Talk:Lüchow's

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Extended discussions with User:BruceWHain

Extended discussions, hatted to clean up page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I Have Found the Painting that Used to Hang in the Back of Heidelberg (New) Room. "The Potato Gatherers" by August Hagborg. You can view it at the following site where they do reproductions. The color is more realistic here though there is a record at artnet.com of the real painting being sold in '97 at Sotheby's NY with a heavy blueish tint. The painting was 6 1/2' X 9 1/2' and the ceiling in Heidelberg must have been about 15' at that location. http://www.paintinghere.com/painting/Potato_Gatherers_21126.html Enjoy. BruceWHain (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Categories Please do not put articles about individual restaurants in Category:Food and drink, articles about individual music performance venues in Category:Music, etc. If you actually look at the existing contents of those categories, you'll see that they are high-level container categories containing primarily subcategories. Please also note that Wikipedia policy is that more specific categories are preferred when possible; e.g., Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages says: Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. That same reference also says: Articles should be categorized by the defining characteristics of the article topic. It is very hard for me to see how categories like Category:Political history of New York City reflect "defining characteristics" for a restaurant. I am therefore pruning the categories to reflect a more minimal set. Dr.frog (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Please do not put articles about individual restaurants in Category:Food and drink, articles about individual music performance venues in Category:Music, etc. If you actually look at the existing contents of those categories, you'll see that they are high-level container categories containing primarily subcategories. I did not put the article in Category:Food and Drink, some Wikipedia administrator did it, before I started working on it. There was a big colorful sign at the top till a few days ago, where the "clean up" thing is now. [This was an honest response at the time BruceWHain wrote it, and he does not consider himself to be totally stupid, but the instructions linked to from the "UNCATEGORIZED" banner are not the clearest in the world either.] Please also note that Wikipedia policy is that more specific categories are preferred when possible; e.g., Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages says: "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." That same reference also says: "Articles should be categorized by the defining characteristics of the article topic." I have done my best to follow the instructions linked to the "NO CATEGORIES" marker placed on the article. Now, understanding the thing a little better from all the criticism, it seems the best way to avoid arguments about categories would be to have a "Category Tree" with about two lines of instructions. It is very hard for me to see how categories like Category:Political history of New York City reflect "defining characteristics" for a restaurant. The restaurant, seating 750, was across the street fromTammany Hall. I am therefore pruning the categories to reflect a more minimal set.Dr.frog (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC) I will do nothing further to mess around with categories of the article [I probably will.] though it strikes me there is at least a note of mischief (could it be competitveness?) in these recent cuts [by a different adminsistrator] which originally were more broad based than the current ones. External Links I do not think that the collection of musical links on this page is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about a restaurant. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, specifically: 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. In addition, the Youtube links probably fall into the category of material that violates copyright described by WP:ELNEVER. Therefore I am removing the external links to music videos and lyrics, which are not especially relevant to an article about a restaurant. Dr.frog (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC) I do not think that the collection of musical links on this page is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about a restaurant. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, specifically, No. 13. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." I read "Links to Avoid" before putting the links in the article, and again more recently. I think the links are appropriate. One is to Library of Congress. Had thought about having three sub-sections in the first section of the article "History, Music, Cuisine" but it seems to read better this way. [The subsections have been restored.] One was to be "Music at Luchow's" The restaurant had an extraordinary musical life, as you can see from the article. In addition, the Youtube links probably fall into the category of material that violates copyright described by WP:ELNEVER. Though I did not individually vet each link they all seemed legitimate to me. I would not say that it is "probable".The copyright licencing of each link purports to be in order. I have never uploaded a YouTube video. Therefore I am removing the external links to music videos and lyrics, which are not especially relevant to an article about a restaurant. Dr.frog (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC) I do not think this is appropriate, and feel that can really blame myself for insisting on getting an answer about "Anonymous Edits". (above) I still haven't gotten one but believe when the person found I was being a problem in this respect, he called you in to set me straight. BruceWHain (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Nov. 1 Posting of Revised Luchow's Article I have decided to attempt posting the revised article again. Notation and attribution have been refined and the External Links section has been shortened. Also, the Noted Guests section is now sourced, below. Am hoping this revision will be met with a minimum of contention. A list of previously CONTENDED ISSUES may be found below. BruceWHain (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, you alone don't get to make that decision. Discuss your issues here, and a consensus of editors will decide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Noted Guests It would be cumbersome to source every guest in the list with a footnote. Therefore, please list your guests under the appropriate source, or enter a new source, in bold type. This material has been added to the article The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Mitchell, Jan, Lüchow’s German Cookbook, Doubleday, New York, 1952 Rachmaninoff, Caruso, Paderewski, Fritz Kreisler, Anton Rubinstein, Richard Strauss, Henryk Wieniawski, W. von Pachmann, Jean & Edourd de Reszke, Eugène Ysaÿe, Toscanini, Marlene Dietrich, Adelina Patti, Lillian Russell, Anna Pavlova, Eddie Cantor, Linda Darnell, Helen Hayes, Efrim Zimbalist, Beatrice Lille, James Huneker, Rafael Joseffy, William Steinway, Richard Rogers, Victor Herbert, Sigmund Romberg, O. Henry, Helen Traubel, H. L. Mencken, Anna Held, Theodore Dreiser, Charles F. Murphy, Mack Sennett, Gus Kahn, Lillian Gish, Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith, J. P. Morgan, Jules Bache, Andrew Carnegie, James B. Brady, James Montgomery Flagg, John Barrymore, O. O. McIntyre, H. L. Menkin, Irving Berlin, Anna Held, Dudley Field Malone, Thomas B. Costain, Bob Considine, Kenneth Roberts, J. P. Marquand, Herbert Bayard Swope, Jerome Weidman, George S. Kaufman, Sigmund Spaeth, Edward and Pegeen Fitzgerald, Florenz Ziegfeld, Owen D. Young, Roy Howard, Walter P. Chrysler New York Times: Aug. 24, 1919 "Musical Memories, Oscar Hammerstein and Dvorak" by James Gibbons Huneker Antonín Dvořák, Oscar Hammerstein Sept. 9, 1955 "Hugo Schemke, Waiter at Luchow's, Dies" Rosalind Russell, Jack Benny, Fred Alan, Carl Sandburg Dec. 9, 1955 "World Concerts Honor Sibelius" Robert F. Wagner Oct. 15, 1956 "Javits Campaigns in Boyhood Area" by McCandlish Phillips Jacob Javits December 16, 1956 "Ernst Seute, Luchow's Official, Is Dead" Vincent Impellitteri April 25, 1965 "Over Nominated, Under Elected, Still a Promising Candidate" by Robert J. Donavan Richard M. Nixon Nov. 11, 1965 "Julius Richter, Violinist, Dead; Played for diners at Luchow's" Cole Porter, Leonard Bernstein, Allan J. Lerner, Frederick Lowe, Frank Loesser November 11, 1977 "Now In New York" by Ellen R. Grimes Mike Douglass November 23, 1978 "Notes on People" by Clyde Haberman and Albin Krebs Terance Cardinal Cooke, Ed Koch, Helen Hayes, Mario Biaggi, Carol Bellamy, Andrew J. Stein Dec. 20, 1978 "Cardinal finds Ad Personally Indigestible" Abraham Beame October 31, 1979 "It Was Not a Night Meant For Staying Home by the Fire" By Enid Nemy Bess Meyerson, I. M. Pei Nov. 16, 1980 "Notes on Fashion" by John Duka Lily Tomlin, Dolly Parton, Jane Fonda, David Bowie Nov. 20, 1981 "The Evening Hours" by Judy Klemesrud James Cagney, Norman Mailer, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Unknown Source (Most found in New York Times then forgotten.) Chaliapin, Gretta Garbo, Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland (Reception after 1961 Carnegie Hall recital) Julia Marlow, Myrna Loy, John Philip Sousa, Jerome Kern (These two were supposed to have been present with Victor Herbert at founding of ASCAP.) Therese Förster, Milton Ager, Thomas Wolfe, Edgar Lee Masters, Julia Marlowe, Joe Weber, Orson Wells, John Garfield, Greer Garson, Lady Bird Johnson, All of this sourcing needs to be moved to the article -- we do not put sourcing on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed. "Cumbersome" or not, the article is where it belongs. LadyofShalott 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I have moved all these sources into the article, and removed a couple of names the sources for which were not listed here. Any new "noted guests" should be sourced in the article, as per usual practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that work, Ken. Now I have to ask, are all those names really needed? They are notable people, and it can be sourced that they ate at the restaurant. I don't think it automatically follows that we need to list every one of them. LadyofShalott 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC) It's a good question, and it is indeed a long list. My thought is that it has value in two respects: it corroborates what the article says about the importance of the restuarant in its heydey to a certain segment of NY society, and it also shows that the place continued to be at least minimally relevant to artists and politicians well into its dotage. That being said, there's a distinct different between those who, in an earlier age, were habitués of the place (much like the more recent denizens of Elaine's), and those that more recently may have gone there a couple of times, enough to have been noted by the New York Times. Having done the grunt work of transferring the sources, I'm obviously somewhat invested in keeping the list, so I'll let others make the call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Nov. 1 Revision Changed Content Changed: The sequence of events relating to Luchow's demise, including that of the building, is different from what the article has heretofore said. The particulars are sourced as reliably as possible in this revision through newspaper and New York Preservation Archive articles. Deleted: "with the occaisional Van Dyke, Snydes, Van Mienis and Goya." - (not) found in the fourth paragraph under 'History, Music, Cuisine' which phrase was designed by me to jibe with the original article, and was to be sourced at TipsonTables.com: "Luchow's Celebrates 75th Anniversary" by Robert W. Dana, the source used in the original article. I can find no convincing record of paintings by the artists Snydes, Van Mienis, Van Dyke or Goya, though they are mentioned in several online sources. There is mention of a Frans Snyders, a student of Rubens, in Jan Mitchell's Luchow's German Cookbook (listed as a "References" source in today's posting of the revised article.) Mitchell was the owner, and if there had been a Goya or a Van Dyke he probably would have said so. (unless he was trying to scarf them up on the sly and get the collectors to lay off. ((He was a big collector himself.)) But by 1957, when the Dana article was published, they would surely have been hidden or sold or something. Deleted: Wish I could say for certain that the number of oils was above sixty as was said in the original article under décor. Have seen this in print online, but that would probably be pushing it. Changed: There is no subheading for Victor Herbert in today's revision though the paragraph about him, beginning with his wiki-linked name, still exists. He and his music are mentioned and linked-to in several other places as well. Changed Sources --It would be cumbersome to include a footnote and referenced source for every name found under "Noted Guests" - so have eliminated the one such source in the original article (Republic of Dreams: Greenwich Village: The American Bohemia, 1910-1960 Simon & Schuster, New York, 2003) concerning Theodore Dreiser --The New York Times article cited in the original Luchow's Wikipedia article regarding demise of the building: New York Times, July 7, 1989 "Restaurants" by Gage and Tolner doesn't give any date. It has been replaced by a reference from New York Preservation Archive. -- Luchow's entry at onlyonfilm.com, a "References" source "Luchow's Restaurant" neither has nor refers to any film footage of Luchow's, and gives a lot of misinformation in the blurb. --A website link found under "References" listed as "Down Where the Wurzburger Flows" "Down Where the Wurzburger Flows" has no mention of the Von Tilzer song about Luchow's. A period recording from the Library of Congress catalogue is found in today's revision under "External Links". BruceWHain (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Disputed changes of November 2 Caption of Interior Picture At the print size that obtains in the Nov. 2 version of this caption it completely overwhelms the picture. Especially as the Nov. 2nd Modifier has seen fit to alter and embellish my caption-writing style (with articles, etc.) thereby producing a forced and self-conscious pomposity. Captions should be readable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Sections and Sub-sections of the Nov. 1 Revision are most Advantageous for Several Reasons The overall order of the article, with "Pronunciation" coming near the beginning, seems to have been a convention at one point - with good reason. No, sections should be presented in order of importance and interest to our reader. The question of how to pronounce "Luchows" is relatively trivial, and has thus been moved into a spot that more accurately reflects its importance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Miscellany I would not be inclined to have a section of a Wikipedia article entitled "Miscellany", since it portrays the content thereunder as being something other than noteworthy. The Section has therefore been "reverted" to "Apochrypha". The Rosenblatt quote does not need to have a disputed provenance in order to be "apochryphal". By the same token, the "Anonymous Apochyaphal Qoutes" do not require attribution in order to prove that they are Anonymous Apocraphal Quotes about Luchow's that were likely made by Luchow's employees. While the quote by Richard Rosenblatt under the Section "Apochrypha" is a good example of the writer's "funin' around" about Luchow's and what his opinion of it was, one important reason for its inclusion in this section is to justify by comparison the inclusion of the two quotes that follow. Regardless of any stated reason for removal, the two restored quotes go a good bit further than the Rosenblatt one (which was not removed) in defining the character of some humor "on the scene" at Luchow's. BruceWHain (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Something which is sourced cannot be "apocryphal". The other quote was unsourced and will not appear in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC) "Legend" The "legend" at the the top of the article: "THROUGH THE DOORS OF LUCHOW'S... etc.", with its "out-of-the-past" character, helps to clearly define the restaurant Luchow's - along with the article's introductory picture and paragraph - quickly and in a small physical space. It was what most customers saw on entering the restaurant for about 80 years. It should therefore REMAIN at the top of the article. The corresponding footnote: "Words of the "legend" drawn by James Montgomery Flagg, ...etc.", however, when placed directly below the "legend" in the text, ENCUMBER IT, and should therefore be left to the Notes. When the footnote is directly below the quote as arranged on Nov. 2, it is not clear what the footnote is referring to. In addition , the footnote has been revised to include a link to designer of the "legend" Flagg, which has been omitted from the Nov. 2 revision. Also, the entire Quotation Box looks "sloppy" (becuase of its configuration) and "out of context" (because of its positions in the article) in the Nov. 2 revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceWHain (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 November 2011‎ (UTC) No, it will not remain there. I have reverted. Go find me another article on Wikipedia that starts with a banner quotation at the top. I suggest you read WP:OWN, you do not own this article, or this talk page, and you have no veto over how it wil be laid out. Comments on this page are intended to be in chronological order, the way you have it laid out is unintelligible. I am moving this to the bottom, where the vast majority of editors will expect to find new commentary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Concerning the "legend" quote box, in an effort to offer a compromise which might be acceptable to all, I've moved it up to the top of the history section, so it is in view of the reader when they open the article, but moved it to the left so the text will flow around it (this also visually balances the largeish picture on the right top). In this place it now proceeds any discussion of the restaurant's history, providing the context that I believe BruceWHain was concerned about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) This page The intention of the talk page is not to act as a scratch pad for any one editor, but to serve as a conduit for discussion between any editor interested in editing this article. I have therefore put the sections into standard chronological order, in order to promote its use by other editors, and to increase its intelligibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks, BruceWHain (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Location The location of Luchow's was not that of the current building with the address 110 E. 14th. The address was often given as 110-112 or something but I took that out because it seemed classier the other way. (...speaking of accurately verifying and sourcing stuff you include in articles - like the interior layout of the restaurant, my (possibly accurate) info, which you aped, Mr. Ken. But this is the type of thing you get when people who are durnk - in more ways than one - are allowed to highjack articles, complete with pedantic Wikipediations.) It was to the east of that building, the dorm. Probably directly east, where P. C. Richard is now. East of that was a parking lot, also in the current P. C. Richard plot. (And really, you should remove that picture of poor Old Shteinweg. Hell it's ugly. I'm sure he would prefer it that way if he was alive. - and after all, what's the liklihood that story about the loan is true? -- The patron saint quote is to be found in the Cookbook, probably Mitchell's own words as he was about making some fluff to keep the book entertaining.) Sorry to Disappoint, B. Hain50.14.180.134 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Quality Oh, and: Only C Quality? ...after two years of extensive editing, almost exclusively by Mr. Ken? Perhaps we should brush up on our grammer! B. Hain 50.14.180.134 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Whaddya expect, the writing is mostly yours. BTW, editing using an IP when your account is indef blocked is not allowed. Do it again and your edits will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi there - has anyone been to the original Luchow's? I have and would like to chat with anyone that has! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcclean1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi: Please be aware that the purpose of this page is not for people to chat, it's for discussions about how to improve the article. It would be best if anyone who wants to let you know about their experiences at the original Luchow's would contact you via e-mail rather than responding here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Mineral Water from Germany (Birresborn)

I had a chance to lay eyes on a couple of bottle labels that show Luchow's inc at the 13th respective 14th street as importing company for Mineral Water from the Eifel-Village in Germany. Not actually sure if that is relevant enough to factor into the main article.

Hogler (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lüchow's. 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/20120403024829/http://www.antonnews.com/massapequanobserver/news/13135-massapequa-getaway-for-luchow-family.html to http://www.antonnews.com/massapequanobserver/news/13135-massapequa-getaway-for-luchow-family.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001224623/http://blogs.ala.org/AL100.php?cat=375 to http://blogs.ala.org/AL100.php?cat=375
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123190211/http://www.rieserestaurants.com/corphistory.html to http://www.rieserestaurants.com/corphistory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006205520/http://www.nypap.org/content/l%C3%BCchow%E2%80%99s to http://www.nypap.org/content/l%C3%BCchow%E2%80%99s

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).

• 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) 04:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)