This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A past revision of this article stated that there is a location of this club in Los Angeles. I removed this, as not only can I find no reference to the existence of such a club, I can't even find a recent reference that indicates anything about future plans for one; furthermore, there is no link to an LA location on the official website, even though links exist for the yet-to-be-opened Vegas/ Macau/ Tokyo clubs. -- Sesameball Talk 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
this section is either speculation or sourced from a marginally notable blog from a marginally notable writer. unless this can be better sourced, since it verges on unfavorable commentary on jay-z, i am removing it per WP:BLP. if anyone wants to add it back, just source it properly, i have no bias either way. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This lawsuit was settled in March of 2010 for a relatively small undisclosed amount. Candicedavis4040 ( talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Also it seems the beef may have to do with local unions.
The part about the club employees seems to be that they were not paid enough, not "at all" so had to depend on tips. Even from one of the sources in the article about his lawyer not being paid it doesn't say the employees were not paid, but not paid fair wages and for overtime. ( http://www.sohh.com/2009/07/jay-zs_lawyers_request_re.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 ( talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
But the Health Dept apparently did close the club for health code violations, receiving a "C" grade. Source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/21/jay-z-40-40-club-health-code/ http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/21/jay-z-40-40-club-health-code/ Though it's been said the club is closed for renovations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been attempting to remove sourced material from the article as being too trivial and too distant in time to be important, but I do not think a law suit by the club's employees and a finding of financial irregularities is insignificant. It should remain in the article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been attempting to remove material from the article that is sourced to a reliable source (NY Daily News), on the grounds that it violates WP:WEIGHT. I disagree, the charges are serious ones, involving non-payment of wages, and are well-balanced by the remainder of the article. I have asked the editor involved to make his case for deletion here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no bias in the paragraph, it represents what it written in articles in several reliable sources. (We allow POV in our articles if it's supported by reliable sourced.) If you think there's another side of the story to be told, find something that says so in another reliable source and add it to the article. If you think (as you claimed in your first recent removal) that the case is settled, then find a source that says the case has been settled -- but stop removing the sourced material from the article because you don't believe it belongs there. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Preliminary
@BMK and @JS. Both of you are edit-warring.
JS is removing sourced material (RS and V of which may be questionable).
BMK is adding unsourced material.
So how do you want to go about achieving consensus ?? RobertRosen ( talk) 07:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 40/40 Club. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A past revision of this article stated that there is a location of this club in Los Angeles. I removed this, as not only can I find no reference to the existence of such a club, I can't even find a recent reference that indicates anything about future plans for one; furthermore, there is no link to an LA location on the official website, even though links exist for the yet-to-be-opened Vegas/ Macau/ Tokyo clubs. -- Sesameball Talk 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
this section is either speculation or sourced from a marginally notable blog from a marginally notable writer. unless this can be better sourced, since it verges on unfavorable commentary on jay-z, i am removing it per WP:BLP. if anyone wants to add it back, just source it properly, i have no bias either way. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This lawsuit was settled in March of 2010 for a relatively small undisclosed amount. Candicedavis4040 ( talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Also it seems the beef may have to do with local unions.
The part about the club employees seems to be that they were not paid enough, not "at all" so had to depend on tips. Even from one of the sources in the article about his lawyer not being paid it doesn't say the employees were not paid, but not paid fair wages and for overtime. ( http://www.sohh.com/2009/07/jay-zs_lawyers_request_re.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 ( talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
But the Health Dept apparently did close the club for health code violations, receiving a "C" grade. Source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/21/jay-z-40-40-club-health-code/ http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/21/jay-z-40-40-club-health-code/ Though it's been said the club is closed for renovations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been attempting to remove sourced material from the article as being too trivial and too distant in time to be important, but I do not think a law suit by the club's employees and a finding of financial irregularities is insignificant. It should remain in the article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been attempting to remove material from the article that is sourced to a reliable source (NY Daily News), on the grounds that it violates WP:WEIGHT. I disagree, the charges are serious ones, involving non-payment of wages, and are well-balanced by the remainder of the article. I have asked the editor involved to make his case for deletion here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no bias in the paragraph, it represents what it written in articles in several reliable sources. (We allow POV in our articles if it's supported by reliable sourced.) If you think there's another side of the story to be told, find something that says so in another reliable source and add it to the article. If you think (as you claimed in your first recent removal) that the case is settled, then find a source that says the case has been settled -- but stop removing the sourced material from the article because you don't believe it belongs there. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Preliminary
@BMK and @JS. Both of you are edit-warring.
JS is removing sourced material (RS and V of which may be questionable).
BMK is adding unsourced material.
So how do you want to go about achieving consensus ?? RobertRosen ( talk) 07:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 40/40 Club. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)