Jump to content

Talk:Chicken in the Rough

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

Requested move 2 May 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved and a WP:HISTMERGE has been performed. North America1000 02:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken In The Rough → Chicken in the Rough – Certain sources, like The Times Herald and NY Daily News, don't capitalize in the. Even WP:NCCAPS discourages it. George Ho (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per common use which surely should be the criteria in a representative encyclopedia. GregKaye 01:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sources use both types of naming. Boldly moving back to Chicken in the Rough at this time, as more sources use the lower-case name. North America1000 02:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article contains factual errors

[edit]

The problem with this article is that it contains factual errors caused by the fact that Beverly Osborne was the creator/founder of TWO semi-related, but intertwined, businesses, the first is the chain of "Beverly's Family Restaurants", all of which were located in Oklahoma City and the second is a franchise system that licensed other restaurants to make and sell "Chicken in the Rough" but allow those restaurants to keep their own names and sell other products. (Osborne's franchise system is closer to that used by Coca-Cola and Pepsi for soft drink sales in restaurants than that used by McDonalds.)

As for the names of Osborne's restaurants (as they appear in old photographs), they had similar but not identical names, such as Beverly's Pancake Corner, Beverly's Drive In, Beverly's Steak, and Beverly Grill.

Sometime before 1978, Osborne sold the "Chicken in the Rough" brand and franchise system to Jack Carroll of Tinley Park, Illinois , but it appears that the Osborne restaurants were excluded from being classed as a franchise.

Because of these events, this create apparent contradictions in some of the cited reference material and much confusion among the Wiki editors.

What is the best way to handle this problem? How should the lead be rewritten to better reflect this situation? Since this would require a major rewrite, I don't want to start something that would be quickly undone by someone who may not have read all of the reference material. Also, I don't want to screw it up since the article is being reviewed as a good article nominee.

The online version of the July 2014 issue of Slice magazine has some nice picture and history of the Beverly's restaurants. [1].

There are also quite a few articles about Jack Carroll's organization. [2] [3]

Information from the 1950 Time magazine article needs to be included. (Time. 5/15/1950, Vol. 55 Issue 20, p92. 1p.) It is very interested, but access is unfortunately restricted by $$$ or via certain libraries.

I will try to add some information soon. 107.216.165.224 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have gathered, Beverly Osborne first developed a single dish product which he called "Chicken in the Rough". To produce the product quickly, uniformly and cheaply, he developed and patented a special grill. Since, he sold this popular product at a relatively low price, he latter built more restaurants (called Beverly's) to handle the increasing crowds. To drum up more business, he developed a marketing campaign centered around the rooster with broken golf club and have the logo printed on all kinds of items.
At the same time, he decided the franchise his single dish, but not his restaurant, to other restaurants outside of his core business area. His method of franchising is probable more similar to that used by Pizza Hut to sell Pizza Hut branded pizza in Target Cafes [4]. Thus a person cannot call "Chicken in the Rough" as a chain in the conventional sense.
During the 1950s and 1960s, Osborne increase the number of his Beverly's restaurants to 8, all with similar names such as Beverly's Grill, Beverly's Drive In, Beverly's Gridiron, etc. It appears that Beverly's Pancake Corner was not built until the late 1950s. By the time Osborne transfer control of the restaurants to Randy Shaw in the 1970s, there were only four restaurants left. Shaw only had the Pancake Corner when he retired and sold out in the late 1980s.
Also during the 1970s, Osborne sold the Chicken in the Rough franchising rights to Jack Carroll. Those right apparently did not include the Beverly restaurants.
A few thing editors should take a look at:
Questions:
  1. When editors write about the Chicken in the Rough franchise, how should it be called? It is definitely not a chain in current usage of the word just as much as a Target Cafe is being a part of the Pizza Hut restaurant chain just because they served a Pizza Hut branded Personal Pan Pizza along with non-Pizza Hut branded foods from the same counter. Is it just a food brand, like Coca-Cola, with a unique marketing twist?
  2. How should the group of restaurants that were formerly owned by Beverly Osborne, and later Randy Shaw, Renee Masoudy and other successors since each restaurant had individual names that appears to be tied to a particular building, each with a slight different menu since each location served a slightly different niche? Oklahoman columnist Max Nichols called the group Beverly's Restaurants.
  3. How does Renee Masoudy's Beverly's Pancake House in Oklahoma City relates to Jack Carroll's franchise organization that is headquartered in suburbs of Chicago?
Since Beverly Osborne had create such interesting products and organizations, I think that article has the potential of become quite interesting. However this article needs to be reorganized. I suggest having a separate section on the history of the Beverly's Restaurant group in Oklahoma City. Another section should discuss the marketing of Chicken in the Rough and Jack Carroll (and his father).
Editors should be made aware that some existing newspaper articles appear to confuse the Beverly's Restaurant group with the Chicken in the Rough dish franchise.
What are the other editor's opinion on this?
107.216.165.224 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP. I haven't looked at everything you've posted, but I followed many of the links you provided and at-a-glance they looked to be mostly primary sources or original research, investigating images and records to reach our own conclusions. This is good research, but is not Wikipedia's approach to these kinds of problems. The best way to start a discussion would be with secondary sources. Secondary sources are when someone like an academic, historian, journalist or booth author reviews these historical records or other evidence themselves and provides an interpretation for us, rather than us investigating the issue ourselves. CorporateM (Talk) 20:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem that I see is that some of the cited books and newspaper articles that were written during the 21st century are not doing a good job in fact checking are are just perpetuating some factual errors that crept up during the 1990s. As an example of a refeference used for the article, The Route 66 Cookbook: Comfort Food from the Mother Road (2003) mistakenly implies that Osborne sold the Chicken in the Rough franchise to Shaw. Osborne sold the chain of Beverly's restaurants that held the right to sell Chicken in Rough without having to pay franchise fee.
Clark, M.; Wallis, M. (2003). The Route 66 Cookbook: Comfort Food from the Mother Road. Council Oak Books. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-1-57178-128-4.
If we are unable to entangle the story from secondary sources, some of which are flawed, does that mean that the article needs to be deleted or have some sort of a disclaimer needs to be attached to it? 107.216.165.224 (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Here are some articles from secondary sources that I found that someone else could use to rewrite the article with:
Articles primarily about Randy Shaw:
Articles about Ray Khosravani:
Articles about Renee Khosravani/Renee Masoudy:
Articles about Jack Carroll
other articles:
  • Beutler, Mark (July 2014). "Memories of Beverly's Pancake House". Slice Magazine.
  • "SMALL BUSINESS: Out of the Rough". Time. Vol. 55, no. 20. May 15, 1950. p. 92. ISSN 0040-781X. After that, bantam-sized (5 ft. 5 in.) Bev Osborne always served his chicken in the rough. The customers got no silverware, just fingerbowls. They liked it so much that Osborne kept expanding his Oklahoma City restaurant (it now seats 1,100) and built two more. He also trademarked the name Chicken in the Rough, and began licensing other restaurants to use it. Last week he added 13 more restaurants to the trademarked henhouse, making a total nest of 245 restaurants all across the U.S. that pay him royalties of 2¢ on each order of chicken served. By last week some 335 million orders of chicken had been sold under his royalty setup. Osborne also sells or leases to his franchise customers everything from patented chicken fryers to water glasses bearing his trademark (a design showing a rooster standing in a clump of grass with a broken golf club).
107.216.165.224 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP. The principle is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth; meaning we just repeat what the sources say. We are responsible for making sure the content accurately reflects the sources only, and not whether the information is actually accurate.
The sources you have provided (Franchise Times, Chicago Tribune, The Oklahoman) look like good sources to me. A couple caveats - just things to look out for - is avoid blurbs with no authors listed (about 200 words or less) that are usually just re-written press releases and avoid using local sources on national-level topics in a way that may give undue emphasis on local issues. That may or may not be that relevant to this article, but an example is we wouldn't want the article on Wells Fargo to include content about individual local branches.
When we're talking about something that is old/historical, I do think older sources that are covering events as they are happening are better. If you find one, I would go with the older source's version of events. Hope this helps! CorporateM (Talk) 04:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An odd question...

[edit]

...does anyone know if they ever had even a short lived expansion into Europe / UK, particularly the north of England? Or if the term somehow became used for a while in that area or beyond to represent any fried chicken or fast food outlets? Reason being, I only even knew of the term (and, after the better part of two decades, was finally motivated to google it) thanks to a mention of it in the liner notes of an album by a band from the Sheffield area ... it seemed to be used as an indicator of modern urban ennui and corporate social malaise rather than anything specific or positive.

But the only reference I see here or in the wider internet is the American chain, and to some very limited overseas expansion... 87.113.44.131 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicken in the Rough. 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) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is to prefer free licensed media

[edit]

I changed the top image (non free) to a copyright-expired version on Commons, File:Chicken In The Rough Matchbook Logo.png. @Northamerica1000: changed it back with comment "the common company logo is preferred, compared to using a lesser-seen matchbox logo from a matchbook cover". I question whether this overrides policy to prefer free licensed media over non-free. Note that File:Chicken_in_the_Rough_logo.jpg has a "Not replaceable with free media" justification stating "No free equivalent is available. Because it is packaging artwork there is no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. No free or public domain images of this product exist in the world. " That there are versions out-of-copyright would seem to invalidate that claim. (I'll also note that the logo as printed on the matchbook *was* "the common company logo" when the matchbook was printed, which was perhaps the era when "Chicken in the Rough" was at it's height.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicken_in_the_Rough&oldid=1206840481"