Talk:K Street (street)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:K Street (Washington, D.C.))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Misleading Article[edit]

It really looks like lobbying interests have watered down this page so badly that the nationally used term "K STREET" is lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street#Lobbying is almost lost.

Google Search: lobby OR lobbying "K STREET" ...About 3,430,000 results

Evidence? Do all of DC's streets get long Wiki entries about the obscure neighborhoods and similar boring details as found here? If not this article may be deceptive by dilution, misdirection, red herring, or non sequitur (literary device). It needs a full scale revision for emphasis.
--67.125.107.124 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Yes, most major streets in DC have similar coverage of neighborhoods etc (and I wouldn't consider them boring!)--see for instance H Street (Washington, D.C.) or Wisconsin Avenue. What would you suggest be added to the article? It does address the use of the term as a synonym for lobbying. Meelar (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns[edit]

Almost any public discussion in newspapers when "K Street" is mentioned will be referring to the lobbying activity; in this article, that the lobbying aspects only get a line or two. The rest is about traffic patterns. The article seems biased and out-of-touch; what is needed is more information about the lobbying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what information would go here that wouldn't fit better in the articles on lobbying or related subjects. I looked for some stats on how many major lobbyists are actually based on K Street, but couldn't find anything definitive. I did find this list of the top 50 lobbying firms by revenue, and looked for the DC offices of all the firms in the top 10; only 2 were actually located on K Street, with the rest being scattered through downtown, Pennsylvania Avenue, and a over by Capitol Hill. What would be your suggested revision? Meelar (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Come on. If I do a newspaper search using "K Street" as the topic, the ONLY thing that comes up are the mentions about lobbying. Here's what comes up in a Google search if I hunt for "K Street" crossed by major US newspapers. (see below) They're all talking about "K Street" in terms of lobbying. If a Wikipedia reader wants to learn about "K Street", the lobbying is what they're interested in -- they need to know what the term means, and what it means is that it has become known as the locus for Washington DC's extensive lobbying. People are much less interested in which bus goes on the street, or whether K street connects to J street. As a result, the entire article is seriously biased since the focus seems to be on concrete, and not on the concrete reality that "K Street" means "lobbying".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • K Street is a street in downtown Washington known for the high number of lobbying firms located there. The term K Street often refers to the culmination of special interest groups that may influence Congress. -- Washington Post[1]
  • "He's the 'King of K Street,'" Bachmann said of Gingrich, in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation." "For a person who's been influence peddling for over 30 years in Washington, D.C. - to think that Newt Gingrich is somehow an outsider, when he is the consummate establishment insider?" --CBS News [2]
  • Hundreds of protesters from Occupy DC and other Occupy movements from around the United States clashed with police and blocked K street in a chaotic confrontation. -- Washington Post[3]
  1. ^ "Politics Glossary". Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-03. 
  2. ^ "Bachmann: Gingrich the "King of K Street"". CBS News. Retrieved 2012-01-03. 
  3. ^ "Police arrest Occupy D.C. protesters on K Street". Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-03. 
But what revisions would you make to the article specifically? Go ahead and be bold--edit the article to address your concerns! I'd find it a lot easier to discuss if I knew what specifically you were proposing. Best, Meelar (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I just looked at the article history and see this isn't the first time we've discussed this (apologies). I stand by what I said earlier, but I'm open to revisions or additions to the current article text. The current article does link to lobbying in the opening paragraph, so I don't think it's dodging the issue, but material that's primarily about lobbying belongs in that article, not this one--it would be like putting material about Elvis Presley in the article king. Meelar (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I urge you to go ahead and be bold since you write as if you are the article's owner and, if so, then perhaps you might have an interest in improving this article. At present it is a meaningless gloss. I had tried to add something earlier which was referenced and on topic which you reverted without much explanation. Numerous other (see above) have commented on the lack of neutrality of this article and nothing seems to have happened, or was prevented from happening, and the result is that this article in its current state reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole -- as if all we can write about "K Street" is traffic patterns. If interested, the direction you might wish to take is to address the lobbying, in a neutral way, with references, which is all but left out here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I don't claim to be the owner of the article, and I don't think I've acted that way--I'm trying to be civil here and assuming good faith, and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. I am pretty happy with the article in its current state--if you're not, go ahead and fix it, and if I disagree with your edits I'll register my objections and we can work together to come to something agreeable. As to your contention that the current article doesn't address lobbying, well, I respectfully disagree. The article mentions lobbying in the very first sentence, and has an entire section entitled "lobbying". I could maybe see moving that section up to be the first after the lead paragraph, but I'm not sure how to expand it without including material that belongs in the lobbying article (which, again, we prominently refer readers to). Meelar (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Key word is "mentions". The article mentions lobbying. Whoop-de-doo. The whole article should be about lobbying and should mention the street dynamics, since lobbying is what practically everybody (except you) feels is important. Btw "lobbying" links to the word "lobbying" not to what it should link to -- Lobbying in the United States. If a reader wants to know about "K Street", they're not hunting in Wikipedia to learn if there are parking meters or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
So then what would be the difference between this article and lobbying in the United States? Would you argue that this should be a redirect? I actually think that if a reader wants to learn about lobbying in the United States, they'll go to that article, and if they want to learn about a physical street in Washington DC they'll read this one. This article should definitely point--prominently--at the lobbying article, as it does, so that if someone searches for K Street intending to learn about lobbying they can find it easily (I'll add a link to lobbying in the United States, that's a good point). But ultimately the two articles have separate subjects. Meelar (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
K Street signifies primarily Congress-focused Washington DC lobbying. And yes, it happens to be a street (hey, with painted divider lines, traffic, buses, parking meters ticking away, excitement). Lobbying in the United States encompasses not just Washington DC lobbying but what happens in many state capitols. Two different subjects. No need for a redirect. The concern of myself and others who have written on this discussion page is that Wikipedia readers, coming across this article, expect the article to focus on DC Congress-focused lobbying, since that's what almost all newspapers refer to when they use the term. What do they get? Concrete. Traffic. Bus lanes. Do they get K Street? Looks more like Sesame Street.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like what you're proposing would work better as a section or expansion of lobbying in the United States than at the current article name, which is only a metonym. For comparison, take a look at the article on the White House. It's also commonly used as a metonym ("The White House indicated that it would veto the appropriations bill"), but the article is--properly--about the actual structure, albeit with opening-sentence links to president of the United States. If someone searches for K Street, they may be looking for the street or the lobbying industry, so it's appropriate to link prominently to lobbying in the United States, but ultimately that's a separate subject from K Street. And I'd appreciate if you could be less dismissive--references to Sesame Street and calling the article "meaningless gloss" make it harder to appreciate your legitimate points from your tone. And even if you find the K Street Busway boring, not everyone shares that opinion. This is Wikipedia--everything's boring to someone, but it's all here. Thanks! Meelar (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. As a compromise, how would you feel about moving the "lobbying" section above the traffic flow sections, so that it's first in the Table of Contents?
My tone is perhaps the only way I might get through to you, to possibly get you to see things differently, since in my view, you're fixed on seeing "K Street" as a thoroughfare, mostly, while downplaying the metonym aspects. You're stuck on a particular way of seeing what this article is about. So, what I suggest is you take a look at this statistic here -- hundreds of people each day hunting for the term "K Street". On one day, two thousand people typed in "K Street". These hundreds of people -- what do you think they were looking for? A bus route? Whether traffic is two-way or one-way? Two thousand people wanting to know whether K Street had two lanes, four lanes? Of course not -- they're interested in the lobbying. And when they come across an article that is primarily focused on the physical street, they think Wikipedia doesn't have its act together. They'll roll their eyeballs. They'll think Sesame Street. Take a cue from the Washington Post -- how do they define K Street? Like this: K Street is a street in downtown Washington known for the high number of lobbying firms located there. The term K Street often refers to the culmination of special interest groups that may influence Congress. That's more like it. What does Wikipedia say? It's a thoroughfare. (and then buries, or only mentions, the lobbying). Come on. Can you begin to see what critics of this page are getting at?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It still sounds to me like this is material that's better covered in a different article. After all, all the discussion of lobbying that you want in this article would fit better there. You can make a case that K Street would be better as a redirect to that page, with the current content living at K Street (road) or something like that. But I don't see what distinguishes your proposed vision for K Street from lobbying in the United States. Meelar (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Well, let's agree to disagree. I've seen other instances in which an article has been dominated by a single user with a fixed sense of its focus. I'm loathe to invest much time fixing this since I don't want to write, rewrite and reference and then see my contributions reverted. This article is, for me, a metaphor for America -- how it's become stuck, broken, hobbled politically, taken over by special interests. And in my good faith belief, I trust that you are not one of these people paid by the K Street types to deflect negative attention away from the lobbying activity. We need to keep the neutrality tag to alert readers about the many concerns as well as alert administrators who may possibly wonder why a supposed graduate with a political science degree has decided that "K Street" is only about traffic patterns.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
So you're unwilling to edit the article unless your changes are adopted wholesale? Who's claiming to be the article owner now? If you can't be bothered to fix what you see as the flaws in the article, I don't see that you should be allowed to tar it with an NPOV tag indefinitely--and until you actually come forward with a fix, I don't know what I'm discussing here. It's like negotiating with a phantom. Unless you can come up with actual proposed changes to the article, I say the NPOV tag should be removed. And additionally, your personal attacks aren't welcome--a "supposed graduate"? Seriously? I guess I should be glad that you're conceding I'm not a sockpuppet of the nefarious K Street overlords. Meelar (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear: unless you say differently, I plan on removing the NPOV tag on this article in a few days time. If you object to this, I'd appreciate it if you either made actual edits to the article or tried to bring in other editors, since I don't think you and me going back and forth on the talk page is very productive. Ultimately, both of us want the best possible article, and that certainly doesn't include a permanent NPOV tag because of an intractable content dispute. Meelar (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. We'll bring in other editors. I have advanced the discussion here--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't remove the NPOV notice. Meelar (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Article revamping[edit]

I'll try to get to it in a week or so. If others might figure out what they prefer best overall in terms of article organization, and come up with a plan, then I'll work on that basis, or maybe even have a spinoff article Lobbying in Washington DC, like a sub-article under "Lobbying in the US", with maybe some more expansion of "K Street", whatever. Right now the "K Street" article gets about 250 readers per day; Lobbying in the US gets about 350/day. I feel the whole lobbying topic is important and that WP could do a better job of covering it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, in accordance with the prior discussion, I'm going ahead and moving the current content at K Street to K Street (street) and moving the current disambig to K Street. Let me know if anyone objects and if not I'll get to it later today/tomorrow. Meelar (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Your plan sounds sensible. I'll try to get to improving possibly both articles, but it may be a week or so, and I'll run any possible changes by you first. I have some repair projects I need to get to, plus other stuff I've put off for a while.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)