Talk:Times Square Hotel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Times Square Hotel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 September 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Earth605 talk 12:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
( )
The Times Square Hotel
- ... that when the Times Square Hotel was renovated in the 1990s, it was "a scene of complete social chaos", with 1,700 violations of building codes? Source: Moore, Jina (September 7, 2009). "Taking the homeless beyond shelters: Rosanne Haggerty's Common Ground creates permanent housing that has reduced homelessness by 87 percent in one 20-block area of New York City". The Christian Science Monitor. p. 3.
- ALT1: ... that after the Times Square Hotel was renovated, very few of its low-income and formerly-homeless residents became homeless again? Source: Walters, Joanna (November 19, 2006). "Homeless 2006: Welcome to the new hope hotel: Joanna Walters reports on the success of a radical New York initiative that has a bold and simple aim: Make Homelessness History". The Observer. p. 6.
- ALT2: ... that at the Times Square Hotel, once called a "hell for the homeless", very few residents became homeless again by the 2000s? Source: Holloway, Lynette (November 10, 1996). "With New Purpose And Look, S.R.O.'s Make a Comeback". The New York Times.; Walters, Joanna (November 19, 2006). "Homeless 2006: Welcome to the new hope hotel: Joanna Walters reports on the success of a radical New York initiative that has a bold and simple aim: Make Homelessness History". The Observer. p. 6.
- ALT3: ... that the Times Square Hotel once tried to discourage long-term residents by asking guests to show passports? Source: Finder, Alan (December 27, 1988). "Law Halting Conversions of S.R.O.'s Does Little to Help Poor". The New York Times.
- ALT4: ... that the Times Square Hotel, intended as a hotel exclusively for men, set aside a floor for women within a year of its opening? Source: "Convert Hotel Claman: Recently Completed Bachelor Hall to Be Occupied by Men and Women". The New York Times. March 12, 1924. p. 34.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/N&B Block
- Comment: Thanks to LEvalyn for proposing some hooks.
- Comment: Unfortunately the sources for the hooks are paywalled. Adding a quote= line to the ref cites would help. Dhaluza (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oops, I realized I forgot to include the quotes supporting each hook in the nomination. Since this nom has already been reviewed though, I can do that next time I nominate an article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can still add them. Dhaluza (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article was 5x expanded on August 11, QPQ complete, no copyvio detected, and no other eligibility issues. Links were not provided in the sources above, but I was able to find the articles and verify that they contain the respective claims. I'm partial to ALT0 as the most intriguing, but have no issues with any of the other proposed hooks. Seriously impressive work on the article—kudos! Ploni💬
Persuasive sources
When someone is claiming they need they need BIGNUM of dollars to fix BIGGERNUM of code violations, the intelligent writer looks around for s medium-sized lump of rocksalt. Qwirkle (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag. You have provided no evidence that these are inaccurate. A vague hand-waving that sources may be inaccurate is a violation of WP:OR; we reflect what the sources say, not your interpretation of what may be missing based on what you think the sources say. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- No, we do not take self-serving primary sources at face value…well, at least for values of “we” that don’t include “you.” Qwirkle (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- The article says Haggerty called the hotel "a scene of complete social chaos", saying there were 1,700 building code violations. This is a claim made by someone involved in the project, not a statement of fact. The source says
"It had been used as emergency housing for homeless families by the city of New York, and it was a scene of complete social chaos", she says. "The building has 1,700 building-code violations".
As I said, we reflect what the sources say, not what you think they may or may not have said.If there is a widespread accuracy issue, please feel free to list more examples. If this is the only point of contention, though, it doesn't merit a tag. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)- …and yet someone saw fit to use this dubious source to make an unnuanced factual claim in wikivoice on the main page. So, you are saying the article is well written and accurate, there are just cognitive problems elsewhere? Perhaps.
Sad, that. Qwirkle (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I think something happened along the way with the DYK nomination; my apologies. I see you made a report at WP:ERRORS - I think the hook should've been phrased like "... that when the Times Square Hotel was renovated in the 1990s, it was described as "a scene of complete social chaos", with 1,700 violations of building codes?" rather than what was actually written. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- …and yet someone saw fit to use this dubious source to make an unnuanced factual claim in wikivoice on the main page. So, you are saying the article is well written and accurate, there are just cognitive problems elsewhere? Perhaps.
- The article says Haggerty called the hotel "a scene of complete social chaos", saying there were 1,700 building code violations. This is a claim made by someone involved in the project, not a statement of fact. The source says
- No, we do not take self-serving primary sources at face value…well, at least for values of “we” that don’t include “you.” Qwirkle (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)