Jump to content

Talk:Etihad Park (New York City)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City FC Stadium. 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: 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) 12:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cost to taxpayers

[edit]

The editor Falastur2, whose edits in the last few years has been singularly devoted to pages associated with the City Football Group, keeps removing content sourced to the New York Times that notes that the loss of taxes to New York City through this stadium deal is estimated at $516 million. New York Times is a RS and there's no policy-based reason to remove this. If the editor wants to dispute that the NY Times is a RS, they can to go the RS noticeboard and make their case. Thenightaway (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thenightaway: If you want me to respond, all you need to do is ping me. Because there was no ping, I never saw this comment.
The reason I have been removing this content is not because I dispute the accuracy of the source. Of course the NY Times is a reliable source. The reason I removed it is because the prose you use is not encyclopaedic in tone. It's certainly not the most egregious wording I've seen but it comes across as a deliberate attempt to cast criticism on the decision and introduce a bias. In particular the second sentence comes across as an attempt at discrediting the decision by pasting a negative opinion you found about it online into the text of the article. The first problem with that sentence is that, while I'm sure it's an actual quote from the article, it's quoting one journalist's application of a generic authority opinion without recourse to the actual situation. The quote is not "economists have said that this specific stadium will not pay off for the taxpayer", it's saying "these deals rarely pay off", thus attempting to label this as a bad deal despite not actually quoting any economist's actual consideration of the matter. But more importantly, the second issue here is that it's irrelevant anyway. This article is about the construction of a stadium, not the economic viability of that stadium. If you read the article on Napoleon's invasion of Russia you're not going to find a section saying that "historians say countries rarely succeed when dictators lead them into military campaigns" and if you read the article on Twitter (or "X" if you insist) you're not going to find a section on "economists say that social media rarely benefits from ego-driven stock purchases". Those discussions may be relevant to the topic, but they are not a presentation of the facts. Wikipedia is ultimately an encyclopaedia, not a book-style analytic assessment of the topic.
Also, I'm not entirely happy with the ad hominem comment about the fact that I am "singularly devoted to pages associated with the City Football Group". Yes, I will freely admit that most of my time - not that I spend very much time here these days - is spent on those topics. Many authors here also specifically focus on one topic, especially where WP:FOOTBALL is concerned. I know you're trying to paint me as biased and a shill for the company in an attempt at discrediting my opinion, but I will point out that there have been several occasions where I have actually intentionally left in criticisms of CFG because it was pertinent information which deserved to be in the article. I would also point to my reason efforts at removing a lot of fan cruft from the Manchester City article because I agreed with a comment which gave a warning over overtly-biased pro-City descriptions in the history section. In fact, if you look at my edits made during that I specifically kept in a section regarding UEFA's Financial Fair Play charges against City which many a biased editor would be very tempted to try to hide under the rug. I am very happy to include information which is negative to CFG and its teams, so long as it is relevant to the article and worded in a reasonable manner.
I will point out that, if we are going for the ad hominem, your own edit history does have its own story to tell. Yes, you edit a wide variety of articles, and in many of them you make genuine, meaningful and useful contributions, but you also have a trend towards adding extra comments often quoting a specific expert or of experts in general, typically commenting negatively on certain fiscal and financial policies or of the actions (or inaction) of government officials. On the other hand, I found none actually talking positively of the actions of anyone. Ironically I actually agree politically with many of your assertions, but it's clear you have a tendency to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise your own personal views on economics and fiscal (and other government) policy and that's really not what Wikipedia is there for. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 These are just a few from the last three weeks of your edits, I'm sure I could find hundreds of these if I went back far enough.
At any rate, as I've said above I don't just act arbitrarily. I can see that this is going to end up being a prolongued edit war between us, so rather than attempt to argue it out knowing that we will likely never find a common ground, I'm happy to put this to dispute resolution, or to appeal to other editors for opinions, if you would agree to it? Falastur2 Talk 23:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to put it to dispute resolution. Two points: (1) This article is not only about the "construction" of the stadium (whatever that means), and (2) The prose precisely mirrors that of the NY Times, a RS. There is no principled reason for removing this content. Thenightaway (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I read a little on dispute resolution - honestly I've never even had to recourse to this before - and I don't think they'd take too kindly to it based on the way that we haven't really tried to reconcile our differences meaningfully in the talk section first. So how about this: attempting to step back and come at this more neutrally, I will admit that the first time I read your edit I did think that there was perhaps a justification for a mention of stadium cost to taxpayers, I simply objected to your wording. So would you agree to keeping the reference to taxpayer money, but with a rewording to fall in line with Wikipedia standards? Having actually read the article now (I had to pay for a NY Times subscription specifically just to make this one reply in this talk page, but at least I can see the full story now) I would suggest the following. I'm putting it in bold italics simply to distinguish it from the rest of my reply, obviously I wouldn't do this in the article:
Unlike many other stadiums built in the United States the stadium's construction will not be subsidized by the local government through taxpayer subsidies, although the Mayor did commit to spending $200-300 million in infrastructure improvements in the area. An Independent Budget Office review of the deal estimated the cost to the taxpayer over the 49-year length of the lease at $516 million when compared to theorized alternative commercial uses for the land.[1]
How does that sound to you? Falastur2 Talk 12:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you read the source and are offering a compromise. (1) It's completely unacceptable that you're reverting content and making claims about the content of a RS without actually reading the RS. This is horrible practice and disrespectful to other editors. (2) As for the compromise, I think the two sentences currently in the article should be kept but also tweaked to note that it's at least $516 million, that it's over a 49-year lease, that it's an estimate by the Independent Budget Office, and that the NY City government committed to spend $200-300 million in infrastructure improvements for the site. (3) As for your suggested text, the first half of your first sentence is argumentative original research that looks like PR to defend the site's costs (i.e. "at least it's not as bad as other stadium subsidies"). The second half of the second sentence uses language that unduly casts doubt (through language such as "theorized") on the estimated cost of the project by the official body that appraises these sorts of things. Thenightaway (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it was never the content of the article I objected to. As I said on my previous reply, my issue is that including a sentence stating that "experts usually find these deals rarely pay off for the taxpayers" is an not encyclopaedic content. Instead it looks like PR to object to the site's funding (i.e. "this is an article talking about how this stadium exists. Also, you should be aware that this stadium is negative for the city and its residents"). Regarding my wording, I think that calling my wording "argumentative original research" is an overdramatisation of what was intended to be a framing fact - pertinent considering the entire point of the NY Times article you yourself first referenced is that the terms of the Mayor's deal were intentionally picked to attempt to avoid subsidies to the construction cost because they are so controversial in the USA. I also disagree with your comment about the language of my second sentence because the review is theorized - it is explicitly a projection into the future. The comments from the Mayor's office make this clear - the $516m figure came from comparing the projected rent revenue against the amount which could be made from. I quote from the article here: "This analysis is based on the fabricated premise that a contaminated, languishing site divided among several property owners could be set aside for some mysterious theoretical use while generating the property tax revenue of a project that will create $6 billion in economic activity, 14,000 construction jobs, and 2,500 affordable homes". I do note that this is clearly a biased response from someone who actually is employed to refute things, but the wording still reveals the story: the IBO's analysis is based off comparing the revenue against a hypothetical alternative use for the site which generates $6b in economic activity, 14,000 construction jobs and 2,500 affordable homes. It is a theory that the IBO came up with.
However, in the interest of trying to find a compromise, I'm willing to agree to cut these terms out, if you are willing to agree to cut out the "expert analysis" section you are trying to impose. Therefore, I change my suggested wording to this:
The stadium's construction will not be subsidized by the local government through taxpayer subsidies, although the Mayor did commit to spending $200-300 million in infrastructure improvements in the area. An Independent Budget Office review of the deal estimated the cost to the taxpayer over the 49-year length of the lease at at least $516 million when compared to alternative commercial uses for the land.[2]
I'm arguably actually selling myself short here, because my wording now actually implies that there are actually are (or were) offers on the table for the city to use this land in a more effective way, even though - again - your own article makes clear that they were never more than random projections from the IBO, but I'm willing to accept this wording for the sake of offering a middle ground. Is this paragraph any more acceptable to you? Falastur2 Talk 12:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text should absolutely not state that there are no subsidies because that's WP:OR not found in the source. The text should also clearly note, just as the cited RS do, the economic consensus that these deals do not result in net positive economic benefits. The text already notes that the involved politicians claim that there are economic benefits, so their perspective is reflected. Again, we should follow the cited reliable sources. Thenightaway (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're now at the point where we need to do go to dispute resolution, because inclusion of a generic statement that "these deals do not result in net positive economic benefits" is clearly just trying to colour the prose of the article to insert bias.
Are you happy for me to start the dispute resolution process or would you prefer to do it yourself? Falastur2 Talk 16:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Falastur2 @Thenightaway 3O Response: I believe that this best captures what is actually contained in the source, which does not speak to tax subsidies: The New York City Independent Budget Office has estimated that leasing the property rather than selling it will cost the City $516 million in tax revenue (adjusted to present value) over 49 years.[3] If you want to discuss tax subsidies in the article, I would recommend finding a source comparing the deal as structured to a deal funded by tax subsidies, assuming that including the source's POV would be due. In this case, I think including an estimate by the City's own budget watchdog is due. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I would be happy to accept that. Falastur2 Talk 16:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rubinstein, Dana; Belson, Ken (2023-01-13). "Will New York City's Soccer Stadium Cost Taxpayers $0 or $516 Million?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  2. ^ Rubinstein, Dana; Belson, Ken (2023-01-13). "Will New York City's Soccer Stadium Cost Taxpayers $0 or $516 Million?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  3. ^ Rubinstein, Dana; Belson, Ken (2023-01-13). "Will New York City's Soccer Stadium Cost Taxpayers $0 or $516 Million?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

Financing, again

[edit]

I think by focusing on the stadium land lease in the opening paragraph, we are giving it undo weight. Either we need to include the economic benefit in the same paragraph, or better yet move all these to the "financing" section in the body of the article so they may all be discussed in full context. Having one element so prominent in the article while burying the rest seems to violate NPOV. SixFourThree (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A press release from the mayor praising the mayor's policy is not independent reliable sourcing. Thenightaway (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, does not address their comment. Falastur2 Talk 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to accept this argument. However, would also like to note my disagreement with @Thenightaway regarding the removal of the comparison to New Highmark Stadium in the main Financing section. Making a direct comparison to another newly-built stadium in New York State is entirely appropriate, especially one that has drawn significant criticism from RS's for its cost to taxpayers. Such a statement is not OR, and it does not violate NPOV. If it's a sourcing issue, fine, but its wholesale removal strikes me as anti-factual. Fiendpie (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not NPOV to specifically compare one costly stadium deal to one of the most egregiously wasteful stadium deals of all time and say "at least it's not as bad as this other one". The NPOV solution is to either compare the stadium deal to the relevant spectrum of stadium deals (including those that cost taxpayers nothing) or not compare the stadium deal at all. Thenightaway (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that argument, I would ask what the “relevant spectrum of stadium deals” would be, seeing as this is the first sports venue to be built in the five boroughs in over a decade (and under markedly less controversial circumstances). I also don’t believe that it violates NPOV to compare stadium financing deals concocted under the same gubernatorial regime. Fiendpie (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably fair to compare different projects built in the same state at the same time. I would be more comfortable if there was a source we could cite making the comparison, not just us, but I'm not sure that the removed section qualified as OR. SixFourThree (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed—until such time as we have an RS directly making the comparison I suppose it's fair to leave out. Will revisit this conversation if such a source ever emerges. Fiendpie (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heading off a revert war

[edit]

The James Patchett opinion definitely belongs in the article if NPOV is to be preserved, lets see what we can do to find satisfactory language so we don't need to keep reverting.

Can I suggest something like this?

The former president of the NYCEDC pointed out that due to decades of environmental contamination from the businesses which had been on Willets point, the development options on the land were "limited" without public assistance of some kind, and that unlike most stadium projects, this one is not being financed using tax-exempt bonds.

If he is biased, the reader can give that whatever weight they feel appropriate. But the perspective itself (which the Times felt newsworthy) should be in this article. SixFourThree (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article already includes the NYCEDC's point of view: "The NYCEDC claims that the project itself will generate $6.1 billion in economic impact over the next 30 years, creating 1,550 permanent jobs and 14,200 construction jobs". It would be WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE to also include the NYCEDC's baseless rebuttal of the New York City Independent Budget Office's assessment. Thenightaway (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Baseless" because you say it is, or because you have another reliable source that rebuts it? Including the speaker's former position is enough to establish his POV, but that itself does not invalidate his point. And nothing in the article right now addresses his contention. SixFourThree (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To preserve neutrality, I would be up for changing "pointed out" to "asserted" to more firmly establish that the statement is his opinion. Given the history, site remediation is certainly a subject that should at least be touched on in the article. SixFourThree (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 November 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move the Abu Dhabi one, no consensus on moving the NYC one. Will create a disambiguation page at the base title for now as there is not a consensus yet that the NYC is a PTOPIC for "Etihad Park". Feel free to revisit this at a future date. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– "or Etihad Park (ampitheatre)" – or potentially "Etihad Park (New York City)" or "Etihad Park (soccer stadium)". Seeing as the naming rights were just announced, it seems logical to move the wiki article for NYCFC's new stadium. I'd prefer to have the article be just Edihad Park without any disambiguation, and to move the music venue in the UAE to Etihad Park (Abu Dhabi) or Etihad Park (ampitheatre). I don't know if that can really be done though (or if it really matters). Ngpiii (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the second proposal combines from Talk:Etihad Park#Requested move 21 November 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with either Eithad Park proper, pending the rename of the Dubai venue page, or Etihad Park (soccer stadium). Fiendpie (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SixFourThree (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Etihad Park (New York City) works for me. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However it makes sense to rename the Abu Dhabi page and if that is renamed first, leave this one to Etihad Park. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support moving this to Etihad Park (New York City) or Etihad Park (soccer stadium). The name was just announced today, so I don't think the NYCFC stadium is the primary topic for "Etihad Park" yet. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can have the main Etihad Park article be a disambiguation? And there, you have Etihad Park (New York City)/(soccer stadium) be for NYCFC's home, while Etihad Park (Abu Dhabi)/(ampitheatre) be used for the outdoor music venue? Ngpiii (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was what I was thinking as well. Etihad Park should probably be a disambiguation page for now. Once people become more familiar with the soccer stadium—and the stadium becomes the primary topic of the term "Etihad Park"—we could move the stadium's page to the base "Etihad Park" title. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's an argument that the soccer stadium is already the primary topic. In any case, I don't think we should plan for future moves. SixFourThree (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sentence about tax revenue

[edit]

@SixFourThree and @Fiendpie, I'm opening a discussion about the sentence However, New York City will miss out on a projected $516 million in lost property tax revenue, as the site land has been leased to the club rather than sold., since there seems to be disagreement over its inclusion.

In my opinion, there may still be legitimate reasons not to mention this detail. However, it would be WP:NPOV with some minor wording changes (namely getting rid of "However" and replacing "miss out" with "lose", e.g., "New York City is projected to lose $516 million in property tax revenue because the site land has been leased to the club rather than sold.") – Epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm operating from the position that we should include this sentence now and going forward, as there are material downsides to the stadium financing deal, even if they're not as egregious as some others. Saying the stadium is all privately funded with no mention of the lost tax income is, at best, unwittingly carrying water for CFG.
On the specific suggestions—fine with cutting the "however." Regarding "miss out" v. "lose," my preference would be for "miss out"—"lose" to me implies that there was an immediacy to the shortfall (as with lose a match, lose a phone, etc.), whereas "miss out" more clearly emphasizes the 50-year timeline that the tax losses occur over. Fiendpie (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "miss out" vs. "lose", fair enough. It's just that "however" is specifically called out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch as one of the words to be careful of. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is going to be a sentence on how the club is shouldering the construction costs, then there must be a sentence noting also that taxpayers are losing at least $516 million on the land deal that the city and the club made. It would be misleading in the extreme for Wikipedia to suggest that the stadium is self-financed at no cost to taxpayers when RS clearly note that major costs are being put on taxpayers. I have no opinion on the nuances of how this should be worded. Thenightaway (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Etihad_Park_(New_York_City)&oldid=1265796760"