belongs here.

These edits are being restored. Editing wars should be avoided. JohnClarknew 08:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Marmelstein has continued to make deletions and changes referred to above without improving the page. Marmelstein appears to have signed in to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of doing this (see his page.) He should refrain, and is invited to explain his reasons here. Page has again been reverted. JohnClarknew 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous mistakes in this entry. The Gramercy Park mansion was not built in 1844 but 1847.

Under the "Reasons for Founding His Club" the writer states that "he (Booth), asked his friend across the square to remodel his home into an American actors' club." First of all, this building was never Booth's home. He didn't live there until it became a club. More importantly, it was never created as an actor's club. It was created so that actors could meet men of other professions: architects, writers, bankers, doctors, et. al. The purpose was to elevate the actor's place in society through this social intercourse. And the "friend across the square" who designed The Players was Stanford White. By failing to mention White's name, the sentence becomes even more confusing.

Under "Membership", the writer incorrectly states that the board of directors has a requirement that at least five of the nine directors must be actors, dramatists, or theatrical managers. Under the by-laws, it is eleven out of twenty-one and that obligation has always been met. Also, as far as one knows, no critic (referred to as "crickets" by Edwin Booth) was an original member of the Club, although many of them are now members. The writer then goes on to call the current popular young president Timothy Hutton a "film actor," rather than a stage actor who is also an Oscar-winning screen actor. Under "Club Activities," very little is mentioned of the Club's actual activities. Rather it focuses on its "ups and downs." He refers to the well-educated, successful members as needing to be "amused and occupied." And the beautiful Grill Room has never been called "the basement bar." It's simply incorrect to refer to it as that.

"Later Problems" then puts forth the writer's own take on a long ago situation (1994) in which he and his wife became members of the Club. (Lynn Redgrave was elected the first woman president, served for one year, and was then not re-nominated to the board. This was perfectly legal within the by-laws of the Club). Furthermore, despite accusations, it was never established that "proper books hadn't been kept," or that the "John Drew Fund...was empty..." or that "the upstairs library (was)a mess." While it is true that the John Drew fund had been incorrectly used by club members in the distant past (many of whom passed away years ago), it was established by the Attorney General that no current member abused the fund. The fund was eventually turned over to the Actors' Fund for management. Long after Lynn Redgrave ceased to be president, the Club continued to fully cooperate with the Attorney General's office. And with the legal expertise of journalist Sidney Zion and the negotiating skills of Tim Hutton and the Club's lawyers, The Players was able to close this sad chapter in its history. Why this chapter needs reopening at all, considering the Club's illustrious 120 year history, remains elusive.

The Players knows of no offer to purchase "Tudor Hall" for the intention of incorporating it into the Players. And lastly, but most importantly, The Players was NEVER, EVER in danger of being closed down.

It would be really worthwhile if the editors of this site could check out The Players own website, recognize these mistakes and delete them. Thank you!!

The writer of the above should reveal an identity if he or she wishes to carry on a discussion here. JohnClarknew 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, this current definition of The Players (not The Players Club) is filled with gross errors. Marmelstein

It appears that the changes made on July 27 were made by a new user by the name of John Martello who is the executive director of the club, and who is also using the name Marmelstein, and wrote the above, unsigned. Deleting the published facts of the attorney general's involvement is not an option. It is not the purpose of this site to promote the club. Changes are fine, but not the elimination of pertinent verifiable facts. This user who wrote the piece, a life member since 1986, has exercised discretion, and presented the story in a fair-minded and positive manner. It needs to stay as it was, with some updated information, such as a list and dates of the presidents since its founding. I shall work on it when I have some time. It would be helpful if other interested and objective members got involved. JohnClarknew 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have noted that Tim Hutton has resigned as President due to pressure of work on the West Coast. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has been put here "Christian Keiber, the youngest member ever inducted into the club." There is no basis for the claim, and it does not belong in the article. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct this erroneous information[edit]

Given the numerous references to the fact that the word "club" is not part of the name of this club, please remove the word "club" from the <title> tags of these documents as well as the URLs. As noted in many places on the wiki, the correct name of the club is The Players. Please update this wiki to reflect the correct name.

Thank you, 24.90.5.62 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC) John Nasta[reply]

Moved -- Avi (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

controversy section, while fascinating, is too long[edit]

we dont need the blow by blow, you could just say "union labor dispute, led to pickets and a fine". the length and the theme of the section seem to be potential NPOV. dm (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of the section is hardly complete. it goes much deeper than that. It's only "blow-by-blow" because it's still int he process of happening. It can be summarized (accurately) when it's over. There's nothing NPOV about it except in the minds of some club members connected tot he current administration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Beyond My Ken, essentially, and think an accurate summary should be included when its over without skewing any NPOV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no personal connection to the Players other than occasionally walking by it, so I hope you understand when I see inline quotes with references talking about how members feel about the club management, it doesn't seem very neutral. I'm not saying they're wrong or that it's not true, but 25% of the article appears to be about the controversy. Continuing on, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was not trying to summarize all four paragraphs, I should have added "for example". The fact that the controversy is still happening is exactly why we should be more careful about putting too much detail in. Perhaps we should tag it with Template:Current until the controversy has been resolved? Of course, the four paragraphs cover almost twenty years. I have to admit I'm curious if they sold the same Singer Sergeant twice, or if they sold both of them, or if they only sold it once, but it's mentioned in two paragraphs. Even with all of that text, it's not cleared up. dm (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what information a reader of this article would expect to find, or appreciate knowing, and my sense is the reader would probably be glad to have the expanded information about these controversies, so that he or she could make up their own mind about the issues brought forth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the NYT articles. Very sad situation. I read back through the whole section afterwards and I'm not sure what I'd suggest removing. I still feel that 25% of the article focused on the details of the controversy is too much undue weight. Not that I'm arguing for more lists of happy members. I'm also sure that you both are thoroughly familiar with WP:NPOV dm (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section, three years later[edit]

Is it worth revisiting the proposition raised above, that details of the 2012-13 organizational problems can be culled a bit? Though there has been some back and forth in the intervening years (including a PR effort that was cleaned up by others for NPOV issues), the article still feels weighed down by details of past leadership controversies and financial troubles. A parallel exists with the National Arts Club, which in the same period had a widely-reported schism in the membership, State investigations, dueling litigation, and leadership dismissals. That article is much more succinct, even while acknowledging that some lawsuits still go on at NAC. From interim and recent reporting (some cited, some not) it appears that The Players is operating with stability, so perhaps there's less need for a caveat emptor aspect for article readers? CharleyV (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy, and a fresh take overall[edit]

After waiting seven weeks to any feedback to the above (and nearly four years since there was previous discussion on the topic) I have reworked the sections focused on prior controversies and organizational problems. In doing so, I broke it into three subsections: the Attorney General's look at the Players and associated groups 17 years ago; the 2008 organized labor conflict; and the financial mess and what has been described elsewhere as a member insurrection in 2012-13. I've tried to give a very careful reading of source reporting, so that the summary is accurate and with less back-and-forth. For some, there may still be too much "blow by blow." Others may not like the removal of dueling dollars of debt that was pulled from reporting of the period. But I tried to assess what could reasonably be verified and not just what was quoted, often from unnamed sources. (Just as a note: a 501(c)(7) social club has less transparency than a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, so the Players was, and is, more opaque than the neighboring National Arts Club, for instance.) Citations of that reporting remain intact, so that a reader can dig into greater detail. What has become clear in the reporting since is that the Players was a financial morass for some time, and that the leadership that took over in 2014 had to thoroughly reorganize. Beyond this section, I've tried to build on the Recent Events section of History by focusing it on the structural changes of the past several years, in parallel to the Founding portion. Some previous portions were moved into Activities and into Membership. In reviewing NYT archives, I also found some supplementary historical information (particularly in members and the incremental steps to membership for women). Further, additional citations were brought into several sections. Otherwise, I tried to correct timeline errors, fill in some gaps, remove dead links, and do general cleanup. I know there has been editorial interest in this page over time, and I welcome feedback. CharleyV (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit, as it was full of POV, unsourced information, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what POV you discerned--it would be helpful to know, since I don't have any agenda. Also, having added a number of citations, can you share some examples of unsourced information I put in? Thanks!CharleyV (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so, give me a day or so until I have some time in my schedule. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rework, broken down[edit]

Hi, Beyond My Ken. You're right; my March 15 edit was a lot of changes without a lot of explanation. I've taken the liberty of readding them as section-by-section edits, but happy to discuss any or all as you like. PRRfan (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking that I was hasty in my total revert, but didn't have the chance to log on until now. I'll take a look at your section-by-section changes tonight. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that, the changes were much more comprehensible to me looking at them that way, and everything seems fine. THe one change I'd like to make is to restore "19th Century" to "Founding". I'm going to make that change, in the hope that you'll be OK with that. Otherwise, it all looks good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquy not pertinent to improving the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it fascinating, having gone back through Talk discussions and editing on this page, that the well-organized and documented work of CharleyV was summarily dismissed a couple of months ago, despite that user's solicitation for pre-edit feedback on this page and thorough explanation at the time of edit. Beyond My Ken wholly reverted, saying it was unsourced and 'full of POV' and when asked for examples, said he would provide them and did not. In fact, the actual reversion note claims COI, apparently without evidence and prejudicial to CharleyV's work. The laundry list of internal grievances continues to overwhelm the article, additional relevant material and citations for existing material goes unused, and PRRfan is treated--appropriately so--with collegiality and respect. If anyone wonders why good and energetic newer editors get driven away, this is why.Tonytlc (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me the backstory of the history of the editing of this page, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need me to tell you. And anyone else can scan back and see the highlights: dead actress/club president's ex-husband claiming expertise; club factions engaging in editing duels; claims of malfeasance; a PR hack trying to do happy promo edits. I get it. It's worth having editors (preferably more than one) keep an eye on articles with a history of antipathy. I read the cited articles from several years ago, too. Clearly melodrama is a specialty of the house. But it's all largely irrelevant. From recent history, two things come to mind: first, a POV that maintains every old grudge and pushes back against any new information in an article, to the detriment of its quality and balance, is still a POV. Second, when you have someone initiate discussion and volunteer to do a long-overdue appraisal and re-think, that should be welcomed. If CharleyV had snuck in and redone everything, I might understand annoyance. But here's someone who followed up on a years-old discussion, got no feedback or mentoring or offer of collaboration, and did what appears to be structurally sound, additionally researched, non-whitewashed, decently well-cited editing. That's what newer editors are encouraged and coached to do. And it was unilaterally wiped out, with (as far as I can tell) unmerited accusations of his/her intent. That's what I find tiresome and in opposition to how this is all supposed to work.Tonytlc (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If CharleyV's edit was so all-fire wonderful, why do you suppose no other editor bothered to argue its merits? Putting that aside, are you just venting here, on the basis of your 85 edits in five years of editing, are do you have something constructive to say about improving the article, which is, after all, the purpose of this talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty evident why no other editor bothered; it's a pointless exercise, that can only result in having their work undone, their motives disparaged, and their contributions denigrated. There's been no shortage of constructive things said before about how the article could be improved, and clearly none of it will happen. What a pity.Tonytlc (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it, though? And aren't we so lucky to have you, with your extensive contributions to the encyclopedia, to tell us what we're doing wrong? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Players (New York City). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Players_(New_York_City)&oldid=1198646130"