Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-21/Delmonico's Restaurant

Where is the dispute?
Talk:Delmonico's Restaurant

Who is involved?

 * User:Sylvain1972
 * User:JohnnyB256
 * User:HelloAnnyong

What is the dispute?
The dispute centers on the reversion of this version of the article to the present form. The current incarnation of Delmonico's Restaurant opened in 1998. The Delmonico's restaurant which is notable closed in 1917. Editor JohnnyB256 feels that the current incarnation should be explicitly identified as the "same" restaurant, and objects to the following language.

"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."
 * This is not a correct statement of the dispute. I have no problem with the above language. The dispute involves this editor referring to Delmonico's in the first sentence of the article in the past tense when it currently exists.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Then the dispute centers entirely on whether or not the current incarnation should be explicitly identified as the "same" restaurant.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. That is not what this dispute is about. The word "same" does not appear in the article. It is simply a dispute concerning the first sentence of the article, and whether to refer to the restaurant in the past tense, or in present tense with it stating clearly that the restaurant is under different management and ownership. The version I favor doesn't say "same," but merely states the facts: it exists, but is not owned by the original family.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By saying that Delmonicos is a restaurant in lower Manhattan, it is endorsing the view that current Delmonicos and the notable historic one are the same. Whereas my version refers only to the past in the intro, without initially identifying the current version with the past one one way or another. See Fraunces Tavern for a similar treatment.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that can be discussed by the mediation cabal. In the talk page at present there are two editors disagreeing with you and no one supporting your position on this. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is why it's here, yes.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
I would like other editors to weigh in, to end the edit war.