Talk:John Schnatter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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! Talk • Work 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

The wording in the Obamacare section should be rewritten, the sourcing doesn't look appropriate for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.117.247 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

Politics, and relevance of car

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

This alone should tell you that it is not worth of mention in Wikipedia. Pizzamancer (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the "Politics" section must remain in-tact. This person's stance on a relevant, political issue is certainly fit to be included on this page. Furthermore, I have added an additional analysis of the Affordable Care Act's economic effect (as per an economic analysis from Forbes) to help clarify the matter and prevent misunderstanding. MichaelKovich (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That citation from Forbes uses numbers from his own quote to substantiate it(feedback loop). The math has been debunked in the comments, WP:NOR, and it is clearly not WP:NPOV. Re-write it here in the comments in a non-biased way with some numbers that can be verified, and you can have your political section. Wikipedia is not the news (nor reddit) If you persist in trying to get this biased section added, I will ask that the page get locked down. Pizzamancer (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to reach any conclusion other than that you must have some agenda motivating you to conceal this information. Maintaining details of a figure's relevant, political stance (especially when this stance was publicly made clear by the figure himself) seems reasonable here. Furthermore, to include the article from Forbes also seems reasonable as it helps clarify the subject, rather than leave the possibility for readers to mistake John's opinion for fact. Those of us who are maintaining this information on the page are not why this entry must be locked, but rather, it seems necessary due to your consistent vandalism by removing pertinent material. MichaelKovich (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
That is all good and well, but none of it helps your compliance with wikipedia policy. Fix your addition, take out the bias, and add in some unbiased citations and you are good to go. Reverting to a poorly sourced and cited revision does nothing. Pizzamancer (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, refer to the top of the page: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." The political section is both poorly sourced and potentially libellous. Pizzamancer (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because you don't agree with material doesn't make it libelous nor poorly sourced. When it comes to reliable sources, an economic analysis by Forbes is considered among them. It's mathematics, my friend. Melby's analysis is even consistent with another, more expensive study by the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/412675.html). Furthermore, this information cannot possibly be libelous. The term libel is defined as, "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." MichaelKovich (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This section straight up reads like a PR article. Are you even allowed to say highly subjective stuff like "[his comments] were taken out of context" in wikipedia articles? Deliciousfiber344 (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The www.alternet.org article is clearly a smear piece

url=http://www.alternet.org/labor/papa-johns-only-insures-one-three-workers-ceo-tries-blame-obamacare-if-drops?qt-best_of_the_week=2#qt-best_of_the_week

The first sentence of this article is enough to disqualify it as an unbiased source: "Papa John's CEO John Schnatter has been outspoken about how much he, as a greedy CEO ..."

Clearly it violates WP:NPOV.Pizzamancer (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Forbes Analysis

I left it in today but it needs an update if you want that in this wiki article at all. Check the reference, and you can see that the author updated his analysis in the comments. He used the numbers only to calculate the increase in cost being covered by a net increase in sales. The fact of the matter is that the numbers aren't qualified in the first place. The author admits this, and when analyzed from a stock holder perspective (ie maintain profits), the initial numbers are spot on.

There is also some background of his talk from Florida at this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html

that is clearly more of a neutral point of view. Pizzamancer (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is no other discussion, I am going to remove the forbes analysis under WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzamancer (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article and removing opinions which are necessary to understanding the situation. MichaelKovich (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the material. You've re-added "3.4 to 3.6", which does not even appear to be the correct original figures from the article. The author has, as noted above, amended his work to a different set of figures; please be careful with your additions. Also note that "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia; Pizzamancer's methodical discussion and subsequent removal of the erroneous material is in no way, shape, or form "vandalism". It might be more helpful to continue the dialog here instead of reverting. Kuru (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Schnatter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Schnatter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"knocked out a broom closet"

??? I have no clue what that is supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Schnatter/Archive_1&oldid=1223061782"