Jump to content

Talk:John Schnatter: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Lothar76 (talk | contribs)
Line 52: Line 52:
::''I pasted back in the politics section - though I suspect those supporting '''his''' POV or those who wish to just downplay it will remove it again. I can't find where it in itself isn't NPOV, or I would have added the template for cleanup. His statements themselves present a POV, but that's not the article itself, they are on record, and it's noteworthy per the amount of coverage he seems to have been getting in the media in relation to it.'' [[User:JoeHenzi|JoeHenzi]] ([[User talk:JoeHenzi|talk]]) 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
::''I pasted back in the politics section - though I suspect those supporting '''his''' POV or those who wish to just downplay it will remove it again. I can't find where it in itself isn't NPOV, or I would have added the template for cleanup. His statements themselves present a POV, but that's not the article itself, they are on record, and it's noteworthy per the amount of coverage he seems to have been getting in the media in relation to it.'' [[User:JoeHenzi|JoeHenzi]] ([[User talk:JoeHenzi|talk]]) 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
::''The supporting citations are circular in that they are based on his own statements, and not factual, nor are confirmed. Come up with a third party verifiable figure for the actual cost of insuring his employees, and I will not delete it.[[User:Pizzamancer|Pizzamancer]] ([[User talk:Pizzamancer|talk]]) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
::''The supporting citations are circular in that they are based on his own statements, and not factual, nor are confirmed. Come up with a third party verifiable figure for the actual cost of insuring his employees, and I will not delete it.[[User:Pizzamancer|Pizzamancer]] ([[User talk:Pizzamancer|talk]]) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, and I'm not interested in editing. I'm just here to say that whoever is keeping the political material off the entry isn't going to succeed forever. I went to his page specifically to confirm a comment I heard attributed to him since I couldn't find anything from a Google search. I'm probably not the only one. So for those of you trying to keep this stuff off the entry, you might want to just step up and put it in yourself, with supporting material, before your opponents do. [[User:Lothar76|Lothar76]] ([[User talk:Lothar76|talk]]) 15:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:43, 16 November 2012

Coverage of involvement with Louisville waterfront arena

Schnatter was a somewhat active (perhaps controversial) member of the committee put together for making decisions about the arena, especially concerning where it would be located. This needs to be covered. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue

I just read this article, and it reeks of bias, and contains weasel words. I suspect tampering by the company. What a shame.68.103.115.8 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a template message and hopefully it will be cleaned up UKWikiGuy (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the Obamacare section should be rewritten, the sourcing doesn't look appropriate for Wikipedia?

What year is the Camaro, really

Some sources say it's a 1972, some say 1971. This article also contradicts itself. So what year is it really? BarkingMoon (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, who cares? Why is this episode with a car even mentioned? It seems to have only a loose relation with the reasons why he's notable, and mostly seems to be an utterly random event from his life. Can someone explain? 69.203.113.161 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camaro

I have removed more extensive coverage of "the Camaro" from the Papa John's article, under the belief that if it is notable at all it pertains to John Schnatter personally (except for the "free pizza" in the last sentence which is uncited). I am pasting the text here in case someone wants to incorporate it; I personally think the current mention on this page is excessive but opinions may vary. To preserve attribution, the source for this text is this diff [1]. Martinp (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009, Schnatter began a nation-wide campaign to find the Z28 Camaro he sold in order to start his first Papa John's store. With the help of the automotive website Jalopnik, the car was traced to the town of Flatwoods, Kentucky, where it was owned by one Jeff Robertson. Robertson had kept the car in excellent condition, even adding a larger motor for drag racing (he reported the car doing a 9.55 quarter mile) and exhibiting the vehicle in car shows. He sold the car back to Schnatter in August of that year, cashing a check for $250,000; in addition, Schnatter offered $25,000 to the family who had originally purchased the car from him in 1983 and tipped off Jalopnik to its whereabouts. In honor of the re-acquisition of the car, Papa John's announced that anyone who drove a Camaro to a Papa John's location on August 26 would receive one free pizza.[citation needed]

Edit request on 11 November 2012

I think the net worth link should be updated as the site that is currently referenced seems to be out of date. This link estimates John Schnatter's net worth to be be $600 million which seems more accurate considering the $240 million estimate was based on an article from 1997: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/john-schnatter-net-worth/

Bluetahoe99 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I don't see that as meeting our reliable sources policy. If you can find another source, I'd be glad to change it. [[User:gwickwire|gwickwire]] | [[User_talk:gwickwire|Leave a message]] (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of his personal house is irrelevant

I can't see a reason why almost 1/4 of the article's page is covered with an aerial photo of his house. It is not referenced to pertain to anything exclusive about him nor is it relevant to his biography. Not to mention not even a picture of the man himself is here, yet his house is! It seems as a ploy to shed him in a "capitalistic, greedy" light. I suspect Reddit has been here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.209.14 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

So, multiple lines of info about a car he purchased in 1971 is relevant, but info about his political leanings and how they influence the business which made this article relevant in the first place isn't even included (and frequently edited out, despite multiple reliable sources)? WTF, wikipedians? Just, WTF. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Agreed, the political opinions of this person is certainly relevant - being removed as not is a disservice to those who will land on this page to read them. If they are not NPOV, then make them as such, but do not remove them. Looking at the Biographies of living persons (quickly), I can't find where his public stances on relevant topics of the day aren't noteworthy and should be removed. JoeHenzi (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted back in the politics section - though I suspect those supporting his POV or those who wish to just downplay it will remove it again. I can't find where it in itself isn't NPOV, or I would have added the template for cleanup. His statements themselves present a POV, but that's not the article itself, they are on record, and it's noteworthy per the amount of coverage he seems to have been getting in the media in relation to it. JoeHenzi (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The supporting citations are circular in that they are based on his own statements, and not factual, nor are confirmed. Come up with a third party verifiable figure for the actual cost of insuring his employees, and I will not delete it.Pizzamancer (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sources, and I'm not interested in editing. I'm just here to say that whoever is keeping the political material off the entry isn't going to succeed forever. I went to his page specifically to confirm a comment I heard attributed to him since I couldn't find anything from a Google search. I'm probably not the only one. So for those of you trying to keep this stuff off the entry, you might want to just step up and put it in yourself, with supporting material, before your opponents do. Lothar76 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]