# Talk:Algonquin Round Table

Greetings all. I have proposed the formation of Wikiproject:Algonquin Round Table for purposes of improving this article and other articles related to it, including Algonquin Hotel and of course the articles for the members and their assorted literary works. If you're interested in participating, please go here and add your name. Thanks! Otto4711 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found some evidence at http://ead.dartmouth.edu/html/ml30.html that Ford was a part of the round table.  Seems as though his book "The Time of Laughter" may have been about the round table, though I haven't read it yet.
Disclaimer - Ford is a shoestring relative of mine, a cousin of my Granddad's, who didn't like him at all.  Love my Granddad, but I've been coming across Ford memorabilia lately (just found a weatherbeaten Rollo Boys volume at a local antique shop and paid way too much money for it).
Anyhow, won't update either the Ford or the algonquin articles without further evidence of a connection, but wanted to mention the possiblity in case anyone's watching this page.
Jay.ricketts 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

there seem to be lots of members lister - how big was this table? I take it not all of them were present on a daily basis? Only that seems to be what the article implies. Why did they all stop meeting around 1929? When did the various members come and go? I don't know if this information is out there but I think if belongs in this article. A more in-depth anaylisis is needed rather than just a big list of names.--Crestville 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The group was around 24 people. It met for eight or nine years. I'm sure that this article will get deeper as members add more material. The table itself was about six feet across; a replica is in the Algonquin Hotel today. --K72ndst 03:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
A replica of the table adorns the Algonquin today, which begs the question that would be a wonderful asset for the article if anyone could ever answer that question: Where is the original Algonquin Round Table today? (Did the management stupidly simply junk it? Who would be surprised if that were the case?) Who wouldn't love to have that very table, arguably the most legendary single table since the one in Leonardo's The Last Supper, in their kitchen today? (Provided, of course, that your kitchen happens to be cavernous enough to accommodate it.)  Racing Forward (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's been going a while and not evolved much. The list just keeps getting longer. Got any more info? I'm particularly intersted in Harpo Marx. I would have thought Groucho would have been the one, y'know?--Crestville 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Groucho found the group to be too mean-spirited, which is really something considering how mean Groucho could famously be: he would jeer at and humiliate his first wife for offering party favors and paper hats for birthday parties, reducing her to tears. Racing Forward (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
If you've ever heard a recording of Harpo's voice, it's easy to see why Groucho persuaded him to become a silent comedian, like Teller in Penn & Teller: Harpo was gifted with a beautifully deep resonant voice that practically made Groucho sound like Shirley Temple singing "The Good Ship Lollipop" by comparison. Racing Forward (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Today I took off sports columnist and short story writer Ring Lardner. Although he was friendly with members of the group, such as Dorothy Parker and George S. Kaufman, he was not attending the daily luncheon. Lardner lived in Nassau County, Long Island, a little far to come in for lunch...  --K72ndst 03:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he commuted.  Nassau County isn't at all far by train, and you can get a lot of work done on the train.  Thousands, if not millions, of commuters from Suffolk County traverse Nassau entirely on the daily trips to and from Manhattan.  Being there in person was certainly more beneficial then than now.  "Long distance" calls were very expensive.  Besides, the group met daily; not all its members were there every day.  Why would he even live in Nassau County, a bedroom community, if he didn't need to get to New York frequently?  Furthermore, regardless of being "friendly" with anyone, he would have contributed substantially to the group's cachet, certainly a valuable consideration!  To think of excluding him for not showing up often enough, or for not being talented or famous enough, is nuts.  They were all busy people.  No doubt many of them couldn't show up every day, and I'm sure any big celebrity, as Lardner was, would be welcome to join the fun and be counted in.  They weren't all highbrows, nor stand-offish.  I'm just speculating, of course, but evidence of his presence must surely be attested in many old newspaper columns, especially his own, and ought to be easy for somebody to find. Unfree (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Who commutes for lunch? Ring Lardner was not a member. If you read the two books about the Round Table, Margaret Case Harriman's "The Vicious Circle" or Jim Gaines' "The Algonquin Round Table" you will see that he is not listed as a member. Lardner from 1919-1933 was living in Great Neck and writing newspaper columns from home; Great Neck is 20 miles away. He was not a Manhattan resident. He was their friend, just as Herbert Bayard Swope was; but he was not a member. -- K72ndst (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Or whatever thyat president's name was, anyway the story goes Parker made some wittisism upon his death, but this article maintains they stopped meeting in 1929 where as Collidge died in 1933. Some mistake here surely?--Crestville 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The name was Coolidge, and you're not thinking clearly.  (If you thought it was Cooladge, why did you spell it Collidge?)  Do you think all these people died or lost their wits when the group drifted apart? Unfree (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely Edmund Wilson was a member of this set?

I never heard of him in connection with them, and I am a big fan of Wilson's. If he was, the wikipedia article on wilson doesn't mention it. Got a reference? --ubiquity 22:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Wilson was not. He was friendly with some of the members. This is detailed in The Twenties, which was released after his death. In addition, O'Neill wasn't a member either. K72ndst 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Oscar Levant was not a member, unless the group admitted 12 year olds to their table in 1919... --K72ndst 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
...or 22 year olds in 1929. Racing Forward (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Why are Art Samuels and Charles MacArthur shown in the picture, but not listed as members? Chris2crawford (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and it is close to meeting the GA criteria.  However, the lead section needs to be expanded substantially to better summarise the article.  Please see WP:LEAD. 
I'm putting this article on hold as the it is close to GA status, however the issue noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New lead looks good... GA awarded... Johnfos 03:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia definition, a salon is a group of people who meet under the roof of an inspiring host.  There was no such host at the Algonguin Round Table. Frank Case facilitated, but he did not inspire, and was not even part of the proceedings. I'd like to revert the word "salon" in the opening of this article to "group", but I thought I would get some opinions first. --ubiquity 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. The ART was not a salon in the context of the hotel. As noted elsewhere in the article, Neysa McMein's studio served as something of a salon for them with McMaein serving as the host. Otto4711 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
One hopes that it was a more American salon, a democratic entity with no specific host or focal point dictating and controlling the topics, instead a more freewheeling experience of pure naturally flowing conversation. All of its members were presumably inspiring in various different ways. It was a salon in the sense that it was a conversation that often regularly occurred in the same place with gatherings including many of the same people.  If that's not a modern version of a salon, what else would be a better term for it?   Racing Forward (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I call into question the following bit:
"Dorothy Parker's memorable sentence using the word horticulture: 'You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think.'"
That's not using "horticulture"; "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" is using "horticulture", and since (I presume) it was an oral witticism, only Parker would know what she meant, and (I presume) she was witty enough to say it right!  The book /Harpo Speaks/, no doubt, got it right.
Incidentally, I'm planning to edit the preceding words, so they won't match my quote precisely. Unfree (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Parker is noted in the article to critisize the group, calling them wisecracks and far from literary giants...but at the beginning of the article, she is noted as being a member? The two seems not to go together, particularly as the later part omits her membership...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.53.172 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 

She was arguably the most celebrated member but much later in life, when she made those balefully downbeat remarks, she was suffering a steep gradual decline into depression, poverty and alcoholism.  She was literally breath-takingly brilliant and would no doubt be immediately cancelled into oblivion today for being politically incorrect (along with every other member of her generation), faster than the host of that other round table found in clips from the Charlie Rose PBS show. Racing Forward (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Gloria Steinem interviewed Parker as a young journalist and they became friends. In her essay collection Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions she quotes her as saying 'That round table thing was terribly overrated, you know. It was full of people looking for a free lunch and saying,'Did you hear the funny thing I said yesterday?'
Can we include this remark? Steinem says she 'had a delightful habit of debunking past achievements' but I agree that her sad circumstances probably influenced those comments, since why would she have wasted time being involved in the group for so many years if she really thought it was so bad? 188.30.35.250 (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of this http://whatever.scalzi.com/2004/12/01/the-10-least-successful-holiday-specials-of-all-time/ ? -- Auric  talk 18:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Auric  talk 18:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, Auric, for leading me to this superbly written spoof page. I'll try to figure out some way to allude to it in the article. Racing Forward (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maineartists, can you please explain how the "In popular culture" section complies with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability? The works of media are not sufficient for verifying their own existence, as they are primary sources. In addition, most of this section does not comply with MOS:POPCULT, which states: Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. All of the entries I deleted appear to be passing mentions. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Concur with the above. Note as well that the "Membership" section is very sparsely referenced, and several other paragraphs and sentences are also missing citations. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I have now removed this section again, since there have not been any attempts to fix the problems I mentioned, nor have there been any responses here in regards to said issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Epicgenius Actually, you are incorrect when you state: "The works of media are not sufficient for verifying their own existence, as they are primary sources." It is exactly the same as citing a book with an ISBN and page number. It gives the reader the necessities to verify i.e. Seinfeld quote. A YouTube clip, a transcript, an episode title with season, etc is sufficient. Next, if you cannot see that the 1994 film Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle considerably references the subject of this article; or that of the episode "The Young Indiana Jones and the Scandal of 1920", then I cannot help you. You have got a lot of work to do on WP if you are enforcing your beliefs across the board: Christina's World (painting), Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (music), Groucho Marx (person), etc. The edit history for this article supports these inclusions as they have been reinstated several times after attempted removal. Removing the entire section Popular Culture was / is disruptive editing. As an editor, you could have very well found at least a few sources to support what you think constitutes the WP guideline and kept the section for other editors to reference and edit correctly. I am reinstating at least the episodes that significantly feature the ART. Maineartists (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Maineartists, I'm going to address several facets of your comment:
It is exactly the same as citing a book with an ISBN and page number. It gives the reader the necessities to verify i.e. Seinfeld quote. A YouTube clip, a transcript, an episode title with season, etc is sufficient. - Actually, you're right, but what I meant that they are only sufficient for verifying their own existence. You need a secondary source to verify that they're significant. Also see WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.
Next, if you cannot see that the 1994 film Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle considerably references the subject of this article; or that of the episode "The Young Indiana Jones and the Scandal of 1920", then I cannot help you. - In fact, the edit I made already describes the 1994 film. So it's mentioned twice in the article now, which may or may not be intentional. I am aware that The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles episode involves the Round Table, but you still need a secondary source.
You have got a lot of work to do on WP if you are enforcing your beliefs across the board: Christina's World (painting), Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (music), Groucho Marx (person), etc. - These are not my beliefs, these are policies or guidelines: MOS:POPCULT, WP:V, and WP:NOR. However, I agree there is a lot to do in regards to these pop-culture sections. A lot of these appear to be trivial mentions.
Removing the entire section Popular Culture was / is disruptive editing - It is not disruptive editing in any way to remove information that is unsourced. In fact, that page says the opposite of what you're implying: A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: ... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. I was removing unsourced information. You, on the other hand, restored that information. For what it's worth, I did attempt to find sources for several of these popular-culture mentions. I did add one source, which you reverted because I added the source in the same edit as I removed the unverifiable information. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
– Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
As an addendum, I should note that the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 and Groucho Marx articles do mostly include information about the subject's legacy, rather than random mentions of them in popular culture. However, Christina's World had very similar problems to what I saw on this article, and this is after another editor tried to clean that section up. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
You got it. If you want to cherry pick, let's cherry pick. 

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.
WP:POPCULTURE is an essay; not a policy. So. As you have provided, if one followed MOS:POPCULT on bone broth and The Mandalorian , one can now write within the article how certain popular media refers to the ART when describing a gathered group of like-minded intellectuals. If Bon Appetit magazine merely mentioning how Baba Yaga drank bone broth is allowable for a reliable secondary source; then let's open that box. Happy editing! Maineartists (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not "cherry pick" anything; you believed I was deleting the section based on "my beliefs", when in fact I'm citing guidelines and policies. I'm going to reply to your points, though:
This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page ... - Here's what the section above says: It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text ... which is what the "Public response and legacy" section of this page does.
it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies - These relevant policies are WP:NOR and WP:V, which I have mentioned twice above. This guideline doesn't contradict what I said at all.
WP:POPCULTURE is an essay; not a policy. - I did not mention WP:POPCULTURE in this discussion or in my edit summaries, so I'm not sure what that has to do with my comments.
If Bon Appetit magazine merely mentioning how Baba Yaga drank bone broth is allowable for a reliable secondary source; then let's open that box - Regardless, the pop-culture mentions I removed did not cite any secondary sources, let alone reliable ones.
Finally, I removed the section because this page is a good article. Compliance with MOS and policies are part of the good article criteria, specifically criterion 1a ("it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation") and 2c ("it contains no original research"). Some works of media, like Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, do feature the Round Table significantly enough to comply with policies and guidelines. Others do not. For example, In season 2, episode 4 of Seinfeld entitled “The Phone Message” (1991), Jerry tells Donna, the woman he is seeing at the time: "Boy, I bet you got a regular Algonquin round table there", after Donna says she discussed a Dockers commercial with friends. is literally just a passing mention, which was not cited to any source.
It appears that you are adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in regards to this content. I do not have anything against the article or against popular-culture sections. However, the content I removed was largely either unsourced or trivial (mostly both). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No Sirree! was staged only once, and was considered a success. The Forty-Niners lasted 15 performances, but was considered a failure. I have a problem reconciling these statements. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)