Talk:Three-martini lunch

Politics and humor
Way to suggest causation with that Ford vs. Carter bit. Totally not up to Wikipedia's supposed standards; totally down to Wikipedia's actual standards. 208.111.203.108 (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on that... Nice job including a political bias :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.81.225 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Still the raw sense of humor in the introduction is harmless and does not detract from the potential accuracy of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.76.34 (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2011‎

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Three-martini lunch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305132133/http://www.newsweek.com:80/id/75472/output/print to http://www.newsweek.com/id/75472/output/print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

History
We could use some history but I haven't found any source that has looked in to this. The term first appears in Google Books around 1964. I found one reference from 1957. A source from 1966 says "The three martini lunch is practically unknown in Mexico", implying that it was common or at least known in the US. The term didn't really become popular until Carter proposed eliminating it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comeback?
I don't believe the part about the entertainment deduction having been raised back to 80%. The IRS had this to say as recently as January 2016: "Generally, only 50% of business-related meal and entertainment expenses are allowed as a deduction." I also have not seen any evidence of a resurgence, and I spend a lot of time in bars at all hours of the day. As one of our sources notes, it would be nearly impossible to drink three modern sized martinis and go back to work. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a few cases where the deduction is 80%, but this is for transportation workers like airline pilots, who can't drink within some period of working anyway. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Foods
"Steaks, oysters and lobster are among dishes cited as a staple of these lunches." Cited where? Joyous! | Talk 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think someone just made that up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Snootful
A recent edit changed "incumbent President Gerald Ford" to "then-former-President Gerald Ford." We have three citations. Newsweek says this was during the election, which would make "incumbent" correct. SF Chronicle doesn't say. The third source is not accessible. I think he actually did say this in 1978, after he was no longer President. But I find "then-former-" awkward and it's not really important so I'm going to remove it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Tax deduction
A recent edit removed this sentence: "As business matters may be discussed at them, three-martini lunches are considered a business expense (which includes travel, meals, etc.) and thus can qualify for a tax deduction if such lunches occur infrequently." The reason given was "tax law claim not supported by sources." I'm going to restore it. The first source says "Carter may have won that battle, but he lost the war against the business lunch deduction... The fully deductible business lunch remained the law for another decade". That certainly seems to support the statement. If you'll let me know what the problem is, we can re-word this to better match what the sources say. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The sentence makes a specific legal claim ("can qualify"). That needs to be supported by a legal ruling or scholarship. The citations offered instead are: Jimmy Carter's political rhetoric, and a book that cites a ruling that held otherwise. Carter's remarks are discussed in the body of the article for the rhetoric that they were. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I guess if you'd rather not discuss this that's up to you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)