Talk:Jimmy John's

Old discussions

I know nothing about this franchise, but somebody should rewrite this article. This whole thing reads like one big advertisement. For example "speedy late-night delivery and reasonable prices" sounds like something you would see in a TV commercial, not an encyclopedia article. TDude695 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish there was more information about this company.

--65.25.62.196 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a citation to the "About 95% of the current restaurants are franchise-owned" statement under "Current success". It is also unclear. Are 95% of the restaurants owned by the corporation (franchisor) or by franchisees?

--146.7.117.20 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the very first Jimmy John's is located in West Chester Pa, and was opened in 1945 I believe by Jimmy John. I know this because I worked there during my high school days and the nephew of the original Jimmy John, Jeff John, is my best friend. I believe it is now a landmark too. I am sure the JJ franchising corporation knows this, but thought I would shed a little light.

The, pray tell me, why would the firm's own Web site publically proclaim 1983 as the first year for the firm? A firm would surely want to promote itself and longevity is an oft used self-promotional item. But, there is no possibility you could be mistaken or that another similar firm simply happened to use the same name, is there?68.13.191.153 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1940, actually. I personally have been there in the last week. I thin'k I'll have to add that in here somewhere.

You are really mistaken, Jimmy wasn't even alive in 1940, you wouldn't be the first though, I have many older customers who come into my store and claim they've been coming to jimmy johns for 30 years, which is impossible because the first one wasn't even opened until the early to mid 1980's. Please go to the website, you can read the history of the company yourself, www.jimmyjohns.com

Editorofthewiki 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is a sandwich shop in Pennsylvania that goes by the name Jimmy John's. This is the shop the previous commenter is talking about which began in 1940. Distinctly, they sell hot sandwiches rather than cold. I wonder if this shop could technically sue the newer Jimmy John's for trademark infringement... http://www.jimmyjohns1940.com/

Number of stores Store #400 opened in July, 2006 in Indianapolis, Indiana K_Watson1984

Just so you guys know, Their is actually over 750 stores now and Jimmy has sold his 1000th store, I know this because I have attented Jimmy Johns Manager training program and this was discussed, and my store is a new store to open and its store # is in the mid 700's. I guess I can't really cite any of this so I didn't bother editing it.

Lead

The lead section has some redundancy. --Imaginationac (Talk | Edits) 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some redundancy in the lead section.68.13.191.153 00:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

jimmy is a nazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.232.10 (talk • contribs) 01:00, May 3, 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. I also doubt it's true. Please do not add spam. --Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everything on this page isn't correct. Jimmy John, is from the general area of Champaign Urbana, where he personally owns five of the stores that were made. The majority of the other stores are franchised owned. He went to college at Southern Illinois Carbondale, and then dropped out and made this company. The original Jimmy John's is located in Charelston Illinois, on the Eastern Illinois University campus. I dont really know what else to add. Jimmy John Leautod, is and still is the owner and creator of this store, his dad never had anything to do with it, aside from a minimal amount of start up money. I know all of these are facts.

That's funny. Jimmy John graduated at the bottom of his highschool class. He's from Charleston, Illinois, and never attended college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.0.11 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This part of the article does not fit

"In October of 2006 Joe Munz, a Jimmy John's delivery man, was robbed and killed in the Riverwest neighborhood of Milwaukee. This sparked a city-wide debate on the importance and legality of delivery boundaries;"l It seems like a local issue restricted to a city it has not affected or altered the way jimmy johns runs it business as a whole if we put this type of statement on a bank article we would be adding every bank robbery of that banks branches. Thus I am removing it Weaponbb7 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A sentence here makes no sense to me: "After Liautaud realized it would cost nearly twice as much as the loan to start a hot dog business." Twice as much as what? Dean Esmay (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Post high school options

After founder Jimmy John Liautaud graduated second-to-last from Sumner High School in his 1982 high school class, his options were joining the Army, college, or starting a business. He chose the latter.

Aren't these the options for 99% of people graduating high school? How is any of this relevant to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.8.210 (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimmy John's store, with his name on it; the story of how he was forced into a decision which led to his founding the chain is in fact relevant to the chain's history. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, there are guidelines: you are talking about Jimmy John, not the corporation. Wikipedia is not a place to relate trivial, personal anecdotes that are woven together by the company's PR machinery to promote the corporation.842U (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression you have a real problem with this company. As I stated in my edit summary, the impetus for the company's founding is relevant, logically and by precedence. I'm curious as to what guidline you think the inclusion of such material is in violation of. Specifically. 12:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

None of us is here to defend or promote Jimmy John's -- but you're welcome to feel whatever you feel. I have no affiliation or dislike of Jimmy John's. I've eaten there twice and liked it. I'm here because of the writing in the article. There is no citation next to the information about the choices JJ received when he did poorly in high school. Unsourced info is always subject to removal. After that, it's always best to vet highly suggestive information that could be easily construed as tacitly casting a spin on what is not a biography, but rather a an article about a for-profit corporation. Is the information true? I have yet to see that. Is it biased... hard to say. It's veracity hasn't been established. 842U (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? So now it's because you think it wasn't sourced? There was an inline citation for all the info, there's nothing "suggestive" about it. Quite a bit of verifiable, NPOV and notable information has been removed since you started cutting up this article piecemeal, I intend to restore it. As a matter of fact the overall quality of this article has deteriorated since you began to edit it; It's now less informative and readable and of an inferior format. Your objections that the information could be construed as "spin" doesn't make any sense. It's the story of how the company was started, how a person wants to judge the worth of that narrative is irrelevant to it its inclusion as long as it's verifiable, relevant and not worded in a way that shows bias. You haven't demonstrated that it fails any of those criteria. You also have yet to point out a specific policy or guidline the information is in violation of. All I see from you so far is "I don't like it." So, again, what specific guideline do you find this information in violation of? TomPointTwo (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did you see this "I don't like it" you refer to. Or did you infer that? Keep in mind that when I started editing, there was a tag on the article for it to be Wikified. Keep in mind that the "source" about the anecdotes surrounding the emergence of the Jimmy John's corporation... is a dead link. Most of the information I removed was about the heavily debated union section... which has been reduced to its notability. Most of the sponsorship information was fluff detailing particulars of what was being sponsored... as if that's what a reader comes to Wikipedia for, corporate sponsorship information. Please declare your own interest in Jimmy John's as you are quick to question others'. Please invite other editors to participate. Together, we can all improve the article. 842U (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Chill out. It takes five seconds on Google to pull up the source in abbreviate form. I don't have an interest in JJ's. To be honest I don't even remember how this got on my watchlist on the first place; it was probably something to do with the union in question trying to use this page to advertise. Regardless, since you can't explain to me how the inclusion of this material is in violation of any policy or guideline and it's reliably sourced I'm going to re-add it. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't understand why there's citation requested for this area. The slogans are on the menus, inside the restaurants, etc. Just because you can't view the source on the internet doesn't mean it's untrue. I'd personally remove the citation, but I doubt they would stay gone for very long. Somebody should consider scanning a menu or taking pictures from inside a store to upload to the internet, because these are true claims. Chaide

Criticisms

To bring some balance to this article, I've started the Criticisms section. Right now the only thing listed is the loud music/radio played in an effort to increase their hip image. Really, I don't know where they got the idea that turning up some random soft rock radio station to louder than a lawn mower is hip. I personally like to be able to place my order without yelling, and if I wanted to eat there, which I originally planned on, the music would keep me from being able to enjoy conversation with friends. Maybe they don't really want people to dine in; either way, though, that's got to be bad on employee's hearing.--NeantHumain (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The loud music seems to depend on the store. At my local JJ the music is at a decent volume but ive heard of another JJ 45 minutes away that blasts their music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.146.222 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The managers have little respect for their employees and welcome as high of turnover as the economy will support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.80.12 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its because Jimmy is not as hip as he thinks he is. There are also signs in front of every store saying "rockstars wanted" instead of a hiring sign. after being hired you are told that you can have no visable tattoos or piercings. rock stars huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.254.252.163 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything about the food borne illness issues in the Midwestern Stores in 2012-2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C980:9A5:717C:17B9:D732:A449 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Jimmy John's has become available in Oregon, with a locations in Beaverton and Portland. The Jimmy John's website confirms this data, hence the image for state locations should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.26.53 (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Louisiana should also be highlighted. There is now a location in Baton Rouge.--66.135.31.62 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Union

I have removed the "Union" section. It was laughably biased, and was likely written by someone in management. No cites, and not even a halfhearted attempt at neutrality. I do not know if the subject is notable enough to warrant its own subsection, but if it does, it needs to be neutral and cited. Messiahxi (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map is not accurate. I can say for certain that Oregon has JJ locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.175.38.128 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Earlier in the article it says Louisiana is the newest state to have a Jimmy John's, yet it is not shown as such on the map. ReverendG (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey also now has a JJ in New Brunswick, NJ, making the map inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.68 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico has at least one in Las Cruces. 69.171.160.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a Jimmy Johns in Delaware now, the map needs to be updated!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.15.31 (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

It seems that this article relies heavily on the history section of the corporate website. There may too much about the founder and not enough focus on the corporate entity. I'll Use the example of Papa John's Pizza, there is an article that focuses on the company and one that focuses on the founder. i think this is what should be in place. This article should focus on the company itself, and then another article be created focusing on the person who founded it. This just seems to make more sense. Thoughts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-BMor (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• • There is an article about the founder that is not redirected to the corporate site. Information relating to the corporate entity should be in this article, informationabout the individual founder should go in his article. M-BMor (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of union activity

The user Jimmy Johns1983 keeps removing material about the IWW ruckus in Minneapolis. Their latest justification was "I removed the Union Activity section due to violations of the neutrality policy. This section represents one particular store out of 1,200 stores, and the author is not a neutral party that is authorized to write information about Jimmy John's." There's an obvious COI issue going on here (by a few editors) and an unfamiliarity with who is and is not "authorized" to write things on Wikipedia. While some of the section may have been written in a rather POV way I'm not convinced inclusion of the topic is itself actually in violation of WP:NPOV. There might be a legitimate point to be made about WP:WEIGHT though. It got some coverage in publications as significant as the New York Times due to the hostile nature of the IWW and the unusual attempt at trying to unionize a fast food restaurant. Still, that's basically an argument for a trivia inclusion and, as the COI editor pointed out, it's only at one store or less than 0.1% of their employees. I'm inclined to restore the material but I'd like to gather some consensus about what should or shouldn't go back in. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "the hostile nature of the IWW"? Sure, we're militant; but that's not the same as hostile. Unions organizing against management opposition are not going to be all rainbows and fluffy bunnies, ya know? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (IWW: I.U. 660/Milwaukee General Organizing Branch)

Relax man. The IWW has a long history of violent organizing, advocating revolution and hostility to management rooted in class warfare concepts. It's a combative organization and I consider "hostile" to be synonymous. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm pointing out the obvious reason they get much of the press that they do. You might also want to consider sitting this one out as your presence will likely just put off neutral editors. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning to sit this one out, for the reason you cite; note that I went out of my way to disclose my interest here. I do disagree, though, as to the idea that militancy="hostile". I'm not the only Quaker/pacifist Wobbly, by any means. And most of the violence has always come from management, as a brief study of labor history makes clear. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a debate with you (here) on the history of the labor movement but I'm glad you're recusing yourself. Sorry for any confusion caused by my word choice, I could have been more precise. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the material with four different independent cites. TNXMan 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a productive step but I'm not sure it resolves the issue of potential undue weight. Does the aborted attempt at unionizing a single store really rate an entire section in the article for a chain with over 12,000 stores? Does it even rate mention? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes. Consider- the issue started in October and is still receiving news coverage in multiple sources after the franchisee fired the organizers last week. TNXMan 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the attempt is not "abortive" and is still an on-going fight, I'm not sure what you mean. The election results were nullified in a settlement with Jimmy John's and the NLRB as a result of JJ's violation of labor law leading up to the election. The fight is on-going in Minneapolis and elsewhere. I could see an argument, however, for a separate Jimmy John's union page and just a footnote/link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyCrimson (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's nearly notable enough for it's own article. If anything I think it's a bigger deal in the context of the IWW than JJ's and most of the material would probably find a more comfortable home on the IWW article with a brief mention and link out here. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's just remove all union activity from the article. The article is about the parent company. The union activity is against a franchisee. My opinion is it's irrelevant to the article. It doesn't even deserve its own article. --Manway 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur. If it receives additional media attention or if the parent company get's legally involved (i.e. getting sued) then I think it would be worth revisiting. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This: "most of the material would probably find a more comfortable home on the IWW article with a brief mention and link out here." This would be a highly appropriate way to be inclusive about this information. The reason the info really belongs in a one sentence inclusion is because the NYT called the unionization effort "one of the few efforts to organize fast-food workers in American history." The risk is that the article is being scrubbed of pertinent information, albeit not worthy of an entire section. Overall, the article has a slightly advertorial flavor as it is. Frankly, the elaborate, fawning sponsorship sections need to be trimmed also. 842U (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Political leaning

There has been a back an forth insertion and removal of the founder's political leaning. My take is that this information does not belong in the article in that it's not about the subject of the article, which is the restaurant, not the founder. The information seems notably sourced, but it also seems unnecessarily expansive in a way that suggests it's a political statement in and of itself -- in other words, not NPOV, etc. It would be good to have input here from more seasoned editors on how this information can be best addressed, rather than the constant reversion.842U (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The political leanings, and therein any politically "liable" actions, are inescapable because this is Wikipedia, the land of political vendetta. Nonetheless my recommendation would be to strip the article of biogrphical anecdotes and keep it eschewed topics relevant to the company. Topics concerniong the CEO can be met in a biographical article, shouiold such an article be deemed needed. TomPointTwo (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits to be made by someone with permission

I can't edit locked articles, but I recommend that the footnotes for the hot dog part are changed to cite http://www.success.com/article/success-stories-jimmy-john-liautaud rather than the Jimmy John Corporate history section, as that page currently has nothing about the hot dog business being too expensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.41.34 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You could register an account so you can edit locked articles. JKruger13 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fast Food or not?

Is Jimmy John's considered fast food? Its no different than Subway as far as I can tell and in Subway (restaurant) wikipedia article, it is considered fast food so should Jimmy John's be too? JKruger13 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

They claim their food is "so fast you'll freak" but we don't have a separate category for freaky fast food. Jonathunder (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess.... technically not (Fast Food). Key words: mass produced, packaged, pre-heated. General prep such as slicing meat/veggies and making bread... i dont think it necessarily qualifies. They technically don't do much more 'fast food' things than a normal Delicatessen would. Colinrgodsey (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

Not sure why Mendaliv keeps deleting the section called "Boycott" which discuss calls for boycotts against the company. Mendaliv claims this section is inappropriate because it deals with the owner instead of the company. Not true: the calls for boycott were/are for a boycott against the company, not the founder. This entry is relevant to the history of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs) 06:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Recently I removed a portion of the controversy section added by an IP, dealing with Jimmy John Liautaud poaching animals. This has been repeatedly re-added by an IP (95.112.32.185). This doesn't mention the company in anyway whatsoever, and I don't think belongs in an article about the company. Perhaps if it related to the company it would be appropriate, but this just seems like an attack on the owner of the company. Any opinions on the matter? Would the IP like to comment? Kharkiv07^Talk 21:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, these allegations are relevant to the company wiki. Being a privately held company, the Jimmy John's company income contributes to Jimmy John Liautaud's personal income. Jimmy John Liautaud's personal funds are allegedly used to fund hunting trips of endangered and/or protected animals. As long as the sources are reliably-cited, it is relevant to the public that money spent at Jimmy John's could possibly end up contributing to funding poaching. You asked for input and that's my 2 cents. Thank you for requesting input! RichBryan (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I would contend there is a relationship to the company when the company faces a public boycott based on the activities of its founder, including coverage in the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/privateequity/2015/08/05/jimmy-johns-faces-boycott-call-over-founders-trophy-hunting/ Srnelson (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

His personal dealings are not suitable for this article. If we include his personal controversy on a company article, that borders WP:COATRACK. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, since user Taquim has demonstrated that he is only interested in constantly re-adding this section to the page without the agreement of the community, I move that he/she be banned from editing this article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jimmy John's. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140504103217/http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0701040131jan04,0,2294609.story?coll=chi-busines-hed/ to http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0701040131jan04,0,2294609.story?coll=chi-busines-hed/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentions of Liataud and big game hunting

I question the relevance of discussing Liataud and his taste for big game hunting in this article. While there is, evidently, at least one case where people have called for a boycott of the restaurant in response to Liataud's conduct, I don't think it's sufficiently relevant to the company itself to merit inclusion. Furthermore, even if it were relevant, I would argue that any mention would need to be fairly minimal to comply with WP:UNDUE. It's just not that significant an event in the overall history of the restaurant to merit the level of inclusion that has been sought. While controversy and criticism sections can be very helpful in balancing out an article—particularly in this case, where the article has pretty clearly been astroturfed in the past—the controversy and criticism discussed needs to be balanced in its relevance to the overall subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Liataud's "taste for big game hunting" has been very widely covered in the media, including an article in the Wall Street Journal specifically regarding calls for boycotts. Obviously a newsworthy event that only someone with an interest in protecting the image of the company would be opposed to being brought to light. Taquim 06:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

See this Atlantic article on people being paid to edit wiki articles: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs) 06:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Cute. I've been keeping corporate shilling off this article for over a year already, but because I challenge your mentioning of some tangential story about the company's founder in an excessively prominent manner, I'm a paid editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm... for the past year this article has been marked as unbalanced because "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." When that warning is removed from this article I'll be convinced that you are not working for Jimmy John's with your main task being the prevention of negative publicity. Taquim 06:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Taquim: Read WP:AGF, which you have just grossly failed to comply with. Seriously, do not make those kinds of accusations against Mendaliv again without some damn good evidence or I will treat it as a personal attack against him.

To you and the IP editor: I saw no discussion from anyone while the article was protected, and when protection expired, both of you started back up. Discuss matters here based on policy. Not just bringing up the possibility of shills, or saying "the community disagrees," but citing actual policies that demonstrate that the material does or does not belong. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the tip Ian, I have thoroughly read the AGF article. I would love to discuss this controversy. The call for a boycott against Jimmy John's due to big game hunting practiced by the founder was widely covered by major news outlets including the Wall Street Journal. Although the calls for a boycott were initiated based on the actions of the founder, the implications of a boycott obviously extend to the company in general, thus making this an appropriate entry for the history section of this article. Wikipedia has indicated that this article is unbalanced because "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." One step towards addressing and rectifying this imbalance would be to include a mention of the hunting controversy with a link to the Wall Street Journal article.Taquim 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If there's enough coverage out there that this was a significant event in the company's history, then there might be grounds under WP:DUE to include a mention. I haven't seen an adequate demonstration that such coverage exists. Moreover, I would argue that the coverage at most would probably represent a sentence. Much more significant is the labor dispute problem, for example. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Adequate coverage: please Google: "Jimmy John's controversy" and you will see that the top results are concerning big game hunting. I'm still not sure why we are hesitant to include information that was covered not in some fringe website but but in most major news outlets. Please remember that according to Wikipedia this article is currently unbalanced due to contributions from editors with close connections to the subject. It seems that a logical way to address this lack of balance would be to not shy away from including information that was very widely covered in the mainstream press. I'm fine with compromise; please rewrite my addition to this article and condense it into one sentence and publish it, thus precluding the necessity of mediation. --Taquim 23:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC) my talk page

I apologize for not taking the issue of the boycott to the Talk page immediately. I have never before been involved in what seems to have turned into an editing war, and I thought that the issue of the boycott was so inappropriate that I just deleted it. It seemed almost like vandalism to me. I also did not realize that the point of the three-day moratorium on edits was to give editors time to discuss the issue on the Talk page. Something like a ceasefire during negotiations. Wikipedia editing is certainly a learning process.

Now that I understand the mechanism involved when editors disagree about what should or should not be in an article, I would like to present well-substantiated arguments as to why a mention of the boycott is inappropriate in this article. Basically all the reasons have already been stated, so I am just re-iterating. First of all, there is WP:Coatrack, already mentioned by @DaltonCastle:. The article is about Jimmy John’s, and not about the company’s founder. In addition, the call for a boycott was an isolated event of very few people, which quickly passed from the public consciousness, further making it irrelevant, which @Mendaliv: pointed out. In addition, since the issue was so minor, giving it more prominence in the Wikipedia article begins to violate WP:DUE, which strives to keep articles balanced to achieve WP:NPOV. Having an entire section dedicated to this issue tips the balance we are trying to achieve for this article, making it look like the boycott is important, widespread, and even relevant, which it is not, as stated already above. In order to keep this article balanced I believe the discussion of the boycott, should be kept out of the article. 185.54.163.224 (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we address the most serious issue regarding the Jimmy John's Wikipedia entry: according to the Wikipedia banner at the top of the article, the article needs cleanup because "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." The banner indicates that this has resulted in problems with the balance and neutrality of the article. Why then, one might wonder would there be such fierce opposition to an entry in the article that attempts to address this imbalance as one step toward the removal of the Wikipedia warning banner? Claims of coatracking: Revelations of big game hunting by the founder and potential implications of a boycott were deemed by the Wall Street Journal and many other major news outlets to be worthy of coverage. This was a major news event, not a tangential one. Although it was the actions of the company owner that brought the media spotlight, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, there were potential implications for the company in general. The IP address commenter above indicates concerns with Due and Undue Weight, but the Wikipedia entry defining that concept states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources..." which seems to indicate that the boycott should be mentioned and referenced to the Wall Street Journal and other articles. IP address commenter above states that "In order to keep this article balanced...." However, this article currently has a Wikipedia banner at the top stating that the article is not balanced, meaning that "keeping" this article balanced would not be possible. I feel that this issue needs mediation but unfortunately Mendaliv has declined my invitation to mediation. Mendaliv has however (see above) suggested that a sentence referring to the boycott might be appropriate. I appreciate this gesture and I find this to be a reasonable compromise. Is anyone opposed to a one sentence mention of the boycott in the article with the Wall Street Journal article as citation? If there is not agreement, could we please take this to mediation rather than engage in editing wars? Taquim 04:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC) my talk page

Is anyone opposed to adding the following sentence under the heading "Calls for Boycott" ? In the summer of 2015, pictures of Jimmy John Liautaud, (founder and owner of Jimmy John's Sandwiches) posing next to the dead bodies of elephants, rhinos, and other exotic animals began to appear on social media along with calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants. Taquim 17:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

• Oppose: Too long, not significant enough of an event to merit an entire subsection. Probably doesn't merit mentioning at all given there doesn't seem to be an ongoing connection to the restaurants rather than to Liataud himself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, rather than subsection, how about an entry in the main History section, where it would chronologically be the last entry. The connection to the restaurant is that the threat of a boycott that would impact the chain and its investors was real enough that it was covered (as cited) in the WSJ and many other news outlets. Here is a shortened version: In the summer of 2015, pictures of Liautaud, posing next to the dead bodies of elephants, rhinos, and other exotic animals began to appear on social media along with calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants. Taquim 17:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

I'm sorry, I can't support including this item unless there's an indication that the boycott had more than an ephemeral news presence. Otherwise I can't see how it has any real impact on the company so as to get it past WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this issue has been submitted to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Taquim 20:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

As a result of discussions on the Dispute Resolution Notice Board, it was agreed that one sentence about the boycott would be added to the history section of the JJ entry. More in depth information can be found on the Liautaud biography page. The purpose of the sentence in the JJ history section is to provide a brief reference to calls for a boycott of the company. Taquim 03:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)my talk page

I feel like the mention about the unions, the mention about the non-compete, and the proposed mention on the boycot, should all go under the same heading. 'controversy' seems like such a strong heading, but it does seem to the norm for those types of business 'issues'. plus the 'Labor relations' sub-heading makes for a really ugly page layout as it is now. I think just an additional new main heading for controversial mentions is fine, whatever it ends up being called. Colinrgodsey (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

References

James John Liautaud Biography

Personal biography has been established, and now with 100x better sources than what's on here. I think we can safely move almost all biographical content out of here, and almost all cites to the corporate website. JJs is considering IPO, so maybe there will be some new content strictly related to the company. Colinrgodsey (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Those looking to contribute may consider moving redundant personal information from this article into the founders biographical article. Colinrgodsey (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Citing self-published sources

Article contains references to self-published sources via the Jimmy Johns website. Contributors urged to find alternative sources. Colinrgodsey (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like anon has come to the rescue, seems cleaned up now. Colinrgodsey (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the company history considered overly laudatory?

Hi there fellow editors,

Earlier, I added some edits which significantly fleshed out the company's history with a variety of what I feel are relevant and important details for this page. Following this, a much more experienced editor (Mendaliv (talk · contribs)) reverted these edits for the reason that "this appears to be excessively laudatory of JJ's growth in recent years, especially in terms of claiming Weston Presidio is directly performing day-to-day planning." I sincerely appreciate Mendaliv's weighing in on this issue, but I would like to discuss this further if possible.

I am certainly willing to work with other editors to make the language more neutral so that it does not read as laudatory, though it may be necessary in certain places given the huge number of respected, third-party sources which cover various aspects of the chain's rise to success. Could we perhaps dive in to specific examples that are viewed by the community as being too much in my expanded draft?

To address the specific point made by Mendaliv, I do not feel that my suggestion went beyond the language in the original source. In fact, my draft simply stated that the real estate deals were closed, whereas the source quotes Liautaud himself as saying that it was Weston Presidio who closed these deals. Certainly Liautaud would not give the investor so much credit if it was he who performed the work! Any and all feedback is appreciated.

PS - I apologize for the changing IP. Unfortunately, my internet changes this dynamically all the time despite my best efforts to establish a static IP. I'm probably overdue for signing up with a proper account already, but that's neither here nor there! 185.54.163.145 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Still no response from editor Mendaliv (talk · contribs). If no feedback is received, I will assume that my edits are worthy of being reinstated as is. That said, I am still happy to receive feedback from the community of experienced editors - please chime in here so that we can improve this article together! 185.54.163.81 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy John's. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616012443/http://archive.biz-journal.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=.%2Fpubfiles%2Fmch%2Farchive%2F2005%2FDecember%2F23%2FNews%2F1663.xml&archive_pubname=Business+Journal%0A%09%09%09 to http://archive.biz-journal.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=.%2Fpubfiles%2Fmch%2Farchive%2F2005%2FDecember%2F23%2FNews%2F1663.xml&archive_pubname=Business+Journal%0A%09%09%09
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0701040131jan04%2C0%2C2294609.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724204609/http://www.hardcoreracefans.com/nationwide-news/3716-jimmy-johns-jumps-on-board-with-khi to http://www.hardcoreracefans.com/nationwide-news/3716-jimmy-johns-jumps-on-board-with-khi

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Photo of elephant you kill !!!

WHAT A SAD PHOTO. TO KILL SUCH AN INNOCENT ANIMAL IS A SHAME. IN YOUR PICTURE YOU LOOKS LIKE YOU ENJOY THAT CRIMINAL ACT. WHAT A SHAME. !!! NO MORE OF YOUR SANDWICHES. Poncedem (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Menu Section

Hello! I think that this Wikipedia page could be more informative if it had basic menu information. It might offer a little bit more insight as to what the restaurant serves given that the menu is such a vital part of a restaurant. I could directly reference the menu on the company's website. Any feedback would be appreciated! Jdlyons3 (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Poor customer service

I got a notification on my phone. Said that I earned a free cookie. I shared that with the woman handing me my sandwich. She and her manager said I could not redeem my freebie until my next visit. That was not said on my phone!!! NO COOKIE!!!! Poor customer service!! Subway, here I come. 2601:2C7:8D00:A430:11E5:701C:B732:9B22 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What is up with the amount of times the whopper song is on this page

There are so many whoppers on the page can someone fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.193.116.115 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)