Talk:Delmonico's

Lorenzo Delmonico
There is an article for Lorenzo Delmonico which just says that he came to work for his uncles' restaurant in 1831, and that he wasn't a chef but was responsible for the restaurant's menu and wine list. There's no indication what made this individual notable beyond the fact that he was part of the family and worked for the family business. Suggest merging. -- Tim Pierce 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yes to merger Feralfeline 22:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yes merge into the restaurant article. Crypticfirefly 02:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

POV/synthesis text
I'm disputing the following text:

The phrase "appear to be oblivious" is very weasely, and is sort of pushing a point of view. Additionally, it's entirely synthesis to say that "source x and source y do not say z." We would need a reliable source that analyzed sources and pointed out that they don't mention the continuity changes. We can't say what a source doesn't say - we can only repeat what it does.

Actually, this entirely article reads like a sort of lamentation about how the current versions of Delmonico's aren't like the original. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence can easily be reworked, which I will do right now. Regarding your second objection, it is too vague to be actionable. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's original research to link to two reviews and say "these links don't mention x." &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not original research, it is a plain statement of fact supported by valid, cited sources.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine then, I'll ask for a WP:3O. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement is original research. There are no sources that confirm the author's point, it should be deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the sentence as revised, or the original?Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, you mean your addition in this edit, right? IMO, "often fail to indicate that the present incarnation opened in 1998 and has no direct continuity with the original" isn't any better. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The question was directed to the Jerem43, but I now see that he acted with the more recent edit in mind, so the question is moot. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have further revised the sentence in response to your objections so that it now only repeats what the reports say in error, rather than highlight what they omit. To note proven factual errors as such does not constitute original research.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Straight from WP:OR, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." You are analyzing published material and stating what is accurate or inaccurate. It should not be included. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have left off the crucial part--analysis of published material is not permitted when it "serves to advance a position." I am not attempting to advance a position. Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I believe that. Based on these edits, you seem to be really hung up on the fact that everyone fails to recognize the discontinuity. I think the article clearly states that the old one isn't related to the new one; your latest set of edits over the issue I brought up seem like you're just trying to hammer down the point. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think it is important that the article be clear on the fact that the current incarnation is not continuous with the original, but that is not "a position," --no one contests the facts of the matter.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - but I think it's belaboring the point to say that not only is the new Delmonico's not associated with the original, but that all of these reviews keep getting it wrong. And even if it is true, the sourcing is wrong - you're sourcing the reviews and then making a judgment about them, which is your own original research on the topic. We don't publish original thought on Wiki articles. If you could find a reliable source that says "Despite the fact that Delmonico's is no longer owned by the original owners, reviewers keep getting their facts wrong," then we could add it in. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you will notice I tagged the sentence as original research after I wrote the comment, so it would apply to both versions. No matter how you phrase it, making a declaration that draws a conclusion based on cited facts is synthesis and is not allowed. To include such a statement in the article would require you to find an independent, reliable source that backs up the statement. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: use to cite video to properly cite a video source. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So.. is that the end of this? Can we remove the text now? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a synthesis--it is a statement of fact backed by two examples. There is no dimension of opinion involved, where other parties disagree or might contest the assertion. I simply state that erroneous reporting is not uncommon, and provide two cited examples. I have opened an entry on No original research/Noticeboard for further input.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to request for comment in Wikipedia Project Food and Drink: The quoted text is a blatant example of synthesis and POV and should be removed forthwith, if that hasn't happened already. Anyone in doubt about that should read the relevant policy. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed it as blatant synthesis. I really don't know why there has been so much wikilawyering over something quite so obvious. Only one editor is advocating retaining this clearly objectionable passage, and consensus is for removal. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored an edit by Sylvain1972 that was blanked by HelloAnnyong, with a justifying edit summary. It is considered extremely discourteous to "shut up" a post at a Talkpage, unless it is blatant vandalism or obscene. Don't ever do that again, please. As for the struggle here, a simple phrase "The Delmonico's name was revived by..." would be all that's required to keep the article accurate.--Wetman (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a shut up revert, it was following a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard, where two editors have agreed that the addition is inappropriate. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My error. I got the mistaken impression the suppressed edit was a post on this Talkpage. I've undone my reversion.--Wetman (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that there is no point in persisting with this, but I consider it an unfortunate deletion of valuable material based on a questionable reading of the policy. In this case there is a party (the present Delmonico's) with a commercial interest in spreading disinformation (that they are the historic Delmonico's and have been open in the same location continuously for almost 200 years, when in fact they are barely ten years old and separated from the original by 80 years). It is therefore all the more imperative that the truth be abundantly clear on Wikipedia, and pointing out misinformed reports is quite helpful. Having said that, I will consider the matter closed for the time being.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current itteration of the article, it seems to make it very clear that the present Delmonico's is a recreation of the name, and is not the original restaraunt. This fact is supported by reliable sources.  The text in question (highlighting Time Out magazine's error on this point) isn't needed to reinforce that point. It seems like a superfluous "gottcha" aimed at Time Out. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a superfluous gotcha aimed at Time Out, it is meant to demonstrate that misinformation about this topic is not uncommon. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's significant that the current Delmonico's isn't same as original. The mis-information is also significant. Calamitybrook (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, July 10, 2009.

Neutrality concern
Re the above discussion: I think the article presents a bit of a problem from an NPOV standpoint. There is indeed a restaurant called "Delmonico's" on the original site at 2 William/56 Beaver. However, while stated in the article, the lead says otherwise by use of the word "was." But "was" is incorrect. There is a Delmonico's at the original site. A pretender? Perhaps. I don't think that's a concern of ours. Our job is to be neutral and accurate. Restaurants often change owners, and it is common in the restaurant business for restaurateurs to claim "traditions" that aren't really theirs. We certainly don't want to parrot what the current owners say, but simply have to state the facts, accurately, and this article does not if it says that Delmonico's "was" anything, as it currently exists. Whether or not it is owned by the "original family" must of course be stated. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No one disputes that the present Delmonicos opened in 1999. The Delmonicos which is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article closed in 1923.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. You can't say that there "was" a Delmonicos restaurant when there "is" a Delmonico's restaurant, which has been operated at its current site by various restaurateurs for seventy years, continually I believe. It's just not accurate. I changed to say that Delmonico's is a restaurant in lower Manhattan, and then I made it plain in the second paragraph that this is not operated by the original family. To take the position that the current Delmonico's restaurant "isn't Delmonico's restaurant" is POV and simply not correct. I'm going to change it back to the accurate version, and I'd appreciate your rethinking your position. We can't wave a wand and say a restaurant doesn't exist because we think they're upstarts and not the "real thing." That's POV.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are the one missing the point, and you apparently have not read the article. The restaurant has not been open continuously. It was closed from 1917-1929, from 1977-1981, and 1992-1999. Each time it reopened it had entirely new owners. There is no continuity.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Lack of continuity doesn't change a thing. We can't say "was."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with JohnnyB on this one. When you start an article with "Delmonico's was", that indicates that it isn't open anymore. It's similar to biography articles that start with "Person was" when they have died. Since Delmonico's is open in some form, Johnny's version is better. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are seventy two years (1917-1999) between the notable Delmonicos and the present one, with major breaks in the continuity along the way. For the article to say that it is the same restaurant is extremely misleading and highly POV. The fact that JohnnyB256 thought it was open continuously is an illustration of how misleading this is. Sylvain1972 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, September 21, 2009.
 * That doesn't matter. The fact is that there exists a restaurant called "Delmonico's" that is the subject of this article. Whether or not it is the same as the original can be addressed in the text, but as far as the intro goes, it is not POV to say "Delmonico's is a restaurant in lower Manhattan." Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this article is not meant to be a place to lament the closing of the original restaurant. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It does matter. There are dozens of Delmonico restaurants all over the US. The only notable one is the one operated from 1827 to 1923. The fact that there is a new restaurant called "Delmonicos" that opened in one of the former locations does not make it the same thing.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So? There may be thousands of Delmonico's restaurants. The restaurants exist, and the original operated years ago. We have to operate in reality here.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the reality is the present restaurants that exist all over the US are not the subject of the article. The ones that closed in 1923 are. Therefore "was" is appropriate.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lindy's is notable because it is the restaurant in all the Damon Runyon stories. The article on that says it still exists. We can't say it doesn't because it moved to another location and is run by the Riesse chain.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't seem to have the specifics on Lindy's, but if the present incarnation has no continuity with the original, then we most definitely can say that the Lindy's which is notable enough to be the subject of a wikipedia article no longer exists.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, for the article to lead off by saying that "was one of the first restaurants in the United States and is considered to be one of the first American fine dining establishments" does not imply any commentary on the status of the current restaurant. It simply uses the past tense to refer to the past. The last line of the introduction should be a clear, neutral statement about the current situation.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. This is a neutral encyclopedia, or tries to be, not some kind of restaurant peerage manual. Bloodlines of restaurants are of no concern. The old Luchow's would have been a similar situation if it still existed, a horrid shadow of its former self. For all I know, the Delmonico's at 2 South William serves junk food. We cannot say things don't exist just because we think they don't have "continuity" with "notable" origins. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The current version of the article describes the relationship of the present restaurant to past ones in neutral language.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not neutral, or accurate, as was previously explained by myself and another editor. Your language also implies that the current owner is not "genuine," which may be true for all I know but is highly POV.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add to that, we have a huge issue of sourcing here. Nothing related to this current edit war is sourced, so it's all original research as far as I'm concerned. Even addressing the discontinuity without a source really shouldn't be allowed. The _proper_ solution would be to blank everything in the lead except the first sentence. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not started an edit way, you have. I made a compromise edit in good faith which you reverted. Now the current version says "Since 1929, the restaurant has been operated at its original location at 2 South William Street " which is objectively factually wrong. 2 South William St. is not the original location, and the restaurant has not been open since 1929.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just modified the lead to reflect what the text says. Is that better? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, now is totally erroneous. Both of you please, read the material carefully before you make changes. The restaurant was open in "various locations" up to 1917. From 1917-1923 there was only one location, and not the current one. From 1923 to 1929 it was closed entirely. Since then 2 S William St. has had three incarnations: 1929-1977, 1981-1992, and 1998- to present.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it to read since 1929, made clear the diff ownership, etc. Now it is accurate.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It now reads: "At various times since 1929, the restaurant has been operated at 2 South William Street, a location of the original Delmonico's, by restaurateurs unconnected with the Delmonico family. It is currently in operation at that location."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My version simply said:

"Delmonico's Restaurant was one of the first restaurants in the United States and is considered to be one of the first American fine dining establishments."

Which is true. It uses the past tense to describe the past.

"Since 1929, new incarnations of Delmonicos have been periodically opened and closed by a succession of new owners at the 2 South William Street location. The current one opened in 1998."

These are just bare facts. The sentence makes no judgement on whether or not the current one is genuine.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "restaurateurs unconnected with the Delmonico family" is also a bare fact that makes no judgment.--Wetman (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the wording a little to remove the POV affectations like scare quotes, but I think the version by Wetman is better than what we have now, even with my tweaks.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the quotes should go back into the sentence as follows:

After the Delmonico family closed its last Delmonicos in 1923, restaurateur Oscar Tucci opened a revived "Delmonico's" in 1929 at 2 South William Street, which stayed in business until 1977. Other Delmonicos have operated in the space from 1981-1992 and from 1998 to present.

The quotes in this case merely acknowledge a degree of irony. And there is indeed some irony in someone not named "Delmonico" opening a restaurant called "Delmonico's."Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely what makes the quotation marks problematic. We can't use punctuation to express our opinions. A reliable third party source must be found making that point. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to give a wink and a nod and put a quote around a word as a way of expressing "irony" or some other point of view that we have. If you can find a source expressing that irony, please do so and quote him or her in the article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Irony does not imply negative judgement. It is simply presence of difference between the literal and the actual, as in the case when a restaurant is named after someone other than the owner. It is not a matter of opinion, there is nothing winking about it in this case.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Johnny is right. The quotes express your opinion of the place, and that's pushing a POV. They don't belong. And just for the record, three editors - Johnny, Wetman and myself - have all indicated that the quotes don't belong. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two who believe the are appropriate. I just explained why the quotes do not represent an opinion.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you've said quite the opposite. You want to add quotes so as to express the "irony" of the situation, in keeping with your position that people who owned the restaurant after the Delmonico family are not the real deal. That's your clear POV, as expressed initially in the Time Out synthesis issue at the top of this section.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I clearly explained what irony means, and it is not a value judgement about who is the real deal.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the discontinuities in the restaurant's history in the opening. I hope everyone likes what I've done. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine, thanks. I split one of the sentences for readability. It also occurred to me that the title of this article is not correct. "Restaurant" is not in its name. Never occured to me before. I changed the lead to reflect that but the title need to be renamed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

History section
I think that the section on the history of this restaurant needs to be considerably beefed up. Leafing through the Times select pre-1923 archives, which are free by the way, I noticed a large amount of very useful material. There was a 1901 article on one of the founders that was very informative. I didn't have the time to go through it at the moment, but there seems to be a lot out there that is freely available and can be used.

Right now the section is dominated by a chart of the original owners. It's a good chart, but disproportionate in size. I think the solution is to build up the history section and Delmonico's role in the history of New York, which is much more than is stated in the article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal request dated 21 September 2009
Howdy! I'm responding to the aforementioned Mediation Cabal request. I volunteer my services as mediator, if this dispute is ongoing and the editors involved are interested.

I would appreciate it if parties still wishing to participate in mediation would acknowledge their agreement to participate and their consent to my involvement below this comment.

Please note that I expect everyone to adhere religiously to WP:AGF, and will neither present a verdict nor make any binding decisions. --Moralis (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This page has been pretty quiet as of late, so unless I'm mistaken, this issue has been more or less resolved. I'm not really sure we need to keep the MedCab case open.. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no ongoing dispute. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I'll be closing the request at MedCab. Of course, should the dispute reoccur, you know where to find us. Everybody have a good one! --Moralis (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)