Talk:Denny's/Archive 1

Archive 1

More Missing Information

It's very vague. Esp. the new insert about February 3, 2009. Most visited restauraunt since 2003? What happened in 2003???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.216.50 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC) The article's also missing the parent company of Denny's. I know Denny's, Cactus Club and Hy's Steakhouse are owned by the same company but I can't remember who.24.85.246.49 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

'Missing' Information

Why does this page seem to be completely missing any reference to controversy involving racism, since it's seemed to happen more than once. Is this POV neglect? This was long ago.

Not fast food

I really need to disagree with anybody refering to Denny's as a fast food restaurant. A fast food restaurant, in my opinion, is a restaurant where you stand at a counter, make your order at a counter and then pay at the counter. You then either stand there to pick up your food, or sit down and retrieve your food when it is done (they notify you somehow).

At Denny's you are seated by a host or hostess (or server), and then go through the normal progression of any full service restaurant, except you pay at a counter when you are finished (and actually, if you wish to pay at your table your server will be more than happy to accomdate you).

I agree with the above comments that Denny's is not "fast casual". The fast casual restaurant page defines fast casual as a restaurant that does not offer full table service. But unless I'm mistaken, Denny's does offer full table service. (indeed, IHOP, with an almost identical table service model as Denny's, isn't listed as fast casual) Unless anyone objects, I'm going to change the description of Denny's away from "fast casual" and take it off the list at fast casual restaurant. Denny's is already listed on the casual dining page. - Walkiped 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

This article needs to be edited for better style and grammar. The content is fine, but the poor writing quality makes it sound more like a junior-high writing assignment than an encyclopedia article.

Example:

Originally it was known as Danny's Donuts. Butler started expanding, and in 1959, with 20 different restaurants. He renamed the chain to Denny's.

This is very disjointed and flows poorly. --Nido 19:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sources

I think this article needs to cite a few sources, namely a link to the dateline NBC story.

Link to the 10-03-2004 NBC Dateline article added. IBS/2007-05-07

Objectivity

Does the person who wrote this work for Denny's? This reads almost like an advertisement or endorsement for the chain.

"...industry-leading..."

"Denny's has also improved its public relations image by featuring African Americans in many of its commercials"

Please back this up with evidence, it sounds too subjective.

I tend to agree. I think there is need for a NPOV review.--Lord of the Ping 05:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could it simply be changed to 'has attempted to improve its public image'? Smurfmeister (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Room for Denny's Work

There is absolutely nothing improper with an employee or representative of a commerical business to contribute to the information contained in a Wiki article. But your point is taken: lotsa contributions can be added to this article.

I'm kinda interested in a paragraph on a couple years ago White House Secret Service Agents were denied service at a Dennys (was it in Maryland) and the SSA's claimed it was because they were Afro-Americans. This was after the big lawsuit.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I was a regular patron of the Denny's in Annapolis, Maryland, where the Secret Service incident took place, at the time, and it was known for its poor service. I ate there with a friend of mine (both of us white) the week before the incident, and we too complained that we were being served much later than the diners at other tables who had arrived after we had. Our theory was that, as they were mostly teenagers, they were friends of the waitstaff and thus given higher priority than those customers who weren't. Hard to prove one way or another, but we weren't exactly surprised at the lawsuit, though I suspected that race might not have been the full explanation. ProhibitOnions 11:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, much negligence stems from pure incompetence, with no malice whatsoever attached. And even if malice is present, there are a lot of reasons servers might provide poor service to blacks, with race being only one of them (possibilities: rudeness, borderline sexual harassment that waitresses run into daily, dislike of government service types, etc., etc.) Aadieu (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Grand Slam Breakfast

What does the Grand Slam Breakfast consist of? PS: I live in NYC. Maikel 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The original grand slam is buttermilk pancakes, eggs, bacon, and sausage, with two pieces of each. There are also other Grand Slam meals, like the Lumberjack Slam, All American Slam, and so on.

Check out http://www.dennys.com/en/cms/Breakfast/40.html. Jkonrath 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Maikel 22:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this statement is in need of review. "In 1978, Denny's introduced the still-popular Grand Slam breakfast. In contrast to the USA, in New Zealand no hash brown nor toast is provided with the Grand Slam." The New Zealand part seems cumbersome and added on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.3.247 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be because it is cumbersome and added on. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis Hostage/Robbery Case

I don't have time to research this right now, but there should be some mention of this. Off the top of my head, I remember that two guys tried to rob a Denny's in Indianapolis, and in a struggle with a busboy, one of them shot himself, so the other one started randomly killing everyone in the restaurant, and it escalated into a hostage/standoff situation and national news plus bad publicity for the company. This was on May 23, 1994, which ironically was the same day that Denny's was going to announce their $54 million payout on the racism discrimination cases. Jkonrath 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Erenreich

I thought she called the restaurant Hearthside or something along those lines. Maybe I just forgot. Also thought she might have denied it was a large chain restaurant.

The article on her book doesn't mention Denny's at all. I went ahead and removed the section from this article since there doesn't really seem to be much connection. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate sections deleted

There is clearly no point in detailing every incident that happens at a Denny's. You don't see a laundry list of "so-and-so called someone a nerd in McDonald's" or "Bob Johnson caused a ruckus at a Burger King." So I deleted two sections that were just extraneous. 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Inappropriate sections deleted

It is important that people know of the mistreatments of Denny's restaurants back in the early 90's. There are some most notable cases. The Secret Service agent issues are one of them. Obviously the main person editing this article is from the marketing department from Denny’s or works there. The lawsuit that occurred due to various events is considered one of the largest and possibly only civil rights violations from a major restaurant in the United States. Some 200K customers were involved in a class action lawsuit. Of course it was settled. I’m surprised no one mentioned this. Hzaidi1 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hzaidi1 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow, I am impressed with your psychic abilities to know that the edits were made by someone who is "obviously from the marketing department from Denny's or works there". I suppose I can just as easily predict that you are from a competitor's marketing department, or perhaps you work for IHOP. There are a number of controversies surrounding Denny's, especially from the early 1990's, but this article appears to be more focused on them than being encyclopedic. While the alleged racial and prejudice actions are notable, they should not overwhelm the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.108.139 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Added the specific cases. I want to do more with this section.

I added some of the most noteable cases of this in the contrversy section. I think this should bring some enlightenment on this previouslly and purposlly hidden section. I want to get in contact with people who could provide police reports of the matters or court testimoney. Hzaidi1 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. After all, an encyclopedia is all about investigative reporting. <eyes roll> Please think again.

My hammy...

I think someone should research how the name "Moons over My Hammy" came about and write a little paragraph on it. Anyone who's ever been to Denny's knows that name. Its probably one of the most memorable menu item of all time from a chain restaurant.

Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work wiki-people.

New Zealand pricing

According to this article 'The New Zealand menu prices are double those of the States'. Does this allow for the fact that the New Zealand dollar is worth far less than the US dollar? Smurfmeister (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In Chicago a "Chicago hot dog" costs about $1.50; in San Francisco one costs about $5. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Violent Crime section

I took this out. It was a subsection of the "Controversy" section, but there was no evidence that there was any controversy. Everyone agrees that violent crime is bad. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW here is my report on a possible expansion of Denny's into Russia: [1]. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dateline Controversial?

How does having one of the best health records out of several national chains wind up under controversy? Static Universe ^talk|edits 04:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there but maybe it was added as a rebuttal to other things in the controversy section, or perceived criticism on food quality. In any case it seems a little... like it was added by an employee to me. Garglfluz (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sodium levels

[rfctag|econ] - tag removed. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute as to whether the following paragraph should be included in the article:

In July 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Denny's alleging that a significant portion of its meals contain dangerous quantities of salt, purportedly rendering them "not fit for the ordinary purpose of human consumption", and claiming that Denny's defrauded its customers through concealment of this fact.

Since most corporations don't have class action lawsuits filed against them every week, I contend that when such a lawsuit is initiated against against an organization, and this fact is reported by reliable sources, the matter is of sufficient importance for inclusion in our article concerning them. Additionally, as Denny's racially discriminatory practices ended at least a decade ago, excluding information about the sodium lawsuit results in an article which describes no criticism of Denny's current operations whatsoever. This unequivocally positive portrayal of the restaurant chain is grossly imbalanced and contrary to WP:NPOV.

The justifications offered for the removal of the paragraph are without merit. It is contended that "This is nothing new, CSPI files a suit every month against some entity for nutrition deficencies."[2] However, I see no policy-based justification for excluding information about a lawsuit solely because of the perceived vexatiousness of the litigant. Additionally, it is asserted that "Just because this has been published does not make it notable. It is a reprint of the CSPI press release."[3] This claim represents

1. An unproven assertion that [4] actually is a verbatim copy of a press release by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Indeed, the fact that the article is followed by the notice "© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved." strongly weighs against a finding that it is a mere republication of a press release to which United Press International holds no copyright.
2. A misuse of WP:NOTE, which expressly states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people."

Erik9 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Since most corporations don't have class action lawsuits filed against them every week." Actually, I'm not sure this is true for many large corporations, and if it is, they at least happen more often than annually. It's not significant news until the class action is certified or offers substantial settlement. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with the chain restaurants, lawsuits against them are a dime a dozen. The CSPI files literally dozens of these suit a year against various organizations just to get the press in on something they are trying to publicize. Unless something actually comes of the suit, which based upon the numerous others they have filed, it really isn't notable.Yes you have a source, but is it notable? Not at this time. Additionally this is a filing, not an actual suit; until the company responds to the CSPI papers, an initial hearing is scheduled to be heard by the court and arguments are heard it is just a claim.

If we included every lawsuit and legal claim filed against every chain restaurant, these articles would be overburdened with legal information. I work heavily on these articles and until something comes of this, this is not notable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In my comment above, I stated that your arguments were

A misuse of WP:NOTE, which expressly states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people."[5]

The fact that you replied to my comment with continued claims that the lawsuit "really isn't notable.Yes you have a source, but is it notable?", without responding to my argument that Wikipedia:Notability is not an appropriate metric by which to determine the inclusion of content in articles, suggests that either

1. You did not read my comment, or
2. You are deliberately ignoring my comment.

Neither behavior is conducive to the amicable resolution of this issue. Furthermore, your claim that, on the one hand "The CSPI files literally dozens of these suit a year against various organizations", and, on the other, "Additionally this is a filing, not an actual suit" is both self-contradictory, and inconsistent with common definition of the term. From Lawsuit#Pleading, "A lawsuit begins when a complaint is filed with the court." Given the existence of [6], it's reasonable to conclude that the legal action against Denny's rises to the level of a "lawsuit".

The remainder of your argument seems to be an attempt to utilize an original research rationale to justify the exclusion of well-sourced, relevant information from the article by impugning the motives of the organization which assisted the plaintiff: "The CSPI files literally dozens of these suit a year against various organizations just to get the press in on something they are trying to publicize." It is not our purpose to censor information which should otherwise be included in articles merely because some editors regard the material as resulting from shameless publicity seeking. Unless the filing of class-action lawsuits against any particular restaurant chain is a regular occurrence, then there's little danger that "articles would be overburdened with legal information."

Of course, an original research evaluation of the lawsuit's merits or the motivations of the plaintiff cuts both ways: I could just as easily argue that since Denny's "Meat Lover's Scramble" contains 5690 milligrams of sodium, 237% of the standard recommended dietary allowance of 2400 milligrams for an entire day, in a single meal, the lawsuit was filed in good faith to abate a serious danger to public health :) Erik9 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a policy that does cover what I am saying - You're giving the subject undo weight by including it. This is a minor blip that is transitory in nature. You are ignoring my point - it is not a company changing lawsuit at this time. It is the opening of a lawsuit that has not gone anywhere as of yet. We do not know how this will turnout in the long run and will not know until the company responds to it, the courts hear the arguments and a decision is handed down.

Right now all this is is the CSPI jumping up and down screaming "look, they're bad!" Until the case gets beyond the opening filings this is not worthy of inclusion. Also like I stated above, we do not need to add every law suit filed against a company because there are so many; stuff like this usually gets a brief mention in the press then goes away. If it doesn't just fade into the back ground and something does come of the suit then it is worthy of inclusion.

What can be said is that critics have called Denny's to task for the unhealthy quality of their food and have launched a lawsuits in an attempt to force the company to modify the menu. The way it is written puts undo weight on the CSPI position and the person they have employed to be the face of the suit. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you claim that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight requires the removal of the only criticism of Denny's operations for the past decade from the article, resulting in an unequivocally and unconditionally angelic portrayal of the company for that period of time? Of course not -- since that position now appears too absurd to digest, you now say that you don't actually disagree with some treatment of the lawsuit and the CSPI's critique of Denny's more generally, you just object to "the way it is written". The proper response to disagreements with the phrasing of salvageable content is to rewrite it, not to remove it completely (unless immediately removal is necessary due to WP:BLP violations, copyright violations, or other extraordinary conditions not present here.) In any event, I am reinserting a description of the criticism into the article, rewritten in response to your objections. Erik9 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the criticism should be noted and the lawsuit briefly noted, if at all, instead of a whole paragraph about a questionable lawsuit. So yes your contribution should be deleted because it gives undo weight to a single group's attention-grabbing, self-serving lawsuit that's only purpose is to embarrass Denny's. I am also saying until more than a filing of a suit is done, we should not go into detail over the claims of the CSPI. This is no more than a rehash of the "Fast food made me fat" lawsuit from a few years ago, lots of publicity (which is not the case with this suit) abut the filing and zero about the fact it was thrown out as a frivolous waste of the court's time. The fact that so few news organizations covered this suit beyond a brief summary article or republication of the CSPI press release should show you that this is not worthy of inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that this might deserve a mention, but only a sentence. Anyone can file a lawsuit, we can expand the section if the lawsuit starts to pick up momentum. Remember when people sued McDonald's for getting fat? It was thrown out of court once it went to a judge. In the history of Denny's, does one recent lawsuit warrant a paragraph dedicated to it? Angryapathy (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved RFC comment: This seems like undue weight and the promotion of a hopeless lawsuit by a group with motivation in such publicity. I don't believe in belongs in an overview of this company, but it might belong in CSPI. At most one sentence. Cool Hand Luke 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: this argument was pushed by the sock of a banned user who has a history of attacking large corporations in the food industry. See this hatchet job. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is safe to delete the statement since the person who added it has been blocked as a sock puppet. Angryapathy (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, the lawsuit mentioned above was thrown out by the judge. Another meritless lawsuit trying to squeeze its way into the mainstream. Angryapathy (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Denny's Lounges

Does anyone have any information on this subject? I understand they serve alcoholic beverages, but, while I can find listings for locations I can not find the association (if there is one) with Denny's itself FrankTownend (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Errors in Denny's History and Additional Info

I was Director of Information Services at Denny's at the time of the 1987 acquisition. I noticed some errors/omissions in Denny's history.

1. Denny's was headquartered at the time of the 1987 acquisition in La Mirada, California and had been for many years. I am unsure of when the La Mirada headquarters was established. It was not headquartered in Irvine, CA. However, Dennys wholely owned distribution company, Proficient Foods was indeed located in Irvine, which may have been the source of this inaccuracy. It's possible that after I left the company in 1988, that the headquarters was moved to Irvine, but there wouldn't appear to be any rationale for this.

2. Some time in the 1980s (I can't recall the year), Denny's was taken private (it was NYSE listed) in a leveraged buyout that included Merrill Lynch and Denny's management.

3. The acquiring company in 1987 was named TW Services, not TW Corporation, although it may have later have morphed into this name. It was indeed headquartered in Spartanburg.

4. In 1987, it appeared that Denny's would be acquired by Marriott. Marriott people were all over the La Mirada headquarters performing due diligence and licking their chops. TW Services had also expressed an interest, but Marriott appeared to be a shoo-in. After their due diligence, Marriott made a final presentation to the Denny's board. I was not at this presentation but I heard that the following had transpired.

Denny's CEO, Vern Curtis, had told Marriott at the outset that the price for the company was firm. Marriott could perform any due diligence that it wanted, but only to decide whether or not they wanted to pay the established price. At the final meeting, Marriot's presentation focused on why Denny's wasn't worth the asking price. This infuriated Vern as well as the fact that Bill Marriott did not personally attend the presentation, which Vern and the board felt was insulting. As the story goes, after the Marriott presentation, TW Services was contacted to determine if they were still interested, which, of course, they were. I heard that Vern was so upset that he tossed the Marriott presentation material in the wastebasket in front of the Marriott team. I don't know for a fact that this happened, but it was consistent with Vern's personality and makes a nice aspect of the story.Mwallis (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)