Jump to content

Talk:Drury Hotels

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

Untitled

[edit]

The hotels operated by the company are generally in the lower to upper mid-range in terms of cost and quality.

Drury Inns is in the mid-priced, limited services hotel category. Their Pear Tree Inn line is in the budget category (maybe that's where the lower quality description originates). They are not lower to mid-range in terms of quality. Drury Hotels ranked #1 in customer satisfaction according to the Market Metrix Index for 7 of the last 8 quarters, beating Hampton Inn, Amerihost, AmericInn, Holiday Inn Express, Fairfield Inn, Comfort Suites, AmeriSuites, Comfort Inn, Best Western, Quality Inn, Howard Johnson, Red Lion and Ramada. That's not exactly lower to upper mid-range in quality.

The Drury Lodge isn't resort-based. There is only one hotel of that name, in Cape Girardeau, MO. It is one of the few Drury Hotels with its own restaurant and banquet service, hence the different name to set it apart. 12.145.237.146 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing

[edit]

This content is valid and reliably sourced, but is being repeatedly removed by one user in an attempt to sanitize the article to be an advertisement for the hotel chain instead of a WP:NEUTRAL encyclopaedia entry presenting the good and the bad in a balanced fashion:

On November 10, 2015, American Civil Liberties Union lawyers sued on behalf of Meagan Taylor, a transwoman of colour who had stayed at a Drury Inn in West Des Moines, Iowa on July 13, 2015.[1] Hotel staff alleged to police that she was engaged in prostitution because she and a travel companion were "men dressed like women."[2] All charges were later dropped.[3] As of 2015, the matter was before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission as profiling based on race and gender identity is illegal.

I'm also seeing laudatory or promotional language added with no citation to anything other than Drury's own web site. WP:RS please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.87.210 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to whitewash the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.87.210 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal action against one hotel in a chain of 130 merits a paragraph in the article? That's WP:UNDUE. Should we add a paragraph for every complaint filed against any staff member at the thousands of Hilton Hotels, Marriotts, Holiday Inns, Wyndhams, etc.? Instaurare (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for notability appears to be "extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources". This meets that criterion, as it was notable enough to be covered by both US and British media. There's no excuse for systematically removing every bit of information that could even possibly reflect badly on a company; we present the good with the bad here. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand notability. The WP:GNG guideline you cited is for deciding whether a topic deserves a full article, not whether something deserves a paragraph in an article. I'm not sure what bits of information are being systematically removed; I've only removed one paragraph that doesn't belong. That paragraph, describing one incident involving a handful of employees at one location, is 84 words; the paragraph about the entire history of the company is 86 words. That's absurd. The paragraph you insist on including falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Should we add all of these incidents to the articles of the hotels where they took place? Instaurare (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there a reason you're not using your real username on this page? You clearly have some history on Wikipedia, as your editing history and use of templates suggest. I'm just wondering. Instaurare (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for whether something merits an entire article is higher than the standard for whether something is notable enough to be mentioned in an article. This is about more than "a handful of employees at one location" as the parent company could have intervened to run damage control and chose to look the other way even after this was in international media. It's notable. Would we remove all mention of race from the "Heart of Atlanta Motel" or the "Lorraine Motel" articles, assuming that everything that happened there was "an isolated incident"? It's part of the history, it's notable, we include it.
You are removing everything that isn't promotional or laudatory of the Drury chain. Don't do this. This is an encyclopaedia article, not an advert. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut this item to be two lines of printable text - although it's not that this paragraph is particularly long so much as the rest of this article is a stub about a chain of marginal notability. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request ( Repeated removal of properly-sourced information... ):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Drury Hotels and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

It seems to me that both parties to this dispute could argue that the other has removed properly sourced information, and both would be correct. Independent reliable sources are required to prove the notability of a subject, and thus its eligibility for its own article; however, non-independent sources (such as a company's own website) can be used to support factual information within the article. Being neutral also means that a fact should not be removed from the article unless it is truly trivial or extreme. That the Meagan Taylor incident was covered internationally shows it is not trivial, especially since Iowa specifically protects the rights of transgender people under its laws. (I will note that on June 29 of this year, the ACLU reported that the case had been settled – see this and this.) Receiving a major award for multiple consecutive years is also not trivial. Therefore, it is my opinion that having been awarded "the J.D. Power and Associates 'Highest in Guest Satisfaction Among Upper Midscale Hotel Chains' award for 11 consecutive years" is fitting for the article in the appropriate section, as is a brief description of the Meagan Taylor incident, given that both would be properly cited. I would admonish the editors not to go into so much detail regarding Meagan Taylor as to give that incident undue weight. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Power and Associates

[edit]

The claim of being awarded "the J.D. Power and Associates 'Highest in Guest Satisfaction Among Upper Midscale Hotel Chains' award for 11 consecutive years" is questionable. This was cited to the vendor's own site and doesn't match what's in the one WP:RS at [4]

Inherently J.D. Power and Associates is a market research survey firm, funded by the very companies they're reviewing. Drury has to pay J.D. Power to use this award in its marketing material. Furthermore, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch claims "Drury Hotels has won the top ranking among mid-scale limited service hotel chains for eight consecutive years" (as of 2012) "ahead of Hampton Inn & Suites and Holiday Inn Express." That's not the same thing as "upper midscale hotel chains" at all. A core-brand Holiday Inn is, arguably, an upper-midscale hotel chain. A core-brand Hilton is fairly upscale. That's not what J.D. Power is comparing. They're comparing Drury to the other chains' discount brands (a HI Express is something less than a core-brand Holiday Inn, like the Hampton is something less than a core-brand Hilton, even if the franchisor is the same). Entirely different beast, like Chevrolet vs. Cadillac (where both are General Motors). If this is "limited service", say so. The lede should identify Drury as a "mid-scale limited service hotel chain" cited to [5] in any case - it's a key bit of info. This place isn't the Hilton, but it beats staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night? OK. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your dislike of JD Power is duly noted, but irrelevant. Instaurare (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Drury is paying J.D. Power to use the endorsement on their marketing materials, we say so. If this category is just one of eight (and the other hotels in that category are Hampton and HI Express), we say so. This isn't an advert, this is an encyclopaedia article. We just want the facts. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) Clear consensus that the information in the edit should not be included in the article; primarily on the basis of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS. Closing early per WP:SNOW - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the information in this diff be included in the article? Instaurare (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. This is a clear-cut case of undue weight, recentism, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. The paragraph, describing one incident involving a handful of employees at one location, is 84 words; the paragraph about the entire history of the company is 86 words. If we were to include this tidbit, we should add all of these incidents to the articles of the hotels where they took place. Instaurare (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the WP:CONSENSUS already obtained by putting this through WP:3O and raising the matter at relevant wikiprojects is that the matter is notable based on extensive coverage in independent, reliable sources and worthy of mention, but was trimmed to be a brief line-or-two mention (not counting footnotes) to fit an article that's largely a WP:STUB on a small regional, privately-held chain which itself is of relatively recent vintage and marginal notability. A brief mention in passage, properly sourced, is not WP:UNDUE. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia by repeatedly removing valid content; this has already been discussed in multiple fora and a consensus (just mention briefly) reached. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consensus, but if there is, it would be against inclusion. A request for comment is not disruptive (your use of an IP address to hide your username is, though). Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@66.102.87.210 Do you have any links to discussions and/or decisions in Wikipedia related to this issue? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's more to this. This was the management (and not just some random employees), she was imprisoned for eight days as a result of the false accusations and the American Civil Liberties Union was involved in taking the matter before the Iowa state Human Rights Commission. There's more to this than I could fit in a line or two of abridged text; see the original sources for all the ugly details. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is more to this, and in order to provide the necessary context surrounding this incident, it would require expansion with more details which would make it WP:UNDUE. The police found no evidence the women were engaged in sex work, so she wasn't arrested and imprisoned as a result of the false accusations made by the hotel employees. She was arrested and imprisoned for eight days because she had an outstanding warrant in Illinois for a $1,713 fine from a five-year-old credit card fraud case and for possessing prescription medicine without a prescription and because she gave a police officer a fake name and said she was from Ohio, rather than Illinois (which she has admitted that she did).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - While the event in question is arguably notable, the inclusion in the History section of this article is certainly WP:UNDUE. Is this single event really an entire quarter of the significant history of the entire hotel chain? If it were in another section (e.g. 'Controversies') of an article with more content, this might be a different story. Arathald (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion at the LGBT WikiProject seemed to have good ideas. Maybe this belongs more in an article about regional LGBT rights than in this article. A single incident in a single hotel does seem like it might be undue in such a small article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This article has been used, on and off, for promotional purposes for years but that doesn't give detractors etc the right to kick back. Isaidnoway has it right. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Including the disputed item would give evidently undue focus to an isolated and rather irrelevant to Drury Hotels per se incident. The appropriate reminder here to Wikipedia editors is that the encylopaedia is not meant for promotion or propaganda of ideas, no matter how worthy they might be. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No@Isaidnoway: I'm responding an RFC. I too agree with Isaidnoway. At first skeptical, I skimmed through that editor's posts made over the last couple of years and I don't find a scintilla of evidence that past edits could be even remotely construed as someone who is prejudiced or an unapologetic defender of corporations. Quite the contrary seems true. The presentation of the Iowa incident as it stands is very one-sided. I probably have a very unique perspective on this. I happened to be present in the lobby five years ago at the Drury Broadmoor in Wichita, Kansas during a time when a small conference where the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector was speaking on behalf of a very ill-considered Governor Sam Brownback-initiated proposed social policy. I was astounded when a huge policeman, who looked like a double for Richard Moll, the giant bailiff character "Bull Shannon" from Night Court, began violently manhandling a tiny middle aged Native American woman who had asked him to be a bit gentler with another middle aged woman who had just exited the conference, whom he was arresting. She had been at a demonstration by Occupy Wall Street protesters which the hotel management did not seem to be interfering with in any way. The call for police assistance was initiated instead by a Brownback staffer. It was a clear case of gratuitous police brutality and she was arrested. So here was a similar case as the Iowa incident. Did the hotel precipitate it? Not a chance. But the Yes voters here might think it warranted inclusion. (The black police chief was soon forced to resign over mishandling of this and many other questionable police assaults, some fatal, suffered by minorities.) I lived far away from Wichita, so it was hard to find out how the case turned out, but the weight of the prosecution fell groundlessly upon the woman who was convicted of "resisting arrest" I think. I just found a narrative about the situation: http://www.kansasfreepress.com/2011/11/freedom-of-speech-is-relative-in-wichita.html Activist (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favor of inclusion if the article were longer. A lot longer. But it's not. Truncating the account of events just makes its inclusion more confusing. Elinruby (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. User:Isaidnoway provides evidence that the incident mentioned is also not suitable for mention in any article on LGBTI rights, except perhaps to lend weight to an argument that some advocates for such rights both muddy the waters and bring disrepute on their movement, by painting an arrest for a financial misdemeanor as stereotyping or racial profiling based on race or gender. yoyo (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not -- The article is about the hotel, not about right wing extremists accusing guests of prostitution, so as everyone else pointed out, that would be undue weight to an incident that probably happens from time to time given the named individual's religious and political bigotries but which is not relevant (as yet; that may change as more victims step forward.) Damotclese (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as written, the text seems to be an irrelevant fact. I think there would have to be more text to explain why the information is important to include in the article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Summoned by bot. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE and the content is in no way relevant or encyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per all above. I don't think there's anything substantial to add at this point. Snowball close. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drury_Hotels&oldid=1204785955"