Talk:Chick-fil-A

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.

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)

Paid editing

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 [[1]] [[2]]. 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)