Talk:Riverside Drive (Manhattan)

You should add the movie "You've Got Mail" to your description of Riverside Drive, since Meg Ryan lives in the neighborhood and the final wonderful scene takes place just outide of Hippo Park - on the Promenade at 91st Street and Riverside Park. ((subst:xsign|21:00, 16 November 2008‎ 69.201.190.3}}

I propose a couple of sentences be included to describe the Master Building. I have found this unattributed text on the Internet:

"The Master building, built in 1929, is the tallest building on Riverside Drive and its corner windows are reputed to be the first in Manhattan. The building was originally conceived as an artist colony by the artist and philosopher Nicholas Roerich. Notable people from around the world visited and were residents of the Master building. Of particular interest, Manly P. Hall and Joseph Campbell are amongst those who have been residents."

__meco (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Master Apartments, 310-312 Riverside Drive: architect Harvey Wiley Corbett, 1929: there should be a linked mention--Wetman (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The current set of photos seems weak. Riverside Blvd. is not the subject of this article. We should try to find a similar photo which shows a section of Riverside Drive. The snow photo and the photo of 72nd Street are similarly uninformative, in my opinion. Perhaps some editor knows of or could contribute photos more central to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll look and see what we have, and try to get down there to take some shots if we don;t have anything useful. BMK (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I agree with your removal of all that 370 Riverside Dr stuff. BMK (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ken,

I'm afraid that it is you who are ignorant of Riverside South's history. Here are references to the original documents.

See FEIS, CPC approval, NYT article on approval, and NYT article with Trump referring to his Riverside South buildings.

Trump didn't even have control of the project when he had his name put on three buildings: Bloomberg article. He was in charge of marketing. Putting his name on the first three buildings was nothing more than a marketing ploy. Five years later, having become a TV star, he simply lost interest and let the actual owners continue to develop the project. No one referred to the project by the name "Trump Place" before or since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela Miller (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected, thanks for the links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Although I will note for the future: please do not change to your preferred version of an article when edits are under discussion on the talk page. What until there is an agreement or a consensus to follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ken,

The slide presentation you added as footnote 15 is a progress report on construction of Riverside Park South. It is better placed on the Riverside Park (Manhattan) page. The one I added as footnote 16 is a view from north to south showing all of Riverside South, and highlighting Riverside Boulevard and its connection to Riverside Drive at 72nd Street, which fits better with the subject of this page. Maybe a photograph of the real Riverside Boulevard would be better than a photo of a model, but in the meantime this photograph should suffice. Pamela Miller

Google Drive is not a reliable source. In fact, it's not a source of any kind at all, just a holder for things people put there. I've restored my source, which comes from the Community Board website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reliable source is determined by:

The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

In this case, the piece of work is the photograph, which is obviously a photograph of a model of Riverside South. To satisfy your exacting requirements, I added the publisher. As someone once said "please do not change to your preferred version of an article when edits are under discussion on the talk page" (see above). Pamela Miller

You need to provide the actual original URL for the photograph, not the Google Drive address which someone copied it to and a general pointer to the source's website. Please do not restore the Google Drive citation again, it's a violation of WP:reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The issue was published in 1993 and is no longer available; the photograph is available. If you doubt it's authenticity, you are beyond pedantry as well as beyond my ken. Pamela Miller

If you cannot source it, it cannot be used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I gave the source. If you want, I will remove the link to the magazine's website, since the website no longer has back issues from 1993. But a source isn't required to exist on the internet. The magazine is available in libraries. Pamela Miller

You just cannot copy a photograph from a copyrighted publication, stick it on your Google Drive, and then cite that as your source. Information must be WP:Verifiable, and you've not provided sufficient information to verify the authenticity of the photograph. Your say-so is simply not enough, and the only instances of the image on the web is from when it once appeared in one of our articles, and was presumably removed for similar reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

TinEye results [1], all mirrors of our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• You missed this one: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3432&page=18 Pamela Miller Pamela Miller (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• TinEye did miss that one, but discussion pages are not reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'."

Again, I gave the source. The source is a respected Japanese architectural magazine. It is available in libraries. Both the original issue and copies on microfilm stored in libraries are available to the public. That should be sufficient. If you want to check it, you can go to a library. Pamela Miller

• Please see this discussion on the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply