Talk:Jim's Steaks

Confused article?

Currently, our article says "Jim's Steaks main restaurant is located on South Street." The 'History' section satates "In 1976, Jim's Steaks expanded to its current main location at 400 South Street in Center City Philadelphia. This location has become a Philadelphia tourist attraction. Jim's expanded to Roosevelt Mall in Northeast Philadelphia in 1996." We are saying the shop on South Street is the main location.

However, the sources do not say this.

"Jim's Steaks South St."[1] does not give any connection to "Jim's Steaks": "In the summer of 1976, my father and a business partner opened Jim's Steaks South St., bringing a unique art-deco storefront and an even more distinctive cheesesteak to a neighborhood in the midst of a renaissance."

"Jim's Steaks"[2] does not give any connection to "Jim's Steaks South St." Their website is little more than a placeholder at the moment, but it lists three locations: West Philly, the Northeast and Springfield.

The names are obviously similar and there is some similarity to the logos as well. All of the sources, though, discuss "Jim's Steaks...South Street" or "Jim's Steaks South Street". All of the material in the article discusses "Jim's Steaks South Street". Our article uses the logo for "Jim's Steaks" and the website for "Jim's Steaks". As near as I can tell, these are two entirely separate businesses. Anyone able to clarify? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article needs some clarification. While the two websites use very similar names and logos, the relationship between the two businesses isn't clear. Neither site mentions the other: Jim's says founded in 1939 with three locations (none on South). Jim's on South says founded in 1976 and does not mention any other locations. Does anyone have a source to clear this up? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The dead history page was part of the problem. The archived link clears part of it up. I'm assuming the two websites not mentioning each other is the two owners simply covering their businesses and ignoring the other. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable?

Here's what we have: A guy bought a cheesesteak shop, opened a second shop with a partner. Eventually the partners died and their families now own four shops.

Replace "cheesesteak shop" with "hot dog cart". Is that notable? No, not unless there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This article is in the same situation: We need coverage in independent reliable sources.

For the moment, I've tagged it for notability. I'll see if I can find something to support this. Any assistance is, of course, welcome. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Restoring edits

Valoem seems to not like my edits (I gather this from the AN/I threat). As a result, I am taking this v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.

So far, I have restored two of my edits;

• This one adds a link to an archive for a source that is otherwise a dead link. I am fairly confident that no one will have a problem with this. If you disagree for some reason, please explain.
• This one is potentially earth-shattering. I am rewording "Jim's was founded in 1939 at its original location in West Philadelphia, where it still operates, along with three other locations in the Philadelphia area." to read "Jim's opened in 1939 in West Philadelphia. In 1976, they opened a location on South Street. Today, they operate three locations in Philadelphia and one in Springfield, PA." I am doing this because 1) the original wording was very close to the wording in the source ("...started in 1939 at it¹s original location of 431 North 62nd Street in West Philadelphia, where it still operates.") and to provide more information. Again, if you dislike this change for any reason, please explain.

My later edits expand the history more, clarifying the issue of the two websites that don't acknowledge each other, discussed above. That expansion and clarification will have to wait for now as I am detailing each and every jot and tittle changed in painstaking detail, with accompanying edit summaries, talk page discussion, pings to the involved editor and pauses for discussion before doing anything that might trigger a wholesale revert to Valoem's preferred version.

For my next edit, I plan to remove the description of what a cheesesteak is: "Jim's serves cheesesteaks with a choice of meat, Cheez Whiz, provolone, American cheese, fried onions, mushrooms, etc." Unless there is a particular reason to include this here, I feel it is equivalent to listing the specific sodas they have and explaining they are available with or without ice. If independent sources discussed it, I could certainly see an article on a cheesesteak place mentioning unusual: raw onions, cheddar, vegan "steaks", etc. Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your gonna have to stop now, your comments above are completely ridiculous, do you live in Philly? Your suggestion that this is some RUNOFTHEMILL cheesesteak joint shows either complete ignorance and refusal to research or bad faith, your pick. If you don't like this place AfD then, but please don't remove notable sources like you did multiple times in the past. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: Where I live is immaterial. Please avoid personal attacks, assume good faith and discuss the issues. I am neither ignorant, refusing to do anything nor acting in bad faith. I feel the article has some problems and I am attempting to resolve them.

Taking this one step at a time, this edit did not remove a source. It replaced a dead link with a link to an archive of the original page. I see that you have now replaced that dead link with a new link to their history page. Whatever, that is fine.

However, you have restored the text in that section, which I feel is problematic in several regards. First, the text is a violation of our policy on copyrights. The original source read:

"... started in 1939 at it¹s original location of 431 North 62nd Street in West Philadelphia, where it still operates..."

Your version:

"Jim's was founded in 1939 at its original location in West Philadelphia, where it still operates,..."

The text cannot remain as it currently stands.

My rewrite of the section filled in some of the details on ownership, including the mixed ownership (which explains the two websites that ignore each other). I am not saying that my text is perfect. I am saying it is more complete, clears up one source of confusion and avoids the copyright problem:

In 1939, William Proetto bought Jim's in West Philadelphia. In 1976, Proetto opened a location on South Street with co-owner Abner Silver.

Today, Proetto's three sons and Silver's family own three Jim's locations in Philadelphia and one in Springfield, PA, owned by Carl Proetto.

Please comment on the suggestion. Is this new text acceptable or do you have a suggestion to use in its place? If you do not provide any input, I will change the section shortly. The existing copyright violation cannot stay. If I change the section and you revert to the copyright violation, I will tag the section and take the issue to the noticeboard. Whatever you may feel about me, my editing, etc., this is a copyright violation and must be addressed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What copyright vio? It is not the same wording, but if you want to reword it go right ahead, just do not remove sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: As a very close paraphrasing, it is unquestionably a copyright violation. Our policy states, "text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing...".

I am making the change I suggested. Although this change does not remove any sources, I cannot promise to retain all sources under all circumstances. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Explaining what a cheesesteak is

Resolved

Valoem: For my next edit, I plan to remove the description of what a cheesesteak is: "Jim's serves cheesesteaks with a choice of meat, Cheez Whiz, provolone, American cheese, fried onions, mushrooms, etc." Unless there is a particular reason to include this here, I feel it is equivalent to listing the specific sodas they have and explaining they are available with or without ice. If independent sources discussed it, I could certainly see an article on a cheesesteak place mentioning unusual: raw onions, cheddar, vegan "steaks", etc. This is not the case here. Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done, reasonable enough. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Incidents"

Resolved

Valoem: This section involves two incidents that tangentially relate to Jim's.

The first[3] is weakly arguable: An employee at one of the locations was arrested for allegedly selling drugs at the shop. We do not have any follow up here, merely an arrest. Typically, we do not include arrests and I was not able to find anything on the outcome. More to the point, the source we do have has cops saying management was unaware. While this was allegedly going on at the shop, I'm hard pressed to think of the number of arrests that would be comparable at the average fast food chain. Pick on of the giants. Would such a case go in the article? I doubt it.

The second incident[4] is, IMO, completely off topic. Police arrested a guy for drugs while he was working at a Jim's location. There are no allegations of dealing at the shop, management involvement or anything else connecting it to the shop. If he is guilty (again, I can't find an outcome), the connection is as follows: Someone who worked at Jim's was also a criminal. Again, pick a fast food chain: How many people who worked for one of them were arrested at work?

Both of the "incidents" are allegations that are, IMO, weakly tied to the topic.

That said, I think we're missing a meaningful point here, which I'll get to next. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments on this before I remove them and move on to the next issue? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Last call for discussion... - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No comments, I'm making the change. The "meaningful point" I think we are missing will be discussed in the net section. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Missed poiint

Resolved

While busily adding allegations with no information on convictions regarding people working at one location, we seem to have missed a bigger point:

• "...owner William Proetto was nabbed with coke, weed, Valium, and Halcion back in 1990, and again for possession in 2007..."[5] This is a food blog, not a source I would use for such a claim, but it's where I first found it.
• "Although the late co-owner of Jim's was convicted of drug dealing in 1990, and again arrested for drug possession in 2007, police insist that the owners didn't know about this latest incident."[6] The source here, philly.com, is the Inquy/Daily News. The source is reliable, but I'd prefer coverage that spells things out. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The philly.com article article on Proetto's arrest and conviction doesn't really connect it to the chain: He was one of the owners and had a drug problem. This would be similar to delving into the life of one of the Waltons in Walmart. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No comments, I guess this one's done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim and Millie

Resolved

The current history section starts with Proetto buying Jim's in 1939. This is incorrect.

According to one of the Jim's websites[7], it started with "Jim an Millie" selling cheesesteaks from their house in the 1930s. In 1939, they converted the house into the first Jim's location. Proetto bought that location in "the early 1960's".

As this is -- hopefully -- a non-controversial correction of incorrect info, I am making the change without discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not in citation given

Resolved

"Jim's Steaks has been highly rated by both locals and tourists."[8]

While I do not see anything to indicate the, um, articles on "Roadtrip America" are in any way fact checked (i.e., they don't seem to be a reliable source), the journal entry (where "locals Don & Betty Graff" take the author on a perilous trip to South Street) does not say or imply that locals and tourists rate Jim's highly. Rather, our street savvy guides say, "You can get them anywhere, but let's go to South Street." We are told that "The locals are right. Genuine cheese steaks bear no resemblance to the imitations found elsewhere." Additionally, it seems that all cheesesteaks in Philly use rolls from "Amaroso bakery", not to be confused with Amoroso's Baking Company who I always believed had a sizable chunk of the cheesesteak roll market.

I had marked this as failing verification. I'm thinking that's a bit generous. I'm removing the source, leaving it as "cite needed" for a bit. If no one has any comments, no one (including me) finds a source for this broad claim, I'll remove it entirely in a couple of days. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This source is gone. We have two new sources for the claims, discussed under "Highly rated", below. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Celebrities

Resolved

"Jim's has been frequented by celebrities. Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall."

For this breezy claim, we are citing an article on an in-flight magazine, with a convenient copyright violation scan at Jim's website. The problems here are multiple.

• The link is dead. Easy enough, here's an archive:[9]
• The link is a scan of copyrighted material without a credible claim of licensing. To get past this, we need to locate a copy of an inflight magazine from 2011 so that we can cite the actual source. That's probably possible.
• It's an inflight magazine. Yeah, it's not the New York Times. I don't know what there editorial oversight is, but generally they aren't making earth-shattering claims. The present case is no exception.
• It smells like promotion. Much of the material in some "magazines" passed along freely to travelers is actually paid for by the subject. That guide to New Orleans in your hotel room with a handy map to "all of the hottest nightspots" is an obvious example. I don't know where US Airways magazine falls on the continuum from Penny Shopper to New York Times, but I think there's a more substantial problem.
• Discussing getting a cheesesteak in Philly, it says, "You must wait in a long line, along walls tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities, and have a surly staff serve you." To this point, the article has not mentioned Jim's. It is saying that cheesesteak places tend to have headshots of celebrities (they do), long lines (some do) and surly staff (some do).

I'm not sure why we would extract the positive (though meaningless) celebrity headshots and add in "frequented by celebrities" (not in the source at all) while skipping the long lines and surly staff, but I don't see how a blanket statement about cheesesteak places is a source for anything here. Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why I'm waiting on this. The source plainly does not say what it is cited as saying. The only things it does say about Jim's (at least this Jim's) is "But if you're just craving a great sandwich, join the line outside Jim's Steaks at South and Fourth streets. One bite of the juicy, overstuffed sandwich will explain the cheesesteak's enduring popularity -- and the qually famous "cheesesteak lean," that awkward forward pitch necessary to avoid wearing your sandwich." From that, I get "great sandwich", a line outside and a street corner. If anyone feel any of that is encyclopedic, feel free to try to work it in. I don't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This material "Jim's Steaks has been highly rated by both locals and tourists. Jim's has been frequented by celebrities." is unsourced. Per WP:V, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." I have removed it, again, and warned the editor involved.

The "Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall" section, as discussed above, is not in the source cited. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, I have been reverted without explanation. The source does not say what we are saying it says. I have marked it as failed verification. Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Now Valoem went through my talk page, found that I had had a dispute with Caden and decided they would be the perfect person to invite for a third opinion. In their opinion, apparently, the material is in the source. Please explain. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not my intention I was actually looking for supporters on your page to explain your vandalistic edits and abrasive attitude toward other editors for no apparent reason. I was not able to find anyone who support you, sorry I did my best. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You weren't able to find anyone who supporrts me? How about:

• The conversation you started immediately before this: "Valoem, these edits aren't vandalism, and accusing Summer of editing according to her Cheesesteak bias is one of the lamest personal attacks I have ever seen. She has been discussing individual sources on the relevant talk pages, and responses have been minimal. Take for example This discussion, she points out that the source does not state that this place is frequented by celebrities. Yet you are using this source to reference that claim. Headshots on wall ≠ Celebrity hangout."[10]
• As an alternative, when you dug through my talk page supposedly looking for someone who supported me, instead of choosing the person attacking me Caden, you might have selected the person who supported me and told Caden to drop the personal attacks.[11]

Not that tough.

At the reliable sources noticeboard, I asked:

1) whether this is a reliable source

2) whether (contrary to our policy) we should link to this copyright violation

3) whether the source supports the content.

I didn't get an answer on 1 or 2 because the obvious "NO" on #3 makes them irrelevant. Given that you, Valoem, and, seemingly, Caden seem to believe the material is in the source, I'd like to give you a chance to explain that before I delete the material again. If you cannot or will not explain, I will remove the copyright violation, source that does not support the material and unsourced claims shortly. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did ping Caden because I believed he went through the same issues, however please do ping anyone who supports you to this discussion I welcome it. We are not debating and AfD, I actually believe the evidence presented suggests you are knowing removing sources because of personal disagreement with the eatery (not me). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not how Wikipedia works. It is not a matter of who supports you and who supports me. This is about the material. Please discuss content, not editors. If you have a problem with me and my editing, it's time to take it to AN/I or drop it. Otherwise, please discuss the content. Based on your actions and Caden's actions, you apparently believe the source says something it does not say or otherwise supports the material. The discussion you started on the talk page for the Third Opinion list says otherwise, as does the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. You still haven't explained how you believe the copyright violation source supports this material. If you do not discuss the content, I will remove it. If you restore it, you're going to need to explain. Comments before I remove it again for good? - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss content when looking at your edits to the article and on this talk page. Your aggressive approach is also a problem. I agree with Valoem that you appear to be attempting to have this article deleted for whatever personal reasons you may have. Caden ^cool 12:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, so no comment on the source that doesn't support the content. (Incidentally, you had threatened me with AN/I for adding a maintenance template. I've restored it. Comments?) Last call to both of you, Valoem and Caden: How does this source support the content? If there are no comments specifically defending it, I will use the comments at [12] (discussing yourfailure to discuss the issues) and [13] (stating the source does not support the content) as backup to make the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And a reminder, concerns about me or my editing belong at AN/I. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

First off watch your tone. Secondly cut back on your aggressive approach. It's disruptive and not productive. If you can't act in a civilized manner, I suggest you go elsewhere. Now, I have no issues with you adding the template back, that is fine. I also have no issues with you removing the source. However I do have several issues regarding your edits. You opened a total of 11 threads on this talk page alone. The entire talk page is devoted to you making one complaint after another which I find fishy. Furthermore you have been editing the article in such a way that leads me to believe that you have an agenda. Your behavior also raises flags. I do not believe you are editing in good faith. Caden ^cool 19:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Discuss content, not editors. Complaints about me go to AN/I.

Caden has no complaints with the template, now that I've restored it and has no issues with me removing the source. To clarify, Caden, when I remove the source, I will remove the claims ascribed to it.

One last chance of Valoem to weigh in. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have a right to discuss your fishy edits and I warned you before to watch your tone. I will not put up with it, is this understood lady? Furthermore I do not appreciate your aggressive attitude. Cut it out. Now back to your editing. It is problematic because you appear to have an agenda. You clearly have some kind of issue with Jim's Steaks that you refuse to be honest about. I do not believe that you are here editing in good faith. Caden ^cool 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. Comment on content, not on the contributor.WP:TPYES If you have problems with me or my editing, take it AN/I, as you have threatened to do. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Caden now has no issue with removing the source. Valoem has, again, declined to comment. The outcome at the reliable sources noticeboard is clear: The copyright violation is not acceptable, the source is not reliable and the source doesn't support the material. I am removing the source and the material it doesn't support. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not a platform for you to carry out a hidden agenda, which is what you are doing Summer. Caden ^cool 03:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor.WP:TPYES - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You know what you can do with that link right? Caden ^cool 04:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor.WP:TPYES - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You know what you can do with that link right? Caden ^cool 04:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor.WP:TPYES - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You know what you can do with that link right? Caden ^cool 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You should seriously consider if this is worth another block. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with this current version, I wanted Caden's opinion because in the past you removed far more than this. I still feel that this version is a bad faith edit, but if you leave the article in this state I have no issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You canvassed Caden to add someone to "your side" of the dispute.

If I "removed far more than this" in the past, I don't see it. The major differences between the major edits I made on March 2, 2016 and now are:

• My corrections to and further expansion of the history section
• Your addition of the "highly rated by both locals and tourists" "critically acclaimed" claim which I am still waiting for your comment on. Please discuss the issue at "Highly rated", below
• Your addition of the Ride Along blurb, as edited (this was not in place before the dispute)
• The three pseudo-sources in the lead (that don't source any information) in the lede sentence that are the next issue to address (these were not in place before the dispute)

Long story short: Everything I removed then is gone now.

Is there more to say about this eatery restaurant that is verifiable? Probably. Feel free to add some. I'll look at it when I am done with the remaining issues with the current material. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ice Cube and Kevin Hart

Resolved

The current bit about these two once serving steaks there kinda misses the point. Basically, this was a one-off promotional bit as part of a movie opening. Comments before I rewrite this?

Someone else, at some point, might want to consider whether this is a WP:WEIGHT issue. The chain has been around for 50 years and this little event earned a tiny blurb in the press. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Did Ice Cube and Kevin Hart serve cheesesteaks at your next door restaurant? Oh! of course not because your local place is not notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What I am saying is that these guys stopping by for an hour or two to promote their film is currently its own section. We have a generic introduction, the 50 year history of the chain and this photo op being given equal weight. The section, meanwhile, says they've served people steaks there. Did they work there? Was this community service? Was it a favor for a friend? Normally, when a celebrity from out of town works a typically minimum wage-ish job for the afternoon, there is some context.

Do you agree we should probably provide some context and not have this particular afternoon seem like a huge part of the chain's history?

(If every celebrity photo op location is a notable location, we have a hell of a lot of articles to write. "Who had a photo op there" is not a criterion for notability. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is. A little bit of work could probably fill that in for this place quite nicely. Unfortunately, every time I fix a broken link I hit with blind reverts and empty threats of AN/I for not following some "rule" you've dreamed up about not removing sources unless you add sources. Frankly, I'm done with that. I will now make whatever bold changes I feel are necessary to whatever articles I feel need them. If they are reverted, I will attempt to discuss them. If there is no discussion, I will restore them. I have decided to call the radical idea the "bold - revert - discuss" cycle. We'll see how it goes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a suggestion, you sort of replied, I made the change and you haven't {yet} reverted it. Thanks for collaborating. If you could respond to the topic immediately above this, it would be much appreciated. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Highly rated"

Resolved

It seems we started with a statement and went looking for sources to back it up. That's backwards.

We say, "highly rated by both tourists and locals". The sources we are citing for this say "suggestions from around the web" and "The Philadelphia Business Journal readers".

I'm assuming the readers are being used as "locals". Why not just say, "In 2016, won a series of polls of the readers of The Philadelphia Business Journal for the best cheesesteak in Philadelphia"?

I do not see how "suggestions from around the web" is "tourists". It seems to me that the source says, "NJ.com searched the web and named Jim's Steaks one of 10 Philadelphia cheesesteak shops that are worth a visit". Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I am still waiting for comments on this one. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The section now states they have been "critically acclaimed". This is synthesis. The sources state they won a poll with The Philadelphia Business Journal and a search of the web turned them up as one of 10 in Philadelphia that are "worth a visit". I do not see "critics" at all here, let alone a source directly stating they have been "critically acclaimed".

In any case, I am not wild about the idea of picking and choosing top 10 lists to say, "OMG, this place is awesome above all others". There are certainly top 10 lists that exclude Dalessandro's and reviews that point would-be diners across the street. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a shot at rewriting the section so that it at least reflects what the source(s) say, with one source being dependent on the other. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Going forward

All of my original changes have been made (and a few more). It would seem that discussing the issues might have been an easier option.

As this article is frequently mass reverted to a preferred version without explanation of any kind, I'll wait a bit before moving on. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jim's West

At some point a section on the controversy about Jim's West should probably be added to the article. https://www.phillymag.com/foobooz/2023/08/30/jims-steaks-west-philadelphia-cheesesteaks/ Centerone (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)