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

Break
I have restored the PR Newswire links as I too agree that they are acceptable. 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. 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. KGirlTrucker87talk 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)