Talk:Chick-fil-A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Spicy Chicken Sandwich

I think we should add about the Spicy Chicken Sandwich which is coming to chickfila. I work at Chickfila and the new sandwich should be coming out soon in about a mounth or two. Because they are still doing testing on the sandwich. 69.251.123.83 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


[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 -- unsigned

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

"Controversy" simply means that there is public debate surrounding the topic. It is misleading to assume or indicate that controversy is a negative term. On another tack, it should be made clear that the company itself, not just a "private individual" associated with it, represents and supports faith-based interests. This is evident from their own press material. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose in a positive manner to misdirect or insinuate; Wikipedia is only useful if it is objective. ~~Amro

[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)

It is a marketing slogan, and incorrect. My 92 year old grandfather insists he ate chicken sandwiches before the second world war. I'm not entirely sure why no one has sued them over this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.140.138 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (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

[edit] Paper Videos Mascot

Chick-Fil-A (the cow) is the famous mascot for Paper Videos.--72.66.18.153 00:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "Paper Videos"? -- Bovineone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International

Does anyone know when Chick-Fil-A will expand to other countries? -GD1223

[edit] Chick fan base

Can someone please explain the strong following Chick-Fil-A has? People who like Chick-Fil-A don't just enjoy it, but are die hard fans.I've never understood its appeal. --24.249.108.133 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

It looks like just about everything on this page is credited to the Chick-fil-A website. There must be some better references for this information - some items like Las Vegas being the sounternmost city without a Chick-fil-A are just company publicity statements as is much of the rest of the article I'm afraid.Bob98133 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)