Jump to content

Talk:Chick-fil-A/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Winshape donations to anti-gay, Christian, or anti-gay Christian groups

Arzel reverted an edit that I made to the Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance section as "hugely confusing and misleading. There is quite a bit of replication there as well." [The edit is in the box below.]

So we can collaboratively improve this section, allow me to ask the following:

  • In what way is it hugely confusing? Is it because of the amounts? (It is possible for both statements to be true, although I agree the replication should be edited out.)
  • What is misleading about the three sentences that I added; content which was sourced from the Forbes article (and corroborated by other sources)?
  • What wording changes do you propose so that this added, relevant information can be included in the article, so as not to confuse readers into thinking that Chick-fil-A is some magnanimous company who merely tithes to wholesome Christian organizations?
hugely confusing and misleading?

this was added...

Chick-fil-A has made about $5 million of donations via WinShape to groups that oppose same sex-marriage. $1.9 million of this was donated in 2010 to groups including the Family Research Council and Marriage & Family Foundation. Winshape has also contributed to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Exodus International, the latter noted for supporting "ex-gay" conversion therapy.

...to this, already in the article.

Details also came to light of $3.8 million in donations primarily to Christian organizarions [sic] including $1,000 to the Family Research Council,[34] listed as an anti-gay[37] “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Thanks. — MrX 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The notable part of this is that some of their donations are to a group of Christian organizations which oppose same-sex marriage. Otherwise this section is confusing -- it's not like people are concerned because they donated to Heifer International or something. a13ean (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would partially agree with the summary. I dont think its confusing however. I disagree that is what the sources said.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason I added the three sentences was to provide context, which I think was lacking in the original sentence. What specifically in the three sentences that I added do you believe is not in the source(s)? Do you see an error in the first sentence that I added?
I think Mr X's edit to include the Forbes article makes this abundantly clear:

"WinShape is the vehicle through which Chick-fil-A, and by extension the Cathys, have made about $5 million of donations to anti-gay marriage groups since 2003, with $1.9 million of that donated in 2010 to outfits including the Family Research Council and Marriage & Family Foundation. They’ve written checks to Exodus International, famous for “ex-gay” conversion therapy, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whose website includes a testimonial from a coach “delivered” from homosexuality."

a13ean (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
@ a13ean, I guess I'm not confused since I've read most of the sources, and I'm fairly familiar with the matter. Can you elucidate what you find confusing or, alternatively, suggest how the information can be better conveyed by rewording it? — MrX 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry my comment was not clear -- the only thing I'm confused about is why people want to identify these groups only as Christian rather than as Christian groups which oppose same-sec marriage, which is clearly what the sources call them. a13ean (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The source in the diff I made called them Christian organizations including FRC. The text clearly impled that ALL of the organizations were all anti LGBT. I might be confused though. I hope we are all talking about the same diff.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification a13ean. It sounds like you support the wording I added earlier today, prior to Arzel's reversion.
@little green rosetta] The Forbes source says "WinShape is the vehicle through which Chick-fil-A, and by extension the Cathys, have made about $5 million of donations to anti-gay marriage groups [emphasis added] since 2003, with $1.9 million of that donated in 2010 to outfits including the Family Research Council and Marriage & Family Foundation. They’ve written checks to Exodus International, famous for “ex-gay” conversion therapy, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whose website includes a testimonial from a coach “delivered” from homosexuality."
This is a direct quote. Some, or all of these, may also be Christian organizations, I just don't know which.
I apologize if I'm obtuse and possibly missing your point though. — MrX 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the fault is mine. I was confusing diffs. Arzel has some issues with it, I think in terms of presentation. I'm ok with the content.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is confusing because it implies that all of the money they have donated is to "anti-gay marriage groups" and then specifies a date for some with groups that have been specifically identified as "anti-gay" So what is it, all or some? It appears to be OR and SYNTH to claim that all $5 million is to anti-gay marriage groups, and it is misleading to imply that their donations (even if so) went to these groups because of their stance on gay marriage. additionally, it gives the impression that the very small amount to the FRC is a significant proportion of the 1.9 million. As it is right now, it is still misleading. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the discussion Arzel. This content has been rewritten to reflect almost verbatim what several news organization have reported. If there is a OR/SYNTH issue, the quarrel is with the news organizations. Also, the FRC is small part of the picture. There is significantly more detail that breaks down other anti-gay organizations that have received funding from Winshape, but that level of detail is probably WP:UNDUE in this article and is covered in the Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy article.
If you have any specific edit recommendations that would improve this section, I'm sure other editors would be interested in seeing them. — MrX 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I read the Forbes article and it looks like a feedback loop from the Winshape article just prior to August 3, 2012 which links back to a Huffpo article from 2011. I don't have time to look at it further right now, but it still doesn't look logical. Arzel (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe add this detailed material to the sub article where it might make more sense.

--Mollskman (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This content was removed for, what I believe are, specious reasons. Mollskman, you did not provide a reason, so perhaps you could share your insights here, especially in the context of the discussion that occurred more a week ago (above).
Before Mollsman's two revisions, Truthsort removed it because of "majo synth violation; none of those sources say the donation was controversial." Actually, the title of the CNN/wtrv article is "Shooting sparks controversy over ‘hate’ designation for conservative group", so I guess we can dismiss that as a valid reason for deleting sourced content.
The other part of Truthsort's deletion was explained as "majo[r] synth violation". This will require more explanation. In what way has this information been synthesized and how is it not consistent with the multiple sources that are cited? Please see the discussion that took place more than a week ago (above), especially the Forbes article. – MrX 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
ah, did you see my post above? --Mollskman (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean the one you made today? Your reason for deleting the content is that it is too detailed? 18 very important words were removed, as well as 4 sources. More importantly, you have essentially disinfected the article by removing the "hate group" reference, which is very well-sourced and has been discussed at length on this talk page. – MrX 14:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the synth issue in question? I'm not seeing a reason for the removal as well.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe that material could be better worded. Maybe lose the word controversial. What do others think? It just seems like there isn't consensus. I will not revert again. --Mollskman (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have a proposal for how it should be reworded? As I mentioned previously, the word 'controversy' was used by at least one major source, so if you object to that word, perhaps you could articulate you objection the word "controversial". Here is the original text, with the parts you removed highlighted in red:

"Particularly controversial was the $1,000 donation to the Family Research Council, listed as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. – MrX 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Truthsort has made a good catch here, and MrX has done a fine job of proving his point, by citing a source that talks about the FRC shooting and using that to synthesize a completely different point about the $1000 donation. I don't see where the hate group designation is salient to this article, other than reinforcing the leftist hagiography of SPLC, which is not a legitimate goal for this article. Edit summaries following Truthsort's first edit merely reinforce that some editors aren't here to write about CfA; they're here to push their POV concerning the sainthood of SPLC. Belchfire-TALK 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your insights BelchFire. The source I referred to was merely to point out that the words 'controversy' or 'controversial' are valid descriptors. After all, the name of this section is Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance.
The sentence in questions is backed up by 12 sources, so no synthesis is necessary at all. In my opinion, the original sentence provides required context for the controversy. By removing words like 'controversy', 'anti-gay' and 'hate group' the reader is left with an impression that the controversy was caused by those uppity, chickin' hatin' gays. – MrX 17:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This WP:STICK about the SPLC is getting old fast, especially when it occurs all over WP despite having been dealt clearly with in several places. a13ean (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That conclusion wouldn't be too far from the truth, MrX, and if this article is properly balanced, that's where many readers will wind up. It's the balance part that's tricky. All of those POV-pushing descriptors you like so well shouldn't really be necessary, unless an editor is trying to steer the reader to a particular destination. Belchfire-TALK 22:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that looks like a personal attack to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything looks like a personal attack to you. Belchfire-TALK 22:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's simply false, although many of the things you say are clearly uncivil and sometimes personal attacks. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis Claims

Despite the strong consensus we've built to include mention of the SPLC anti-gay hate group designation of the FRC, there is an edit war to remove it. Belchfire and the others are encouraged to explain their objection here rather than edit-warring over it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are editors having a tug o war over claims of OR/synthesis, please describe your objections in detail.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to hear any convincing explanation of how it's synthesis. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Was that comment really necessary? I asked for explanations and your comment adds nothing. In fact, many of your comments are argumentative and whose only obvious value is to antagonize. Please stop it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I concur, and it's just the latest incident in a lengthy pattern of claiming there has been no explanation, when it fact it's simply a matter of not accepting the explanation that's been tendered. Belchfire-TALK 23:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't know of any explanation, as I haven't been following this latest edit tiff, which is why I renamed this section and ask for some focused discussion.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, there are two concerns about this specific sentence:
"Particularly controversial was the $1,000 donation to the Family Research Council,[35] listed as an anti-gay[36] “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center."
The concerns being:
  1. That the first few words and the last part of that sentence are somehow synthesized from the 12 sources, the implication being that they do not accurate reflect what the sources collectively reported.
  2. The inclusion of the words 'controversial', 'hate group' and 'anti-gay' make the sentence POV, whereas omitting them makes the sentence neutral (or balanced).
The first point needs to be demonstrated. In other words, what conclusions have been made that are not borne out by reasonable review of the collective sources?
The second point is debatable, and can only be decided by consensus, compromise, or both.
– MrX 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There's no synthesis here. The fact that it's a hate group is mentioned by the same sources that talk about CfA donating the money. Read the sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources used to make that controversial claim for FRC makes the additional statement that FRC is a hate group. By defitinion, this is WP:SYNTHESIS as it makes a claim not specificall stated in the source, and it combines multiple sources together to complete the sentence. Classic synthesis of material to push a point of view. Arzel (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case.[1] Revert yourself and add this citation if it's not already there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a feedback loop. You can't use information from now to say that in the past something was controversial and use the current event as a basis of the fact in the past. Any source which makes the claim after this became an issue here at WP simply cannot be used as a RS for this claim since the new sourcing is being influenced by the current events and not related to the original reason why it was considered controversial. I am not sure where the policy discussion on feedback loops went, I will see if I can find it again. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Arzel - that is a specious objection. There is no WP policy involved in feedback loops - as you must know having linked to just another Wikipedia article - and the sentence as it stands does not violate WP:SYN. Please stop flogging that dead horse. Alfietucker (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking at that sentence again, it struck me that not stating when then FRC was added to the "hate" list could be a problem as an unwary reader might think it was already listed when CfA made the donation. As I've argued earlier, the date of the listing on one level is neither here nor there as SPLC makes clear it is for activity by FRC (i.e. propagating malicious lies against the LGBT community) dating back at least to 1999. Still, I've made the amendment for the sake of factual accuracy re. when the listing was made. Alfietucker (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Alfie, when was the $1k contribution made? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well it's listed on a 990-PF form for the year 2010, which may still suggest the donation was before the listing since it wasn't published by SPLC until the Winter 2010 edition of Intelligence Report. I admit, I was under the impression the donation was slightly earlier from the sentence in the article which included the phrase "between 2003 and 2009". Perhaps some other editor needs to check that this isn't misleading (I'm not familiar with how US accounting works). Alfietucker (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, a $1,000 contribution to FRC was also made in 2009 per WinShape's 2009 Form 990. Because of the process of completing a 990 and having it posted online by an organization like GuideStar takes a number of months, it was probably that contribution that was noted in the Winter 2010 SPLC publication. 72Dino (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the RS mentioned call the FRC a hate group. They attribute the claim to the SPLC, a noticeable distinction nonetheless.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove it again as Synthesis of material. The wording implies that it was controversial at the time because of the listing by the SLPC as a Hate Group. None of the sources used even make the notation that the SLPC called FRC a hate group. Still argues that some sources have now made the link, but that is a clear feedback loop. Arzel (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Citations 38 and 38 specifically make this connection in the title of their articles.
From CNN: Shooting sparks controversy over ‘hate’ designation for conservative group
From the Washington Post: Family Research Council labeled a ‘hate group’ - Organization denies charge.
As a reminder, the sentence in question is "Particularly controversial was the $1,000 donation to the Family Research Council, listed as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center."
To directly address your concerns, I propose this rewording: "WinShape made a donation of $1,000 to the Family Research Council. The Family Research Council has been listed as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010."
– MrX 16:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not too far from the sentence which was there before Azel's edit. I guess the problem is the phrase "particularly controversial". So, following the sentence "Of this, more than $3 million was donated primarily to Christian organizations with anti-gay agendas, between 2003 and 2009." currently in the article, I would suggest the slightly more succinct wording: "This included a donation of $1,000 to the Family Research Council, listed since 2010 as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center." Alfietucker (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that that would work very well, and should address the concerns. – MrX 17:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Another (IP) editor had already jumped in and reverted Azel's edit, so I have gone ahead and amended the wording. Alfietucker (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Alfie and Mr. X.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the point of adding the SPLC's designation into this article when the reader can simply click the blue link and find out about it. This just seems like a POV attack. Truthsort (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll explain it to you. On Paul Ryan, there was a huge war about calling the National Review conservative. It's unquestionably so; that's how it describes itself. And it's relevant, as it shows how he got his career started writing for partisan news sources. Finally, it's a single word that conveys all of this background without expecting the reader to stop reading the current article just to click on a link and read at least the lead of the National Review.

So what was it fought over? Because conservative editors thought that a brief, factual mention of the periodical's conservatism was an attack. Frankly, this was an overreaction typical of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, but there you have it.

What's happening here is parallel. Good writing demands that we briefly explain who this SPLC is anyhow and why we should care. Partisan fears overreact to the possibility that the explanation is too positive or too negative or whatever. It's silly. We should just write a good article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you are comparing a self-described conservative magazine with an organization that never gave itself the "hate group" label? Terrible comparison. Truthsort (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It is a simple fact that the SPLC has designated the FRC an anti-gay hate group. It is a simple fact that the National Review is conservative. These are uncontested facts, and when they are relevant to an article that mentions these organizations, it is good writing to mention them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently there are still a number of people that do not understand synthesis of material. The wording as such implies that the donation was controversial because of the listing by the SLPC. However, none of the sources used to make the claim that the donation was controversial mention the listing. This is a clear cut case of using multiple sources to imply something that was not explicitly made by the sources. In fact, the listing was never mentioned in this context until after the shooting at the FRC resulting in a feedback loop. You cannot go back and say now that it was controversial because of that since it was not at the time. Additionally, this completely ignores that the $1000 donation is insiginificant compared to the total donations made. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Or there are a number of people who reject the synth/OR argument as invalid. Please scroll up, this has been discussed in elaborate detail. The size of the donation is not relevant. – MrX 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, if I am reading your comment correctly (sorry if I'm not), you mention that the contribution was controversial only after the shooting took place. The listing by the SPLC and the contribution by the WinShape Foundation was controversial before the shooting, which is why the gunman brought 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him. It remains unknown if WinShape contributed to the FRC knowing this designation, especially when a contribution was made in 2009 before it was listed. 72Dino (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think the work here is partially to blame for the shooting. IMO, editors trying to use WP for activism purposes are partially to blame for the shooting. My primary argument though, is that the initial controversy reported did not mention the hate group listing. Only after the shooting, was the fact that FRC was labeled a hate group become part of the controversy. The linking of the sources in the current manner is synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding-247, it is also a fact that Dana Milbank criticized the SPLC's designation of FRC as a hate group. Why not mention that as well? Truthsort (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's why:

In a spirited interview, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank defended his stance that the antigay Family Research Council should not be listed as a “hate group” by the venerated civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they wear suits and “don’t wear white sheets,” and some of their founders and officials are “respected” individuals.

His reasoning is ridiculous. We would be obligated to explain his reasoning the the refutations, and that would take up much more space than this silliness deserves. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempt 2

I'm creating a new section because of all of the asides above. I'm talking directly to you Still. Do not fill up this section with "what else you got" or other rhetorical comments. Please stay on focus.

Let's look at the following sentences

Chick-fil-A has made about $5 million of donations via WinShape to groups that oppose same sex-marriage. Of this, more than $3 million was donated primarily to Christian organizations with anti-gay[34] agendas, between 2003 and 2009.[35]

and

This included a donation of $1,000 to the Family Research Council,[35] listed since 2010 as an anti-gay[36] “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[37][38][39]

Some editors seem to want the article to say to the reader “CfA gave money to a known hate group”. The 2nd sentence as currently crafted seems designed to give this reader that impression using Wikipedia’s voice. Yes the dates are listed and the reader could discern that CfA did NOT give money to a group that was at the time labeled a hate group (I’m assuming all of these sources are correct btw). Was CfA reasonably expected to know that the SPLC label was likely to happen in the future? Of course not.¶ One suggestion would be to split this 2nd sentence up into two and make clear that the designation occurred after the donation. That should fix the voice issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I initially supported splitting the sentence, but acquiesced to a suggestion that a more concise version was better. Do you have any sources that definitively state that the hate group designation came after the first donation from WinShape to the FRC? – MrX 14:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The 2009 donation per WinShape's Form 990 shows at least one contribution before the designation. 72Dino (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why this is an issue. We give the dates of the donations and the dates of the hate group designation, so there is no risk of the reader becoming confused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's an issue because the current phrasing is awkward and can easily lead the reader to a false impression. If it requires multiple reads to correctly understand the timing, then the paragraph needs improvement.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The biggest other problem is that the writing is trying to imply that the gift was controversial because of the listing, not to mention that their is a group of editors that want to WP:LABEL these groups as being hate groups everywhere in WP. It is extrememly frustrating to see editors use WP for activism. None of this takes away that this is synthesis of material. Implying that Chick-fill-A knowingly donated money to a group which had been labeled by the SLPC. This designation was not widely made known until after the FRC shooting. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's plainly false (eg. [2] [3]), and it reflects ill on you that you keep repeating it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I said "Widely" as is evident from the initial attack on Chick-fil-A here. Why do you wish to violate WP:LABEL? Arzel (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:LABEL does not apply here: From the MoS guideline, "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." The label is properly attributed to the SPLC and is widely used by reliable sources. – MrX 17:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That label is not widely used when referencing the FRC. Check google right now, and you will see the top stories make no mention of it. It is up to you to prove that the use of the label is widely used within the context of reliable sources reporting on them. Arzel (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Little green rosetta, perhaps if you propose some specific wording, we can continue this moving in a productive direction. – MrX 15:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(multiple ECs)I think it would be impossible to know if WinShape knew about the designation even after the Winter 2010 publication by SPLC unless a WinShape executive made a statement to that effect. Not everyone looks up organizations on the SPLC (or have even heard of the SPLC). So editors hopefully are not saying directly that WinShape knowingly donated money to an organization labeled by the SPLC as a hate group, and the wording should be neutral enough to not imply that. 72Dino (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should imply that. I at least am saying that 1) the fact of its being designated a hate group should be included, because this is what reliable sources say, 2) that the inclusion of the dates is sufficient to avoid implications, and 3) that adding additional explanatory language risks WP:OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the current writing is unclear or implies that Chick-fil-a knew that the FRC was classified as a hate group. In fact, it's remarkably similar in structure to the ABC news article (except that it was apparently $2000 in donations). I would not object to trying to make it more clear, by perhaps adding "...it is unknown whether or not Chick-Fil-a knew of the FRC's designation when these donations were made." Or something along those lines. – MrX 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
We definitely could not add "it is unknown whether..." as that's complete original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that was not a good idea. – MrX 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the $2000 probably comes from $1000 in 2009 and $1000 in 2010. 72Dino (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this edit [4] by Roscelese because A) it is clear the designation came afterwards, and B) it does not suggest that when Winshape/CfA knew about the hate group designation as Roscelese implied in their edit summary.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't say anything about the hate group designation coming after the donations, and we shouldn't be doing so either. It's not our job to exonerate CfA. We could also say that the actions for which FRC was designated a hate group occurred in the period during which CfA made the donations, but it's not our job to condemn CfA either. We just pass on material from reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So are you claiming that saying 2010 is "after" 2009 is OR? It's certainly not our job to vilify CfA either.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm "claiming" that since it's obvious that 2010 comes after 2009, harping on "after" or "later" is a (more or less stated) attempt to make a point not made by the sources. For that matter, the sources use "is listed," not "was listed in 2010"/"donations in 2009," so even the inclusion of dates could be sketchy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
If it's obvious, there is no harm in stating the obvious. The current version is much clearer than your diff. Are you seriously quibbling over "is listed" vs "was listed"? I fail to see the reason.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I have added some content from the O'Connor/Forbes article that helps bridge the gap between the 2003-2009 period and the 2010 SPLC designation. This should help clarify that CfA made a donation to the FRC in 2010, the same year that the FRC was designated a hate group. However, I don't know if it addresses all of the issues being discussed directly above. – MrX 00:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The narrative seems to be, "Hey, you can't blame CfA because (according to my original research and undue synthesis), they couldn't have known that the FRC was a hate group at the time of donation because it wasn't yet designated". I dispute this narrative, not only on factual grounds but neutrality and relevance.

The actions that got the FRC designated as a hate group were ongoing; they'd always been virulently anti-gay. In the year they got listed -- the same year of the donation -- the FRC crossed the line into hate group status, but it's not as if it was out of character behavior. So CfA knew exactly what they were supporting, hate group or not.

Even if we take it for granted that the donation came before the designation, nothing stops CfA from saying, "Hey, we didn't know it was a hate group all along, so we're very sorry that we donated to it". But there's no evidence of the CfA repudiating the FRC in any way. If anything, their president's statements show that he shares the FRC's anti-gay stance.

In short, there's no room in this article for that sort of narrative. It's false, it's original research and it's whitewashing. Cathy is proud of being anti-gay. Let's not do him any favors by hiding this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment the specific hate group designation date does not mean they didn't act as a hate group, or for the reasons they were designated a hate group, before that date. So it is dishonest to suggest that only monies given to them after, or before, were made in that light. The point remains that many of these groups operate as anti-gay hate groups and the reader can decide what weight to ascribe to the donations and designation. Personally i do question any group that strives to be Christian, which has a foundation of love, being designated a hate group. This is surprising and with the SPLC designation at least, notable criticism. That a Christian operating corporation would be supporting hate groups is quite surprising and seemingly a contradiction. I would be equally surprised as a human rights espousing corporation supporting slave trading organizations. Insomesia (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No hate speech, please.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Purely by way of explanation, they're not Christians, they're the Christian right. They're right-wing first, Christian third. I forget what's second. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
While little Johnny might have been dating the local slut, it remains to be seen if she was wearing a scarlet letter. I agree we should let the reader decide for themselves about the timing of the monies. But we should be clear about the timing (of which apparently the sources were misquoted earlier, what a shocker). I'm not saying Cathy et didn't know or should have known (or even cared) about the SPLC rating, and then continued to donate. Unless a source mentions specifically we shouldn't be leading the reader to water.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Marriage and Family Foundation

I hyperlinked it but it turned out to be a red link. A quick Google turned up http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/media-malpractice-press-and-pundits-get-chick-fil-a-vs-gay-story-wrong/news/2012/08/01/45027, which states that the chairman of the board is Don Cathy. In other words, it's a separate organization, but not independent of Chick-fil-A. That's likely why it doesn't have its own article. What should we do about this? The easy answer is to cut the link, and I support that. But it might be helpful to mention who runs this org. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cathy is chairman, but is the only Cathy on the board so he does not run it (the chair is just one vote). Also, the Marriage and Family Foundation is a public charity, so it gets more of its revenue from individual donors, unlike WinShape which is a private foundation mainly run by the Cathy family. It doesn't really answer your question about what we should do about it, but it is some additional information that may be helpful in making a decision. 72Dino (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Note the relative dollar amounts.[5] Looks like the MFF has a very close relationship to CfA, both in terms of leadership and money. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
POV again? The MFF is absolutely legally separate from CFA, does not share funds with CFA, etc. There is no source that will provide reliable sourcing for what you state as "fact" hence it does not get placed in the article. Wikipedia requires "reliable sources" not what you "know". BTW, the "non-plussed" page is gone permanently. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Good research, again. CfA donates heavily to MFF and they share leadership. IANAL so I won't comment on legal separation, but the fact remains that they have a very close relationship. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There's very little media coverage of the MFF. I only found 17 articles on Newsbank, three on Google News and one on Highbeam that even mention the organization at all. Most of the articles say the same thing: that CfA gave money to organizations, including MFF.
I also found this:
"According to its 2010 tax report, Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation has contributed $1.2 million to the Marriage and Family Foundation , which cited among its legislative victories prohibiting taxpayer funding of elective abortions, a constitutional amendment defining marriage, requiring posting of the national motto "In God We Trust" in public schools and a partial-birth abortion ban." (Press of Atlantic City, The (NJ) - Friday, August 3, 2012 Author: HOA NGUYEN Staff Writer)
Also this from 2008:
"Notice is given that articles of amendment which will change the name of Marriage & Family Legacy Fund, Inc. to Marriage and Family Foundation , Inc. will be delivered to the Secretary of State for filing in accordance with the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code. The registered office of the corporation is located at 5550 Triangle Parkway, Suite 160, Norcross, Gwinnett County, Georgia 30092." (The address is also the location of North East Metro Marriage And Family Network (C/O Ne Metro Marriage And Family)).
I don't believe that the MFF deserves more mention in this article than there already is, based on the current media coverage. – MrX 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The thing that makes the MFF interesting is that it's effectively an arm of the CfA. In other words, it's not as much notable for its own actions as for its relationship. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you consider MFF to be an arm of the CfA when they are legally separate, there is only one board member in common (that I can see), they only receive part of their donations from CfA and receive enough donations from individuals to be classified by the IRS as a public charity. Also, has a neutral reliable source identified MFF to be an arm of CfA? 72Dino (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The "only one board member" is the Chairman of the Board and is a member of the Cathy family. CfA gives $1.2M to the organization, which is huge for both of them. Sorry, but your doubt does is not merited by the evidence. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess my experience with non-profit boards is different than yours, but I don't think your doubt is supported by the evidence. And our opinions don't really matter because no neutral reliable source has indicated that MFF is effectively an arm of CfA. 72Dino (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Policy change

Appears we have a new source called "The Civil Rights Agenda" which from what I've seen so far indicates that they are a lobbying group, which isn't very reliable IMO. Since this is breaking news maybe more sources will come out, but I've not the time to track them down and thought some of the CfA groupies might want to run with this.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

TCRA is not a source, they are an organization that was involved in the negotiation with CFA. It must have been in the HuffPo cite, which I apparently forgot to add the URL to.Facepalm Facepalm.
You can easily find many sources on Google News if you care to set the record straight, but honestly, the situation is changing so rapidly, it might be better to let things settle down a little. It seems as if CFA may be waffling on their position and I don't believe they have issued a full, official statement yet, which I guess is why someone added that to the article. Apparently CFA is getting some backlash on their Facebook page. I will fix the reference HuffPo ref. – MrX 04:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
On a philisophical ground, I object to Evidence of absence unless an RS states this. But I suspect you are correct about the fluidity of the situation. I also hope we learn more about TCRA. I wonder who the parent org is?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Widely known" and other straying from the sources

One might say CfA is widely known for their donations to anti gay groups, or it might be for their chicken. What do the sources say?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Chik-fil-a

Extended content

We in Western Massachusetts are so excited about having a new Chik-fil-a restaurant in Chicopee that we just can't wait. Thank you so very much for thinking of us and rest assured that it will do extremely well. We hope that Mayor Bissonette will do everything he can to ensure a rapid ground breaking and early opening. Again thanks a million!

G. A. Nolet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.246.65 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So what were the numbers from the same-sex kiss-in?

I know they were pretty dismal, but did anyone ever report how dismal? 67.233.245.14 (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

CFA glorifying?

I'm not sure why the lead modification I modified of a reverted change is a glorification of CFA. It only expanded on the value system of Cathy without assigning a judgment on same sex marriage, whic is what Ros rightly objected too. Was it the reference? Cathy belives deeply in honoring the Christian Sabbath as well as the fundamentalist definiton of marriage. Those beliefs and CfA are part and parcel.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for other ways of wording the marriage part would be good. "Christian marriage" doesn't work - many LGBT couples are Christian and many churches marry such couples. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing noteworthy about "respecting Christian marriage". What is noteworthy is that CFA's owners vocally and financially oppose same-sex marriage, Christian or otherwise. The wording that you added implies that supporting Christian marriage = opposing same-sex marriage, which is not factual and only would serve to mislead readers. - MrX 11:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I think by seperating the two beliefs this makes the lead read better towards the "closed on sunday" explanation and leaves the SSM issue alone.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
That addresses my problem, thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Chick Fil A Employees or Operators

Are there any other Chick Fil A employees or Operators who can contribute to the company's stance on gay marriage? I am a manager at a unit and during the "revolt" day, we had record breaking numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmizell (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend that you read WP:COI and WP:RS before you edit again, as I was forced to remove your changes. MilesMoney (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, thanks Bjmizell (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations/proof have been made for my editsBjmizell (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the content of your edit was puffery; business promotion. There's no concrete meaning to "still extremely popular", and phrases like "the same honor, dignity, and respect Truett Cathy emphasizes so highly" belong in sales brochures, not an encyclopedia. If you changed them to be more acceptably phrased, you would still need to cite reliable sources. Furthermore, you have a clear conflict of interest. I don't see any way for something like your suggested change to ever make it into this article. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede wording

A couple of editors have objected to this wording in the lede: "The corporation's culture is heavily influenced by its founder's Southern Baptist beliefs; notably his opposition to same-sex marriage and the high value he places on observing the Christian Sabbath." This wording is the result of much collaboration and debate last year resulting in the current consensus wording. There was extensive media coverage last year resulting from Dan Cathy's public statements about same sex marriage. As far as I know, nothing has changed that would warrant whitewashing this content from the lede. Please see talk archives 3 and 4 for background. - MrX 19:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wanted to respond to Travon1's edit summary "Do you understand what a "company culture" is? The SSM position generated huge publicity but does not inform the day-to-day work of the company's employees.". I do understand what a company culture is. It is driven from the executives and owners of companies, and influences operations, advertising, PR, mission statements, pay, hours of operation, employee training, benefits, product offerings, etc. To assert that the "huge publicity" does not inform the day-to-day work of the company's employees is irrelevant, since that's not what the lede says, but more importantly it's conjecture, and not at all a factor in how we should construct the lede for this article. - MrX 20:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, you haven't actually made an argument for how SSM opposition has a significant influence on the company's culture - particularly to the extent that it deserves mention in the lead. The only conjecture is in fact yours, since this is a positive claim for which the burden of proof falls upon you. Simply from a common-sense standpoint, it stretches credulity to claim that SSM opposition somehow influences how the employees of a chicken restaurant company act on a daily basis. While it's true that Christianity does play a big role in the company's culture, this specific issue does not (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html - no mention of SSM). By implying that SSM position is held as a dear value by everyone in the company, your wording is also an egregious and very likely inaccurate generalization. It appears to be nothing more than a ploy to give the SSM issue more attention than it already has in the article (which is a substantial amount). Trayvon1 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
If I recall, the current wording was a compromise to condense the corporate culture and SSM marriage sections so that the lede didn't become bloated. I would support decoupling them, but that means we need a couple of sentences that summarize the SSM controversy from which much of CFA's notability is derived. Any thoughts on how we might word that? - MrX 00:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
You may want to read WP:LEDE, especially
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview.... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."
If anything, the lede in this article should be expanded to include more about the SSM controversy. Also, I'm not sure what you mean "very POV" (very Point of View?). The content in question reflect the founder's point of view, but if you mean non-neutral, they I would ask you to explain how a factual statement that is reliably sourced lacks neutrality. Perhaps you can propose an alternative phrasing. - MrX 00:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. The current wording is the result of consensus and compromise. As for company culture being influenced by Cathy's beliefs regarding same-sex marriage, see for instance Gay Chick-Fil-A Employees Reveal What It Has Been Like To Work There Lately. Gobōnobō + c 00:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a fast food company, how relevant can it be the COO's beliefs to include them in the first section? It would be more relevant to describe more about the products than " specializing in chicken sandwiches". --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's one of the most notable, well-publicized aspects of the company. I recommend looking through the talk page archives for more background information. - MrX 18:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Filet pronunciation

[6] is illuminative. The French word "filet" in the US is always pronounced as a French word. The word "fillet" is pronounced with a hard "t" as it is not a French word. [7] shows that spelling for a cut of meat. In fact, I can think of no American usage for "filet" where it is not pronounced as do the French. And the British, given the same spelling, also treat it as a French word. As the word used in not "fillet", the pronunciation of "fillet" does not affect the subject of this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fillet is not always pronounced with a hard t, as the article itself says. I'm not going to editwar with you, but I think the original version was more accurate. Merrian Websters ways that when referring to meat, it's pronounced like "filet". EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Evergreen, I believe you're correct on this pronunciation issue. MilesMoney (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow -- how in hell did you decide to jump in here? That fact is that Chick-Fil-A uses a single "l". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember, WP:CIVIL. Also, the number of Ls here does not mean it's one of the other. It could have been a style decision. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is a slow-roasting edit war over what appears to be original research. Wouldn't it be better to leave this out altogether?- MrX 21:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I was about to agree with you, but found a press release from the company on how the name was formed. Adding to article now. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! Now that's a story worth telling.- MrX 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Cogent reason

[8] Chick-Fil-A refers to the piece of chicken as a "filet".

Chargrilled Chicken Filet (no bun) (emphasis added)

As the company itself calls it a "filet" I suspect that the word "filet" is correct (an example where an SPS is undoubtedly reliable) Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet they refer to it as a "fillet" when Cathy was deciding on the company name. In fact, this press release is exactly what we're looking for: how the name was made. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems inconsistent? The "fillet" in the press release seems to be parenthetical -- dunno how important it is when the company also uses "filet". New England usage distinguishes between the two words -- but dunno about the entire US and Canada for sure. Collect (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Racist remarks on customer receipts controversy section undue?

This section seems a bit WP:UNDUE. Much too minor to mention. Many other restaurants have had similar events. Others' thoughts? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing notable has come of it. 2.102.186.164 (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem appropriate to me either. It should be removed.Deli nk (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Limiting edits to Registered.

I think that it would be a good idea to limit the ability to edit this page to a registered user. To ward off graffiti. There seems to be the same IP toying with this page. Hdost (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection is generally used for vandalism only when the vandal is using several IP addresses. The recent vandalism is only two incidents and one IP. I've given the IP a final warning. Their next vandalism will earn them a block.
In the future, when you revert vandalism, please ad a warning to the editor's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to change the entire section up to make it more like its brothers and sisters: changes it to a paragraph prose style, change the section header to "Products" and hopefully this will meet the requirements and needs. Chrisabraham (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Every time I add menu items that Chick-fil-A offers -- what the entire company is based open (and even the history behind them) -- the edits are reversed. What is the rationalization behind this? A restaurant -- a national chain -- is built upon its menu -- and Chick-fil-A is especially known for its chicken menu. Additionally, each menu item is cited -- and not just cited to the Chick-fil-A site. Maybe not all of the menu items should be added but do you think all of the menu items should be removed. Is this a zero-sum-game? Please let me know if there are any compromises or best-practices, please. Thanks in advance Chrisabraham (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In-N-Out Burger has an item called Menu just like I tried to copy here on the Chick-fil-A page. On the KFC page, it's called Products. Same thing with Burger King except they have an entirely different page called Burger King products. McDonald's has it as Products as well. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen has products. Is there a compromise that I can make here? Chrisabraham (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Data breach

Why was my text on the alleged data breach removed? Brian Krebs has been 100% accurate when he reports an alleged data breach reported by banks so far. His stuff is credible enough that Chick-fil-A has responded to the allegation by calling in an IT security firm and law enforcement to investigate the issue according to http://www.databreachtoday.com/chick-fil-a-investigating-breach-reports-a-7740 . Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Customer service section reversion

Seattle undid an edit I did yesterday that continued to build the character and the nature of the Chick-fil-A page, along with references and citations. I don't understand the rationale behind this undo. This section and the two sentences are factual and relevant to the fleshing out of the article. Chrisabraham (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Seattle I'm happy to come to some sort of compromise here, if the language isn't perfect, balanced enough, or isn't neutral enough. I would really prefer to figure out some way sort everything out Chrisabraham (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Pure puffery?

Seattle I'm working on making changes to the words but this is a cited and referenced part of Chick-fil-A history and culture. I am thinking about integrating it into its own section. I am looking to come to some sort of agreement here, so as to avoid some of the "pure puffery." Chrisabraham (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Seattle I just want you to check. The information provided in my addition is factual and sourced by third-parties. Like I said, I plan to make the language more direct. Do you have any recommendation on where to place the additions when I get them sorted out? Chrisabraham (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor on this page, Chrisabraham, is being paid to edit this page, and discloses so on their user page. That editor should cease all direct editing of this article, other than reverting overt and indisputable vandalism, and confine themselves to proposing edits here on the talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to apologize for not following the correct protocol. I am keen to help out in any way possible to bring everything back to full compliance, both personally and on the pages I have COIs and for which I have received consulting fees. Let me know how I can help Chrisabraham (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed some non neutral and promotional content, there is far more though, the article really needs hacking back. Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there is not a singular protocol on exactly how one may edit a page, just an admonition that the primary edits (to the page) should be non-controversial, and that any COI be disclosed and transparent. For what it is worth, your edits have not been horrible, much of the sourcing has been very good, and the arguments for what additions should be made are sensible. I would second Cullen328's suggestion that you make suggestions with references on the Talk page, leaving to other non-involved editors to make your additions, hopefully with a less promotional tone.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete "Lawsuit over cancer risk" section - WP:UNDUE and WP:RS

Deleting this section will set off WP bots, so putting the reasoning here first.

First, the suit was rejected as frivolous, then allowed to proceed, and has finally been again rejected as frivolous [[9]] [[10]]. There has not been a lawsuit, as actions have been stopped BEFORE trial, as not having basis to proceed as a trial; a much higher standard than a judgement in an actual trial would have required.

Second, sourcing is not up to WP standards, nor does the writing reflect the information in the sources. The source for the lawsuit is the activist org's own website (NOT a WP:RS nor objective). The ref to the NIH info page says PhIP can cause cancer at ultra-high doses in lab animals, but then omits that it also states that there is no evidence that at the ultra-low levels in grilled meats, they cause any cancer in people - a major NPOV violation. The LA Times ref that the lawsuit was summarily rejected (before trial) is OK, but the blog of the involved Law Firm (a COI problem) that the plaintiffs subsequently "won" is not, nor is the writing that implies that the two decisions are equivalent; they are not. The first didn't just decide against PCRM (which, despite its name, is a vegan anti-meat org), but didn't even let the suit go to trial. The reprieve did not find there was any merit, just gave PCRM more time to develop their suit. (and, as stated above, it was again rejected as having insufficient merit to even proceed to trial) --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Further, having a section which is mostly press releases from advocacy groups violated WP:ADVOCACY. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I agree with removal. Sources are poor. No demonstration of notability. And a bit o' WP:SYNTH to boot. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of artificial ingredients

a blogger complained about the chicken having lots of ingredients, including TBHQ. The company eliminated a completely different ingredient in the chicken, reduced sodium in a different product and "planned" to test other changes. This is NOT "removal of artificial ingredients". They made two recipe changes and made plans to test other changes. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The changes referred to are all "removal of artificial ingredients". Chick-fil-A has not removed ALL artificial ingredients, which would be difficult. They have used marketing metrics and their core values to evaluate any characteristic that their consumer base would look upon unfavorably, and how easy and expensive alternative ingredients would be. The NY Times article makes it clear that they have been doing this before anyone heard of the "blogger". I would support including the other healthy or consumer-oriented changes to ingredients, and cutting the self-promoting and controversial "blogger".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The section, as it stands, is not about them "removing artificial ingredients". That changes were made after the blog and the blogger's visit are reliably sourced. You seem to be discussing events not discussed in the current section. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Chick-fil-A has been experimenting with making its menu more health-conscious, including reducing salt, corn syrup, dyes, using techniques to make fried foods retain less oil, making grilling more compatible with fast food service, etc. for a long time, and was a leader in that in the 2000s, so it seems unlikely that the self-promotional declarations of a blogger (and the only "blogger" refs you have are the blogger herself, and a NYTimes article where the blogger claims credit and CFA says, no) that Chick-fil-A was a naif on food production until she "enlightened" thsm are to be believed. That Chick-fil-A brought a food blogger in to highlight their initiatives is not in dispute. They did this when "Eat this, not that" came out, for instance. We should report the changes not the self-promoting non-notable narrative. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The section cites the New York Times and, now, a self-promoting press release published in QSR. Note this. If the section does not accurately reflect what the NYT says, it should be corrected. The section should not, however, cite press releases, no matter where they are regurgitated. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

Chick-Fil-A has, obviously, been no stranger to controversy. What surprises me about this page is that only the gay marriage controversy is mentioned. There is no mention of Chick-Fil-A's multiple lawsuits/settlements for religious and sex discrimination. The company was sued more than a dozen times for religious discrimination from 1988 to 2007. In 2002, a Muslim man was fired after he refused to pray to Jesus. His suit was settled with undisclosed conditions. There have been multiple lawsuits about retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and women being fired so they could be "stay at home moms".

My question is, why isn't this in the article? All we have is the marriage controversy. As far as I'm aware, there is no good reason for their exclusion. Ayzmo (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Chick-fil-A which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://news.change.org/stories/yes-chick-fil-a-says-we-explicitly-do-not-like-same-sex-couples
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

hamburger and steak

The article states that Truett's Grill locations have additional menu items such as beef (i.e. hamburgers) and steak. There are very few Truett's Grill locations but Dwarf House restaurants also have hamburgers. I worked at the one in Rome, GA and have eaten at several others (such as Woodstock and Jonesboro).

I tried to find a source to link; this is weak, but Dwarf House hamburgers are referenced in this Mental Floss article shared by CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/12/17/mf.original.fast.food/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbunch (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chick-fil-A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chick-fil-A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chick-fil-A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chick-fil-A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead Intro Change

Supplemented lead intro with necessary information pertaining to the restaurant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawood06 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Added information to "Business Model" section

Each operator is handpicked and goes through a rigorous training program; the interviews plus training can take months and is not a easy process.[19]

I added this fact to the business model section because I believe that it helps enforce that being a Chick-fil-A operator is very different from being a franchisee. I also added this quote directly from their website:

"This is not the right opportunity for you if you:

- Are seeking a passive investment in a business. - Want to sell property to Chick-fil-A, Inc. - Are requesting that Chick-fil-A, Inc. build at a specified location. - Are seeking multi-unit franchise opportunities."

I think this is also important to add to the business model section because it is something that demonstrates the differences between regular franchises and what Chick-fil-A does.

Let me know what you think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.84.206 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Donation to anti-LGBT groups

I was reading the page and I found written "As of April 2018, Chick Fil-A reportedly continues to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups.[6]". Are we really sure about this? I think that is it not very realible to use an op-ed [1] in The New Yorker in which the author describes the company's new place in NYC as "a creepy infiltration" due to the Christian faith characterising the company. Let's say it is not the most neutral take on the news of CFA's arrival in New York, to use an euphemism. Furthermore, they don't provide any source to their assertion and since it cannot be proven, I don't think it is correct to state in the page the Chick Fil-A donates to anti-L.G.B.T. groups. --Constanz89 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Piepenbring, Dan. "Chick-fil-A's Creepy Infiltration of New York City". The New Yorker. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
It's a reliable source that states it as a fact. What gives you the impression that it's an op ed?- MrX 🖋 19:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Because the author has a negative attitude towards the company and he criticizes it all along the article. He states the above-mentioned as a fact, still he doesn't explain which alleged anti-LGBT groups Chick-Fil-a would donate to. It is a very vague statement that, imo, fails to be completely objectively. --Constanz89 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:BIASED. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the statement "Chick-Fil-A reportedly continues to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups" requires a clarification. --Constanz89 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
If you want to clarify it, you will have to do the research to find the information in reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 20:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
http://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fil-a-reinvents-itself-liberal-conservative-2017-5?IR=T for once states "reports emerged detailing Chick-fil-A's many charitable donations to anti-gay-marriage organizations." It may be an insignificant detail, but there is a difference between an organisation who doesn't support gay marriage (and yes, Chick-Fil-A did donate to this kind) and an anti-gay organisation: for example, the Westboro Baptist Church can surely be considered an anti-gay organisation, while a charity who upholds a traditional sexual ethics, yes, does not support same-sex marriage, but this doesn't prove it to be an "anti-gay" organisation tout court or an hate group. There is a difference. Back on the matter, the assumption fails to explain to whom Chick-Fil-A did donate: with the current way of formulating the matter, it could even be the Westboro Baptist Church or some alt-right extremists. It would have much more sense to change "anti-gay groups" with "groups who don't support same-sex marriage". --Constanz89 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
An organization that opposes a basic right of a group (discrimination) can reasonably be considered to be anti-that group. - MrX 🖋 21:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Still, a distinction can be made between extremes. "Anti-LGBT" is too broad to account both for the Westboro Baptist Church and a, let's say, Muslim charity with a traditional sexual ethics in its policy. They are not the same thing and I think we all can agree on this.--Constanz89 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, but you have your opinion and I have mine. Meanwhile, we need to follow sources, not original research about extremes, or what qualifies as anti-LGBT. The reliable source says anti-gay and anti-LGBT. I'm also pretty sure that this has been debated here in the past. You may want to check the archives.- MrX 🖋 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
MrX, may I suggest to keep only the most significant source in each case and remove the others? Excessive citations can actually make editing too unwieldy for other editors; I myself had a difficult time sorting these out, it gave me quite a headache. This will certainly make it easier for future editors. Wikipedia normally requires only one reputable source per citation. In many instances in this article two and sometimes three citations are provided. Patience, Slightlymad 05:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Slightlymad: I don't object to trimming citations for the non-controversial content, but the use of multiple sources for the Same-sex marriage controversy material should not be trimmed back to a single source for each fact unless they are really inferior sources (like The Daily Mail, Breitbart, Towleroad, etc.). Multiple sources help establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. When you remove these, it gives other editors an excuse to start removing material. If you review the archives, you will see that the Same-sex marriage controversy has been very contentious. It took a lot of discussion here and at related pages to arrive at the version we have now.
May I suggest that if you think any particular sources should be removed, that they be discussed here first? That way we can determine if there is some reason that the source is needed, or if it's just duplicative of other sources already in the article. Anyone who finds editing unwieldy because of the number of sources can use visual editor mode, or collapse the sources if they are using WikEd.- MrX 🖋 11:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why this was removed? I added it back per this discussion. ContentEditman (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Prohibits Female Franchisees

Chik-Fil-A prohibits female franchisees in its contracts. Any owner must be male. In a married couple, the husband must hold it (the wife must forfeit any interest, including upon divorce). Upon death of the husband, the franchise must be forfeited back to the company (for no compensation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.155.68 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Source? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It’s simply not true. 108.16.196.194 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is a source that disproves the claim. https://www.ajc.com/news/world/atlanta-native-spelman-alum-open-first-chick-fil-downtown-los-angeles/rpKNN0pKNSYsYhHMfBmJ2H/ General Ization Talk 02:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Poor Word Choice

... "Chick-fil-A has led the fast food industry in average sales per restaurant ... , earning an average $4.8 million per restaurant" ...; earning generally refers to income. A better word to use is grossing, which refers to sales.66.81.105.26 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Done - thank you for your comment. Entranced98 (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent vandalism detected in the article that was inserted on 12 July 2018

Just letting administrators know that a very subtle vandalism was introduced into the Chick-fil-A article on 12 July 2018 by‎ Dylan De Jesus (talk · contribs). With this edit, the editor tried to substitute South Africa in place of Canada and with this edit editor later deletes all traces of his attempted vandalism and also removed all trace of the Canadian outlet from the Infobox.

Chick-fila-A still maintains a single international location at the Calgary International Airport. Please take look at both the official Chick-fila-A and Calgary International Airport websites. The Calgary International Airport location is currently the only location outside of the United States.

This vandalism needs to be reverted since the editor has inserted incorrect information about the company. -- 75.150.244.117 (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense

The campaign, as part of its popularity, has been the epitome of sponsoring such programs on PBS Kids, including Adventures from the Book of Virtues, Between the Lions, and Martha Speaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6e00:382:9031:24be:14f4:7c7f (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

3 first franchises for chick-fil-a

In the early years 60s-70-s

Mr. Cathy franchised to Weyman's on 54 in Morrow and Butch's in Jonesboro. The third franchise was Jesse's in Riverdale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.236.66 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing Restaurants Under "Related Restaurants"

This Wikipedia page is currently missing "Truett's Luau" [1] as well as "Truett's Pizza Cafe" [2] under the subheading of "Related Restaurants", both of which are located in Fayetteville, Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven9595 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://truettsluau.chick-fil-a.com/
  2. ^ https://www.chick-fil-a.com/Locations/GA/Truetts-Pizza-Cafe
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chick-fil-A/Archive_4&oldid=1142541708"