Talk:Chick-fil-A
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Advert
This is just an advertisement. Why is this on Wikipedia? Why not an article for every chain restaurant?
- Well, for fairly large chains, there should be an article--the only reason there isn't is we haven't gotten to it yet. You're welcome to start an article on larger chains. They're significant. And I wouldn't call this an ad. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why is "fairly large" the proper criterion? Why privilege chains? There are no bright line thresholds dsintinguishing businesses of different sizes. If this chain gets an article why not have an article for the Cotton Block BBQ in Rome, Georgia? Heck, at least it serves food with some taste. Would make more sense to include articles on only businesses that were either so big that they had a lot of political and social clout or had introduced some important innovation. Neither is true of Chick-fil-a.
- Because chains are famous. You've probably heard of, oh say, Domino's Pizza rather than say... Uncle Jim's Pizza, haven't you? The point is, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia to include notable things, of which large fast food chains are one. Articles about non-chain restaurants are more deserving of going into the article for the city/town the restaurant is located in, unless they are extremely famous for some odd reason (for example, let's say a major event happened there, like the signing of a major treaty - ignoring the fact that this has probably ever happened). By the way, you seem to be rather active in Wikipedian affairs. Why not register? Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. See /Delete for discussion.
- Note that this vote is closed (so please don't vote, it won't do any good). The result was keep. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Doodles redirect
Why does "Doodles" redirect here? Just curious -- I'm starting a Doodles Weaver page. Mateo LeFou 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Doodles" was apparently the name of the previous mascot before the Eat Mor Chikin campaign. Since there's clearly some confusion, I've just changed the Doodles page to be a disambig page instead of an immediate redirect. -- Bovineone 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nickname
How about the nickname Jesus chicken? I sure hope it is not offensive. In either case, I think it is worth being mentioned, in "miscellanea" or "trivia" or whatever section. Cema 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of this and have worked for Chick-fil-A for 7 years...should not be in miscellaneous or trivia
Neither have I. where did you hear this, cema? --skiendog
[edit] Religious Connections and Controversy
Is the the right place to ask about the neutrality of the Religious Connections and Controversy section? It seems this section is loaded with pejorative terms and accusations. Every group is controversial to someone, so why label evey group listed here as controversial? To some people, the ACLU is more controversial than Campus Crusade for Christ. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to stick to the kind of labeling tearms you hear on the news? I've never heard any reporter use the term "dominionist" to describe a religous right organization.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.185.198 (talk • contribs) .
- Agreed, I've flagged that section as being POV to encourage further discussion. -- Bovineone 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think its less POV than lacking sources. Some of these statements need to be cited.--Bud 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A private individual gives his own money to perfectly legal charities. This is "controversial" only to those with an axe to grind. Thus, I have removed the word "Controversial" from the text. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it is controversial at all, and I'm atheist. Donating to charitable causes, religious or not, should always be accepted. --Frag 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Truett Cathy is very open about the Christian foundation's of his restaurant and this is not controversal at all. cite the sources and we should be fine. --skiendog
[edit] "Invented" the chicken sandwich?
Anyone have any info that proves or disproves this seemingly outrageous claim? 170.140.8.181 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a source, other than they say that they did ("We didn't invent the chicken, just the chicken sandwich") Dlong 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Whoa hoss ... it's just a marketing slogan! --Mycroft.Holmes 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assertion in article about dairy cows not used for beef
This article states: "The beef-boycotting bovines utilized since the first billboard in 1994 are actually dairy cows. The distended udders of the Chick-fil-A cows are evidence that, in reality, the cows would not be processed for beef."
This is clearly not true, as many dairy cows are actually slaughtered for beef. Up to 15% of a dairy farmer's income can be derived from cows marketed for slaughter: http://dairybeef.ucdavis.edu/home.htm
Made the necessary changes in the article. 68.238.197.250 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Joe Daniels, Nov. 13, 2006
