Talk:Bethesda Terrace and Fountain

Terrace

Since the fountain is only the lovely central feature of a part of the park which has other interesting features and connections to neighboring parts, and since our only pictures don't show or barely show the fountain, shouldn't the article be renamed as Bethesda Terrace and expanded? Jim.henderson (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I did it and then got a lucky picture of the fountain. There still aren't many words about the Terrace, but I hope to insert some more, later this month. Goodness, there's nothing on The Mall and its bandshell, either. Much to do. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Thanks for the pleasant words in my talk page. I bought a new camera Friday and used it while walking home to Hells Kitchen from a bike shop on the Upper East Side Saturday. Tried to improve on the shot my old broken camera made from the west, but alas, a good camera doesn't make a good picture if the photographer doesn't understand what's happening. The head shot of the angel came out well, except for a difficulty with the dark face that my retouch program couldn't properly lighten. Sunday while escorting two tourists to Strawberry Fields I took another headshot but probably it is not good and the season is getting too late for good sunlight on that face. Hmm, maybe at night with tripod. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So here is is, and not as bad as I expected from a quick snapshot from a position too far east and an hour too early. After editing I rather preferred it over the one already in the article, but then asked some friends who were unanimous that the cloudy day picture was better. So, I show it on the Talk Page as a Public Domain photo but don't dare put it in the article. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

www.centralpark.com

www.centralpark.com is one of several websites dedicated to Central Park. Before someone is inclined to delete it again as "spam", it should be carefully looked at. --Wetman (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrambled citations

Can someone correct this, providing an anchor for the introduced citation <ref name=ginko />? Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Angel of the Waters Redirect

Angel of the Waters now redirects to this article. Dreammaker182 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bethesda Terrace and Fountain. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126152855/http://www.centralparknyc.org:80/aboutcpc/cpc-history/cpchistory1980-1988 to http://www.centralparknyc.org/aboutcpc/cpc-history/cpchistory1980-1988

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture

Is there scope for an 'in popular culture' section? The fountain has a pivotal role at the end of the play Angels in America and its HBO miniseries adaptation, and the terrace is used in both John Wick movies. I'm sure there are other uses of it as a location I haven't seen. Worth gathering some together? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. An In popular culture section sounds both reasonable and surprising that it hasn't been done before (or maybe it was removed). I did some edits to the page and template after seeing the statue featured on a recent episode of Manifest. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It also appears in the Dr Who episode Angels take Manhattan and plays an important role in the Netflix series Manifest. 2A00:23C7:C5D1:4A01:2499:67A2:DCAE:F4B5 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Duke Ellington Circle jeh.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Background Story

The article tells: "Also called the Angel of the Waters, the statue refers to Healing the paralytic at Bethesda, a story from the Gospel of John about an angel blessing the Pool of Bethesda, giving it healing powers." And it refers to the Gospel of John. Where did the author get this? I read the story, and it is about Jesus healing a paralytic man. No angel, no blessing of the water, actually no water involved in the healing, just a pool nearby. Why do people write this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E4:AF14:E574:E4:B8AE:4FFB:4548 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Your additions

@Epicgenius: Please don't mix additions with outright changes. It makes it very difficult to spot changes, and even harder to oppose (revert) them. In this case you made a considerable addition (good) while simultaneously changing key aspects of the existing page (bad). Case in point - I noticed the following sentence

During this time the site became a congregating spot for the rock music generation before devolving into a drug-trafficking venue in the 1970s.

I wrote that sentence, but I specifically remember the source discussing hippies. Not rock music fans. And indeed, I had written "During this time the site became a congregating spot for the Hair generation" to paraphrase the source's reference to Central Park be-ins, a term I wasn't familiar with and thus had to look up. While I soon understood it was this edit that did the change, it still required careful hunting to fix exactly what had happened and how. Also that edit added a lot of other (good) stuff, and the edit summary does not mention anything other than additions. (In fact the edit summary is simply "add").

Do not contribute to Wikipedia this way, please. Post your additions as one edit (or perhaps better as one edit per section or paragraph); and your changes to the work of other editors as other separate edits; thus being as open as possible when you mercilessly edit the work of others. There's no convenient way for me to change "rock music generation" back to "hippie generation" except manually. And that's just one small thing; fixing out exactly what you changed is not as easy as it could and should have been. At the very least; be more comprehensive and open in your edit summaries. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@CapnZapp, I understand your concerns. I do concede I could have been more transparent in my edit summary. Regarding that specific sentence, though, there is a reason for me rewording that. Here's what the sentence said before: During this time the site became a congregating spot for the Hair generation before devolving into a drug-trafficking venue in the 1970s. This sentence is unclear, as the cited source does not even mention what the "Hair generation" is. Given the concerns you brought up, I should have tagged the statement with {{clarify}} instead.

Regarding your last couple of sentences, I will have to disagree with the suggestion that additions be posted as separate edits. Not only does it unnecessarily clog up the page history, people's watchlists, and recent-changes lists, but it also serves little purpose to open up the edit form repeatedly. If you wish to revert any incorrect changes, I will not object to that. If you can cite a policy (not a guideline) that dictates such edits must be made separately, I will not object to that. Otherwise, I do not see why any issues cannot be discussed on the talk page, as we are doing now. Your statement "Do not contribute to Wikipedia this way, please" is a personal preference, not one grounded in policy. Therefore, please try not to represent personal preferences as though they were policy. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is unclear, as the cited source does not even mention what the "Hair generation" is. Given the concerns you brought up, I should have tagged the statement with {{clarify}} instead. I'm not saying you must settle for tagging things you want clarified; you should absolutely go ahead and fix things right away if you're so inclined. My objection is instead that "rock music generation" isn't a clarification of "Hair generation", it's an incorrect substitution.

I acknowledge your objections to my suggestion. However, since you go straight to "policy please" instead of simply listening to friendly advice, I have no other option than to conclude you are then okay with me reverting a whole big chunk when I find one small error. After all, I am sure you're not trying to make other editors hesitate reverting you because you apply many unrelated changes together, and that you are fully prepared to deal with big chunks yourself. Thank you and good day. CapnZapp (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

My objection is instead that "rock music generation" isn't a clarification of "Hair generation", it's an incorrect substitution. - Yes, but I did not know that this was the correct substitution. Hence, I'm saying I should have tagged it. Since you have now resolved this particular issue, the tag is no longer necessary.

As for making small changes at once, I'm fine with people reverting a large chunk of edits, provided they actually explain which policies and guidelines have been broken to justify the entire edit being reverted. Then I can address these concerns. If they make blanket reverts without any explanation, then that is tendentious editing, which doesn't help the encyclopedia. It's also worth noting that, even though I've made hundreds of additions like this over the past several years, none of those have been fully reverted just because of a small error - more often than not, these mistakes are simply fixed right then and there. Your comment indicates that people might revert other editors making such large changes, but I really don't think that's the case. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

With language like justify the entire edit being reverted and blanket reverts you really aren't trying to avoid the conclusion you're making big edits to make them harder to oppose. You don't get to put the burden of justification on other editors. The bit about actually explain which policies and guidelines have been broken is just a smokescreen - the fact you chose to combine all your changes into a single edit does not raise the bar on reverting it - that's my whole point: don't post large edits so your work gets harder to oppose! If you submit each logical chunk (which can be edits to lots of places, just related somehow) individually, the addition is easy to comprehend and, if needed, to revert, without "blanket reverts" ever having to be a thing. Basically, an editor shouldn't be in the place of having to justify reverting "entire" edits, since ideally, it is possible to revert each logical chunk separately. When you say none of those have been fully reverted just because of a small error you ignore the burden those editors have silently chosen to bear. Moving on, the more monolithic edits you make, the more careful you need to be making comprehensive edit summaries. Summarizing the whole of [1] with merely "add" just doesn't cut it. That is the kind of edit summary you might get away with for a small edit that basically need no explanation, not a sprawling +2,719 edit. Again, please don't mix additions with outright changes. CapnZapp (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems I misunderstood your objection - I understand what you're saying now. Yes, it does make it a bit easier to figure out if I changed something incorrectly if I had added the information in several small edits. I now see you were trying to suggest that I make smaller edits, but to me it initially came across as more demanding. Sorry about that. I've also conceded my edit summary was inadequate, and I'll use a more descriptive edit summary next time if I'm making substantial layout changes like this to existing articles.

I only added that information all at once because there was quite literally a time limit on the two sources I was using. I had an hour-long loan on Central Park, 1857-1995: The Birth, Decline, and Renewal of a National Treasure. Simultaneously, I was reading The Architecture of New York City: Histories and Views of Important Structures, Sites, and Symbols at the library without having borrowed it. I should've dealt with the "Hair generation" issue and the rearrangement of the article separately, since my primary goal was actually to add the information from these two books. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Epicgenius. You should know that your ability to take criticism constructively is rare, and we should all strive to be you. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)