Talk:Landry's

Joe's Crab Shack

According to the article on Joe's Crab Shack, it's owned by J.H. Whitney & Company - not Landry's. [1] suggests that J.H. Whitney & Company bought 120 Joe's Crab Shack locations. If that constitutes all the Joe's Crab Shack locations, why, then, does Landry's website, this article, and Joe's Crab Shack's website make it seem as though Landry's still owns it? TerraFrost 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article probably lists the wrong owner since the editor that updated for the sale did not check the links for the old owner and make the simple change to delete the information and add the sale in the history section here. Vegaswikian

Info about the Golden Nugget Las Vegas

• http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=en&safe=strict&q=golden+nugget+Las+Vegas+site%3Awww.landrysrestaurants.com%2F&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

--222.67.213.118 (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

The editors who are removing sources need to read and understand WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for straightforward, non-contentious facts. PR Newswire is not a "pay-to-promote" service, it's simply an outlet for companies to publish their press releases; it's the same as if you found that information on the company's web site. Toohool (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Company's own web sites, and press releases, are not acceptable sources, except for basic facts such as the name of the company chairman. And frankly, most this article is poorly promotional tosh which ought to be removed. Maproom (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not policy. Which part of WP:PRIMARY are you not understanding? "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Toohool (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Maproom is absolutely correct and your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is clearly beyond its bounds. Apparently, you don't understand what "reputably published" means. It certainly does not mean a business making claims about itself on their own website, other than basic, non-contentious facts that are unlikely to ever be challenged. Based on your interpretation, any business could make any claim they want on their own website (or through a PR firm they pay to publish it) and we'd have to take their word for it that it's true or accurate. For instance, the article claims via Landry's website that by 2011, "the company’s value had risen to more than $1.7 billion", but we have no secondary reliable source to verify it; only the word of the business itself. Further, this article, like so many others, has a very strong odor of promotionalism throughout. If all the advertising-type content contained in this article is both notable and true, then there should be secondary reliable sources to verify it, rather than depending on what the business says about itself. And a "pay-to-promote" service is precisely what PR Newswire is; a company pays them money to publish whatever they want them to say, thus the name PR Newswire. Dirroli (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think that some of the cites are not suitable to support the claims, then the solution is to add a better source, or if you can't find one, to tone down or remove the unverifiable content. The solution is never to remove reliable sources and thus leave article content unsourced. That is bordering on vandalism. And BTW, many of the sources that you two are trying to remove are being used to support basic, non-contentious claims, such as "In 2002, the company acquired Saltgrass Steak Houses." Toohool (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My 2¢ - A statement of the valuation of a company is based upon US law and rules established by the SEC. As Landry's is not a public company, it does not have to follow all of the reporting requirements that a public firm would - however, any claims regarding the valuation of corporate assets are legally required to be truthful and accurate. Statements such as the on mentioned above have to be legally verifiable because other firms that are seek to invest in the company or banks that may be lending money to Landry's will need a full disclosure. This would also be true if Landry's may be seeking to go public at some point in the future, as these reports help guide stock firms evaluate the actual value of a company.

Basically their statement of a value of $1.x billion dollars in profits must be true or they could be in a lot of trouble. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if everything you say is true, it's totally irrelevant. This isn't the SEC, a bank, or a court of law. It's Wikipedia, so a secondary reliable source is required to verify the claim. Dirroli (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Legally binding SEC documents are inherently reliable because their structure, statements and format are codified in law - a 10K statement is a self published statement that is defined by its status as a federally mandated document that must truthfully portray a corporations finances as a part of public disclosure. Financial statements can and are used on Wikipedia to help describe how a corporation is run, its assets, structure, officers and general operating environment. This is true of any self-published document that is required per laws regarding public disclosure.

Second, you really need to read up on Wikipedia's rules regarding primary, secondary and tertiary sources - your comment about secondary sources as being the only acceptable ones that can be used on Wikipedia is patently wrong. primary sources can be used to verify simple, factual claims about a company - how many locations it has, areas served, dates, corporate history etc... I can say this as someone who has used primary sources (some of which were published on PR Newswire!) in multiple GA-class articles, articles that underwent a review - in some case peer reviews - by other editors and contributors and passed muster. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

First, I meant to say a source besides Landry's own website; as long as it's reliable (primary or not). Second, you completely missed the point. What do SEC documents have to do with this article?? There is/was no SEC document verifying the $1.7 billion valuation being claimed on Landry's website. In fact, there's nothing to verify that assertion, except Landry's word. That's not good enough for an encylopedia. And I never said that secondary sources are the "only acceptable ones"! I said that a primary source, such as a company's own website, is meant to be used only for "basic, non-contentious facts that are unlikely to ever be challenged", so work on your reading comprehension skills. Any business, big or small, can create a website and say anything they want on it. So unless it's something that is well known or won't be challenged, they better have proof of what they're saying. Finally, I have no idea why you're linking to WP:PSTS (a.k.a. WP:PRIMARY) again, when it's the precise policy we've been discussing all along in this thread. Maproom and I understand it very clearly. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what "reputably published" means. Dirroli (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to persuade editors into believing that an SEC filing and an unsupported claim made by a business on their own website are equivalent in terms of their reliability. Dirroli (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the phrase "reputably published". There is a difference between the author of a source and the publisher. PR Newswire is a reputable publisher, in that when they publish a press release, we can rely upon the fact that it's a true copy of a press release issued by the company whose name is on it. If you found the same content on some random no-name site, that would not be reputably published. Also, you are misapplying the concept of consensus. When there is no consensus, the article remains in its original state, i.e. before you started trying to remove these sources. Toohool (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are clearly the one who doesn't understand. You're actuallly making the ludicrous argument that if a business pays another business to publish an unproven claim, it's automatically reliable. Again, learn what basic, non-contentious content is. Further, when mulitple editors have removed sources and one editor (you) repeatedly restores them, that is called disruptive editing. Dirroli (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I am making the claim that basic, non-contentious facts can be sourced to a press release published on PR Newswire, in the same way that they can be sourced to the company's own website. You are making the ludicrous argument that a fact becomes non-reliable as soon as the company pays another company to publish it. Furthermore, what exactly do you think is contentious about any of the following claims: "In 1998, the company developed the 35-acre Kemah Boardwalk, with a hotel, marina, more than 10 restaurants and dozens of midway games, amusement rides and attractions." "In 2002, the company acquired ... Saltgrass Steak House." "In 2005, the company acquired Golden Nugget Hotel & Casinos, with locations in Las Vegas and Laughlin, Nevada." Attractions at the Tower of the Americas include "a 4D Texas ride and an observation level." Kemah Boardwalk "is owned and operated by Landry’s, Inc., and is home to more than 10 restaurants, a collection of rides, midway games, attractions, a boutique hotel, a charter yacht, a 400-slip marina and multiple shops." Toohool (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that would be a ludicrous argument if I actually ever made it. Dirroli (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

So you're not able to explain your argument or what's contentious about any of the cited claims? Toohool (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Break

I have restored the PR Newswire links as I too agree that they are acceptable. @Dirroli: Pleas read WP:Bold, revert, discuss - your edit was bold, but it was reverted and you need to discuss the issue before acting again regarding this issue. Instead, what you are doing is edit warring over this issue and you have now violated the WP:Three revert rule - if you continue to act in a manner that is contrary to accepted WP standards, I WILL report you to the appropriate board. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Maproom and I have explained they are not reliable sources for the content they are being used to verify. Jerem43 and Toohool, stop edit warring until you achieve consensus. Dirroli (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, you constantly reverting the page is not how this works (WP:BRD, above). Accusing others who are trying to discuss this of the sort of action you have been doing is not in good faith. You were warned here and on your talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a more directly relevant section of the policy, WP:SELFPUB. It says that self-published sources are generally acceptable for claims about themselves. So a source published by Landry's can be cited for claims about Landry's. Other than a few exceptions, none of which seem to apply here. Perhaps Dirroli can explain why these sources are unacceptable under this policy. Toohool (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The general basic consensus of the Wikipedia community is that per WP:PSTS that primary sources are allowed to confirm basic, non controversial facts. These simple facts such as foundation dates, corporate structure, acquisitions, divestments, area served etc. are all facts that can be verified by self-published statements such as press releases or financial disclosures (My reference to SEC mandated 10-K statements above) and are non-controversial. Any analysis of said facts - such as how the financial performance would effect the company, why an acquisition was made, or discussions of the effects of an action pertain to a business entity such as Landry's WOULD require adequate citations to reliable, secondary sources because of the policy regarding neutral analysis. This discussion we are currently engaged in is how the process works and is not one that requires a new consensus because it is one that has been established as policy here on Wikipedia.

Until you came to this article and started removing the citations, there was not a problem regarding their usefulness in establishing and verifying simple facts. Once another contributor disagreed with your changes and restored them, it was your obligation as required by Wikipedia policy to participate in a discussion to reach a consensus regarding the nature of these citations. It is also your obligation to wait until a consensus was reached to leave the page alone until such time a true consensus was reached. One individual that agrees with your opinion does not establish a consensus and does not entitle you to revert everything to your desired format. As it stand now there is no clear consensus to allow you to delete the citations and information they support and per our policy non-consensus means leaving the existing status quo.

We have given you several policy based arguments as to why primary sources can be used to support non-controversial facts while you have provided nothing beyond you own personal interpretation of policy. You have continued on in this discussion in bad-faith and consistently edit-warred to enforce your vision of what the article should be instead of actively engaging in a bi-lateral dialog to resolve our differences. You need to step up and actually prove why your vision should prevail. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW I have restored the original version as should have been done at the time the conflict arose. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I have requested that this page be protected and was granted a two week 3-day full protection for the interim until the dispute is settled. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and desperation at its finest... Jeremy edit wars (again) to restore the self-claims, attempts to get me blocked for edit warring (which of course failed miserably), and then goes to yet another noticeboard to beg for page protection in an effort to get his "correct" version locked in temporarily. A classic example of pathetic, disruptive editing. And of course his continual false statements and ridiculous spin about various Wikipedia policies and processes. Anyone can look at the history and see that both Maproom and I removed the sources for the same reason, then Toohool ignored both of us and repeatedly restored them. Then Jeremy decided to jump in on the edit warring. He even restored financial content that is completely unsourced.[2] What's even funnier is that he actually wants editors to believe that a company can claim anything it wants about itself - via their own website or by paying someone else to say it - about its finances or any other stats, with zero verification. Toohool, WP:SELFPUB obviously applies to people, such as celebrities on their verified official websites or social media accounts, not companies; and it can only be basic facts about themselves. But nice try. Someone needs to teach these boys what basic facts and non-controversial mean, and what can be considered reliable when a business says something about itself. Dirroli (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You do know that I only reverted this to the original version that was there before your original edit and subsequent 4 reverts? That is the only change I have made, and it was because you were and still are ignoring WP:BRD. I hope to add a neutral, non-involved voice of a party who edits extensively in the subject area to help mediate the discussion, but you took this a signal to launch a personal attack. Your responses so far have been belligerence, incivility and attempts to transfer your actions onto others.

In regards to your claims about me, I never said that we can put anything in there, only that information that is simple, non-controversial facts can be sourced from primary sources. The revert I made was simply to reset the article to a point before the dispute arose so that others could see what was going on and agree or disagree with your claims. Regarding primary sources, I only have repeatedly stated that those sources must be reliable ones such as from federally mandated fiscal reports. I also only stated that press releases can also be used for certain facts that are simple and non-controversial such as the exapmles I listed above. Any other statement that you are claiming I have made is you making things up - there simply is no evidence to support your spurious accusations. I challenge you to please point out where I said the things you are claiming I said, and I'll walk away from this whole fiasco of your making. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a lot of nonsense, but apparently we're all in agreement that press releases can be cited for non-controversial facts about the company. So I'll ask for the third time: What is controversial about any of the facts being cited in this edit? Toohool (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Any errors in this article? there a lot errors in this page, someone with AutoWikiBrowser should help. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

currently the pages fully protected because of an edit this agreement. It will be lifted on Monday. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

2000s

The hyperlink for Chart House in the first paragraph of the section simply links back to this article.Johnnyboy755 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)