Jump to content

Talk:Gay bathhouses in the United Kingdom

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

From Talk:Chariots Shoreditch

[edit]

ANI comments

[edit]

The following questions about sources were raised on this ANI on 17 March 2010 by Delicious carbuncle:

1. The statement "The bathhouse is on three floors decorated in the style of a Roman baths" is sourced to a short item in a travel guide (page 122) which mentions the facility in passing but does not refer to the number of floors or the decor of that location.

Response: The MTV England guide describes the Shoreditch sauna as "ridiculously well equipped" and describes some of the facilities. It is a suitable supporting reference. The fact that a footnote is added to a sentence does not imply that every word in the sentence must be proved by the citation. In this case, the fact that Chariots is on 3 floors and the style of decoration is not considered controversial information or under dispute, in particular magazine advertizing by Chariots states this information but adding the same footnote as a supporting reference to every sentence in the article would be pedantic and unnecessary. You should note that the name "Chariots" was part of the Roman baths theme and most advertising for the venue makes it clear that the decor is in the style of a Roman baths.

2. The section "Etiquette" is sourced to two books, neither of which contains a reference to "Chariots" or "Shoreditch" according to Google books. Although it may be argued that this section refers to bathhouse etiquette in general, the similar section in Pleasuredrome clearly refers to the specific facility.

Response: The two sources provide appropriate supporting information regarding contemporary bathhouse culture. Again this material is not under dispute or controversial and provides a gay cultural context rather than limiting the article to a list of facilities based on advertising in the press. The fact that a footnote is added to a sentence does not imply that every word in the sentence must be proved by the citation. I fail to see how removing these supporting citations would improve the article.

3. The description of the facilities available is sourced to QX Magazine, but is actually a full page back-cover paid advert for the bathhouse in the magazine.

Response: The source is appropriate supporting information and published by the owners of Chariots. It meets the reliable sources requirements. Commercial materials are not excluded from Wikipedia if they are suitable for the context and support the article content.

The correct process would have been to raise questions about sources on this talk page. Going to ANI as a first port of call is unnecessary aggressive escalation and threatening behaviour. It should be noted that none of the information in the article supported by these sources has been challenged on the basis of being false or needlessly controversial. — Ash (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC ref for suicide

[edit]

While you're at it Ash, can you explain the BBC ref being used to source the statement that John Fashanu spent his last evening there? The source doesn't mention the name of the sauna. Quantpole (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Times citation added. The same question arose in the Justin Fashanu article, with the GT article being a definitive source. If you have access to 1998 versions of The Guardian (10 September) and The Independent (17 May & 10 September), they both name Chariots as the sauna. Ash (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Pleasuredrome

[edit]

ANI comments

[edit]

The following questions about sources were raised on this ANI on 17 March 2010 by Delicious carbuncle:

1. A listing of the facilities available is sourced to a travel guide which does not contain "Pleasuredrome" according to Google books (although there is a two line item for "Pleasuredome" which does not mention the facilities at all).

Response: The fact that a footnote is added to a sentence does not imply that the entire sentence is proved by the citation. In this case the reference to "The Rough Guide to London" gives the address (so it is the right place even if there is a typo in the name) and describes the sauna as having quick turnover, a mixed crowd and open 24hrs daily. This seems relevant supporting information. It has been moved to the more appropriate section mentioning opening times.

2. The statement "The sauna opened as a gay sex on premises venue or gay bathhouse in 1998" is sourced to an archived copy of the bathhouse's website, which does not contain any information about the history of the bathhouse.

Response: Additional citations added. An archive version of the original Pleasuredrome website is an appropriate citation to include in the article on Pleasuredrome and meets the reliable sources requirements.

3. The statement "The sauna is markets itself as "We never close" and is open 24 hours all year including Bank Holidays" (later changed to"The sauna is notable among London gay saunas for being open 24 hours a day all year, including Bank Holidays") is sourced to QX Magazine, but, just as with Chariots Shoreditch, this is a paid advert not a review or editorial.

Response: This may be a misunderstanding of the reliable sources requirements. An article about a company may validly include references to press releases or advertising materials where these support factual statements about the organization. In this case, "The Rough Guide to London" also supports the statement about opening times, it is not controversial or disputed as factual.

The correct process would have been to raise questions about sources on this talk page. Going to ANI as a first port of call is unnecessary aggressive escalation and threatening behaviour. It should be noted that none of the information in the article supported by these sources has been challenged on the basis of being factually incorrect or needlessly controversial. —Ash (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe this could be put into Gay section and its within the scope of that project from the looks of it. QX is a reliable source if they run a review of a venue, the Pink or Gay Times reviews would also be good to add perhaps. The article is a small stub but could be worked upward. Wondering if there is anything in wikipedia about Gay London and its history?

Inclusionists and deletionists

[edit]
File:Rainbow dove image peace.jpg
Peace

An extract from The Times 'The deletionists say that an encyclopedia is not a dumping ground for facts; standards of notability have to be upheld or their pages will fill with trivia. Inclusionists reply that Wikipedia's great advantage is that it has no space limit and that an entry of interest to just a few people is justified. Niche articles will never trouble most people, since access is through search.' the article goes on to say 'It's on the discussion pages of articles nominated for deletion that anger creeps in. Policy documents are referred to only by abbreviations. There's WP:NEO (avoid neologisms), WP:NOR (no original research), WP:NOT (what Wikipedia is not, including a dictionary, a crystal ball and a democracy) and the favourite of the deletionists WP:NOTE (notability)' [1]

I have added the above little 'stub' here talk not for a response but with a hope you enjoyed reading it and to give you a minute to think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.114.104 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' I am not the original author of the article here but do not beleive this article deserves deletion. I have looked around wikipedia and found two other venues of the same type listed without any deletion issues. The other articles are using similar sources. I have added some more info on the venue from sources including the Pink Paper and Time Out. It is a stub without a doubt as there is far more information that could be added about the venue and the history of the gay scene in that part of London. Then there is also the use of railway arches for land a topic that I think could also be expanded. Please reply here with any thoughts.

I have been looking through the other two articles:

I am wondering if all three are not best merged into one article?

(Rovington (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ Newspaper, 11 Oct 2007

More recent discussion

[edit]

Merge completed

[edit]

I have completed the merge of the articles on Chariots Shoreditch and Pleasuredrome, as suggested by the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome. I encourage editors in this topic area (because I am certainly not one of them!) to make this article more about gay bathhouses in the U.K. in general, and less about the two specific bathhouses whose articles have been merged into this one. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

I confirm that I have been retained by Pleasuredrome to support this article as a paid editor.G2003 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gay bathhouses in the United Kingdom. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay bathhouses in the United Kingdom. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_bathhouses_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1204140545"