Talk:Chick-fil-A/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untrue statement and/or inaccurate source.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The statement: As of April 2018, Chick Fil-A reportedly continued to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups

The article linked as a source does not have any hard evidence that Chick Fil-A continues to donate to anti-L.G.B.T.

link to the article- https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick-fil-as-creepy-infiltration-of-new-york-city

I've tried to delete the statement to only to see it reappear. This statement needs to be deleted unless actual evidence from April, 2018 can be located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

“ The company has since reaffirmed its intention to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect,” but it has quietly continued to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups. [1] ”

- MrX 🖋 21:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

response: Mr X, that statement isn't supported by any hard evidence either. Unless the statement is verified by tax records it should be stated as an opinion by the author of the cited article or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You made a false assertion about what was in the source. Now you're moving goal posts. Regardless, We trust our sources (not "hard evidence") to evaluate facts before reporting them. See WP:V and

WP:RS.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

fine, no hard evidence your source is still bias

I think the IP has a point. Even though I consider The New Yorker to be a reliable source in general, in this case the cited article is a highly opinionated "hit piece" full of inflammatory statements in which the contested claim is an offhand remark presented with zero evidence to back it up. For a controversial claim such as this, a better source is clearly needed. If the The New Yorker source isn't replaced with a reliable source, the statement should be removed. Deli nk (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking a little closer, I don't think the The New Yorker article should be used as a reference anywhere in the article (it's currently used three times). This article from the Business Insider gives a little perspective on why. Deli nk (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in that article contradicts that CFA continues to donate to anti-LGBT organizations.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in that article supports that CFA continues to donate to anti-LGBT organizations. It's an entirely empty claim. Deli nk (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The article contained a factual statement in the voice of a respected publication. You can attribute it to the publication, but you can't arbitrarily decide that it's an opinion.- MrX 🖋 12:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no way an honest person could look at that article and conclude that it's not opinion. Deli nk (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Its not an opinion piece and if you see it as biased then that may be your bias at play, not the articles. Its properly sourced and relevant. ContentEditman (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't possibly think "Chick-fil-A’s creepy infiltration" is a fact, not opinion. Deli nk (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Then again that would be your bias showing. This is a article by the New Yorker and other pieces have referenced it in their articles. https://www.restobiz.ca/chick-fil-a-expansion-into-toronto-prompts-backlash/ ContentEditman (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You must be fucking kidding! If I think "creepy infiltration" is opinionated, that makes me biased? How could any rational person say that's not entirely subjective? Deli nk (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

the article (singular) that references the New Yorker is an opinion too. Unless you have tax records about ANTI-LBGT donations, it's an opinion, in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't conduct original research when editing on Wikipedia. We follow reputable secondary sources.- MrX 🖋 20:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

understood, and sometimes new yorker is reputable but this is partial article is bias. there are other articles calling it out on it's bias.

• Keep WP:EXTRAORDINARY in mind. This is an inflammatory claim in an article that comes across as very negative (long on rhetoric but short on facts) and I understand the concern regarding reliability. Given the nature of the claim I don't think a single source with a vague claim is sufficient for inclusion with or without attribution. If a source countering that claim is found then remove it as false. If an additional source supporting it can be found then include it (possibly with attribution depending on the quality of the sources). Inflammatory claims require higher levels of scrutiny. If more specific sources are found then the article or citations should make it clear in what form this support is coming from. Donating to groups that openly oppose LBGT is different than donating to groups that are not focused on LBGT issues but may have a message that is obliquely or considered to be anti-LBGT. Springee (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This has been talked about before and was added after that. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Chick-fil-A/Archive_4#Donation_to_anti-LGBT_groups There are other references, like this https://www.restobiz.ca/chick-fil-a-expansion-into-toronto-prompts-backlash/ and https://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fil-a-lgbt-twitter-jack-dorsey-apology-marriage-equality-2018-6 , but they were deleted recently since this one is the primary. ContentEditman (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

there is still nothing in those articles about the companies filings as of april 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The restobiz link doesn't support the continued donation claim. The BI article only says "The foundation's 2015 SEC filings show that it still donated nearly $1 million to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.". If that is considered an anti-LBGT group then it would serve our readers better to say why it's considered anti-LBGT and make that the article statement vs the less clear "continues" claim we have now. The archived discussion makes some very valid points. There is a difference between an anti-gay organization vs one that was against gay marriage. It would be better if the article said which type of organization was in question here. It looks like there may be RS saying that the company still supported a group that is seen as problematic but the article should say why rather than leaving it to the imagination. Springee (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

right so how about we just put the business insider article with the 2015 tax filings quote up instead of the New Yorker opinion quote because it's backed by real evidence (tax records https://www.scribd.com/document/353081106/Chick-fil-A-Foundation-2015-Form-990)? The Fellowship of Christian Athletes anti-LBGT because of it's sexual purity statement: http://fcaaustin.org/Websites/fcaaustin/files/Content/1538783/FCA_Student_Leader_Application.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense to me. The current text leaves the reader with ambiguous information that could be read as the company is donating to a viciously anti-LBGT (Westboro church nuts) or something else. If it's due to donations to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes then it would seem like a far weaker accusation. The FCA talk page seems doesn't agree about the anti-gay claims and it appears the sourcing wasn't strong enough to keep the material in the article. That of course could be due to WP:OWN. This is why it's important to put some effort into checking the details of the claims. Sure, it appears there are sources reporting "some accuse the company of continuing to..." but fewer say "the company continues to...". The difference is in one case the reporter says "other people are saying" vs "I the reporter am saying". Anyway, what about following the language of the BI article? Springee (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, let's not use Business Insider language in place of the New Yorker's language. There are other sources that support that CFA still donates to anti-LGBT organizations:[2][3][4] - MrX 🖋 21:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Two of those sources are the same thing (verbatim paragraphs). But I think it would be fine to say CFA was giving money to The Salvation Army. That appears to be one of the "anti-LBGT" groups in question. Springee (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Salvation Army an anti-LBGT group? we should clarfy first as well

Do any of those three sources support the claim in the article that starts "As of April 2018"? The only one dated after April 2018 makes the claim "it was still giving in 2015 to anti-LGBT causes". Do any of them mention any specific donations that occured after 2015? Peacock (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, none of the sources say donations occurred after 2015 nor do any sources online currently. By sources I mean tax records, let's not get into opinions or assumptions (https://www.scribd.com/document/353081106/Chick-fil-A-Foundation-2015-Form-990).

It would be very hard to prove that as of April, 2018 CFL donated to anti-LGBT because they haven’t even filed for the 2018 tax year yet! Again, all of your sources say the same thing; that there isn’t any evidence that CFL paid for anti-LGBT since 2015 filling. The statement made on this Wikipedia page should reflect that. Once a tax record comes out from 2018 confirming anti-LGBT donations then the statement should stay up but until then, it should be adjusted or taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary about CFA continuing to donate to anti-LGBT groups. They have a well-documented history of doing so. What would be extraordinary is if they actually stopped donating to such groups.- MrX 🖋 20:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That might be true but you, like the author of the New Yorker story are making an assumption and this isn’t the place for assumptions to masquerade as facts.

That seems to be nothing more than opinion. The article has a weaselly accusation. Adding additional information to help readers understand why they are being accused shouldn't be of concern. Springee (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If they are still giving to anti-LGBT groups when they claim they have stopped, shouldn't it be easy to find actual evidence that they are doing so - something more than mere assertions that they are doing so? Peacock (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

As I just mentioned, it is actually near impossible to prove, unless you have a whistleblower of some kind, that CFL donated to anti-LGBT groups as of April 2018 because they have not even filed 2018 tax record yet! Tax records are how they are exposed for this every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources say that after CFA said they were no longer giving to anti-lbgt organizations they gave to groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and The Salvation Army. Since these and a few others are mentioned as the anti-LBGT groups why not say as much. I think people would feel much different about the post 2015 "continued to support" if they were told the form of the support. Springee (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, so perhaps the post should say that in 2015 CFL gave X amount to Salvation Army and X Fellowship of Christian Athletes and that these are known anti-LBGT groups then site the tax records document I posted as well as an article stating this. Or something specific of that nature. These 2015 tax findings are regarding the most popular and profitable fast food restaurants in America. The facts need to be accurate and specific here. This page needs to be adjusted promptly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• I endorse removing the "better source needed" tag. I fact-checked the most recent tax forms I could find(2016).[5] One of the biggest recipients of this money is the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Not only does that organization prohibit gay/lesbian adult leaders and evangelize anti-LGBT, they restrict participation by gay/lesbian youth.[6]
  However none of that is relevant here. Anyone who was debating Truth or wanting "hard evidence" needs to better understand how Wikipedia works. We don't debate Truth, and we definitely do not deal with "hard evidence". Truth and evidence count for almost nothing under Wikipedia policies and decision making processes. We summarize what Reliable Sources say. If all of the sources said the moon was made of green cheese, then we would accurately summarize what those sources say. We limit the use of primary sources such as tax forms. In particular it would be a violation of policy SYNTH to use tax forms to support this kind of claim. We mainly rely on secondary sources. The existing Newyorker reference is fine. It's a reputable source for news and information, and we can report what they say. If there were contradictory sources then we would have something to sort out. A new source with more specific info would be nice, but not necessary. Alsee (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose removing the tag for the reasons stated previously. The current statement is vague and weaselly. It should be replaced with specifics such as those Alsee included. We should not keep readers in the dark about just what the company is being accused of. 01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

oppose- why do only the people who like the new yorker article get to control the page? donesn't anyone else have a say? I thought wikipedia was democratic in some way? I'm new here I don't know.

Since my last comment, I've been adding more refs and info. There was already helpful content at the articles for Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy and The Civil Rights Agenda. Alsee (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

When I get a chance I'll add the salvation army as well. That was also cited as one of the problematic organizations. Springee (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What about this? https://goqnotes.com/27860/new-chick-fil-a-filings-show-decrease-in-anti-lgbt-funding/ shouldn't we focus on the other side too? this was amended after that 2016 tax return. this entire topic is bias against chick fi la's change in stance. They have significantly decreased funding to anti lbgtq. While I do think the particular new yorker article is vague and inaccurate (not all new yorker articles should be used as sources their is much fiction an opinions in there), for whatever reason it's only getting worse and more bs articles and people are adding more and more inaccurate information using the arbitrary date of april 2018 when chick fi la has in fact improved significantly since 2012. Nowhere in this Wikipedia article does it say that chick fi la has cut down their anti LBGT donations when they in fact have. Also, will someone please clarify as to why the salvation army is anti LBGT? they are a massive organization and I think that should be clarified before adding it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk)

I like the more neutral tone of the discussion. Wikipedia should strive for an WP:IMPARTIAL delivery. Often I see inflammatory quotes in articles rather than impartial telling of the same basic information. The source above does a nice job with the non-inflamitory tone.

The new foundation shows grants to groups like Habitat for Humanity, the United Negro Scholarship Fund and two groups that work with homeless and at-risk youth in Atlanta. Only one arguably anti-LGBT group remains, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which holds some anti-LGBT leadership policies and religious doctrines. But, that group received just $25,390 in 2012, down from nearly a half-million dollars in funds it received in 2010.

The article describes the FCA as holding "some anti-LGBT leadership policies and religious doctrines", in otherwords, not hard core anti LBGT and notes that the size of the support dropped considerably from half a million to $25k. That is information that probably should be in the article. Springee (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Everyone seems to agree now that Chick Fil-A continues to donate to anti-LGBT groups, contrary to what the OP stated initially. The current text seems fine to me:

As of April 2018, Chick Fil-A reportedly continues to quietly donate to anti-LGBT groups such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which opposes gay marriage and restricts participation by LGBT youth.

- MrX 🖋 10:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Now you ignoring what I originally said. Quite frustrating. -OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

MR X. no, everyone does not agree with your statement nor the sources as some have stated that they are both too vague and opinionative, the date is arbitrary (on a side note I would bet even the author of the New Yorker article would agree with that) and i'm going add both are bias against chick fi la. Also, what I stated initially is still true. The other secondary sources (which are obviously bias and anti chick fi la) that were added were disagreed with then just put back in. The current statement was disagreed with then added too as well. It is like the people who disagreed with the statement/source did not have the power to edit because the page was locked but the people who agree with it came in and edited it because they did have the power.

Most importantly, Chick fi la has only donated to only 1-2 anti lbgt groups since 2012 which is a significant decrease since they were exposed. This page doesn't state that at all. The qutoe say "groups" pulling from the new yorker (again with the gross vagaries) when we have secondary source articles stating the specific groups (only one or two) they actually donate too. This makes chick fi la sound a lot worse than it is, hence the bias. We have other secondary sources with better more specific information than the new yorker piece. If this particular New Yorker article was not written as a satirical, slanderous, op-ed piece then I would say leave it, but it is.

The source and statement still most be changes and be replaced with more the more specific, non bias articles mentioned in this thread such as the business insider and goqnotes (an article on chick fi la from a queer website) articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"What would be extraordinary is if they actually stopped donating to such groups.- MrX"

That's exactly what happened and you refuse to acknowledge it in the article. https://goqnotes.com/27860/new-chick-fil-a-filings-show-decrease-in-anti-lgbt-funding/

"We don't debate Truth, and we definitely do not deal with "hard evidence". Truth and evidence count for almost nothing under Wikipedia policies and decision making processes. We summarize what Reliable Sources say. If all of the sources said the moon was made of green cheese, then we would accurately summarize what those sources say. We limit the use of primary sources such as tax forms. In particular it would be a violation of policy SYNTH to use tax forms to support this kind of claim. We mainly rely on secondary sources. The existing Newyorker reference is fine. It's a reputable source for news and information, and we can report what they say. If there were contradictory sources then we would have something to sort out. A new source with more specific info would be nice, but not necessary.Alsee (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)"

we have more accurate secondary sources shouldn't we use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.76.191 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reading the above, seeing that there is a RfC, I am thinking to side with Springee statements. It is OK, if it can be verified by multiple reliable sources, what organizations the subject of this article donates to. Descriptions of what those organizations are belong in the article where that organization is that article's subject. Not here, it falls outside of the scope of this article.
  If the donation to Fellowship of Christian Athletes is to be listed in this article, then include all organizations which receive donations. It should not just be limited to one which MrX claims to be anti-LGBT in above statements. Focusing on the donation to Fellowship of Christian Athletes to advance a POV that the subject of this article is allegedly anti-LGBT is not a neutral representation of the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This has gone round and round as there are many reliable sources and secondary sources as well stating they continue to donate to anti-gay groups. The problem is if you use many of them someone complains its to much so it gets edited down. Then someone else will say the references are not needed as they go over more than what is written. Then again someone comes in and says its not supported as it does not have enough references/supported statements etc... and they want it to be removed completely. This is a full on death by 1000 cuts as someone did not want any of this to be posted to begin with. So they come back and attack little piece by little piece over and over and here we are again. If you check the Archives you can see this is not the first time this has come up yet it has meet conscious for inclusion each time with many allowing some small edits top make more happy. And again here we are... again. ContentEditman (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I see what you are saying and think perhaps the statement in question is the problem. I am inclined to agree with the IP. If the statement was less vague and source on the page was less bias the page wouldn't be having these issues. I also like what Springee says. -metaxeno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaxeno (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the statement Summoned by the bot. The statement is accurate and the source is reputable. If it wasn't the case, that billion dollar company would've already bent the arm of the New Yorker forcing them to post a retraction or at least exercise their right to reply. Moreover, evidence of this abounds, it's a quick google search away!

* https://thinkprogress.org/chick-fil-a-still-anti-gay-970f079bf85/

* https://hornet.com/stories/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations-two/

* https://thechickenwire.chick-fil-a.com/Inside-Chick-fil-A/Chick-fil-A-Donations-Where-Does-the-Foundation-Donate-Money

* https://www.thedailybeast.com/morehouse-colleges-gay-travesty

This is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim! WP:EXTRAORDINARY refers to fringe theories backed by self published sources or reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character. The latter is certainly not the case Dryfee (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Find better cite or delete line - vague side remark without any supportive detail is not sufficient for this line alluding to something not reported anywhere else. (Such claims should be attributed and dated anyway for clarity.) Seems a distortion of facts anyway, but see what other sources say. The alternative Business Insider instead give "the company's foundation ended nearly all of its donations to anti-LGBT organizations in 2012" and mention FCA still there in the 2015 filing (covering 2014?). The LibertyPlace cite says FCA in 2016 donations are dedicated to inner-city childrens sports camps so this line seems simply incorrectly tarring with a label instead of accurately stating fact of benefitting children. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the statement and remove any tags on it, since it's a well-cited and entirely uncontroversial statement of fact. The claims, above, that this could ever be remotely considered WP:EXTRAORDINARY are so comically bizarre it is difficult to credit that they are being made seriously - there is no question about Chic-fil-A's politics, and no reason whatsoever to doubt what the source says. And that source is unambiguous: The company has since reaffirmed its intention to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect,” but it has quietly continued to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups. (emphasis mine.) The complaint about "hard evidence" is spurious - the New Yorker passes WP:RS, so unless someone can produce another source disagreeing with it, their statement, itself, is hard evidence as far as we're concerned. Our job is not to do WP:OR to second-guess sources, or to speculate that they may be wrong (based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing at all beyond some editors disliking their conclusion.) Our job is to accurately reflect what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:V and WP:RS. Jschnur (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Support the original edit agreed upon in this diff, which is what this RfC is asking for comments about. I do not support adding the word quietly, it's bad enough that sentence starts out with reportedly which is basically - "according to what some say". Adding the word "quietly" is weasly editorializing. Do they loudly donate to other groups? As of April 2018, Chick Fil-A reportedly continues to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups. is what I support. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section in Policy Change

Related to this edit: The New Yorker article is unrelated to the statement made and the other two articles are of questionable validity and may be Potentially unreliable. I did additional research and cannot find any evidence of "quiet" or "discreet" funding of anti-gay organizations. I do see that they continue to support groups like the Salvation Army, which takes a religiously-foundational stance on marriage but does not espouse anti-gay rhetoric in its mission statement. In short, I really don't find that there is anything compelling to the statement that they are continuing to secretively perform the actions they received the cited criticisms for. As a personal aside I have an LGBT partner and both they and I have been cautiously optimistic about the company's turnaround on the subject, even if it was influenced entirely by consumer response. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I missed the consensus from above. I would suggest reopening that discussion because it needs better sourcing. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 16:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree the sourcing needs to be improved. I think we had several sources that offered more detail as to why the statement is correct but perhaps misleading. For example, do people giving money to the Salvation Army is a problem? I also would like to again raise the question, why is the same sex controversy section so long given it has its own article (see WP:SUMMARY) Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There has been additional recent news coverage that shows that CFA still continues to selectively contribute to non-profits that work to undermine LGBT rights. I'm ready to take a stab at expanding that aspect of the article, given that apparently nothing has really changed in the past seven years.- MrX 🖋 20:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yea as MrX brought up this has been in the news a bit of late. More news they still give millions to anti-gay groups and even a city voting to keep them out of the airport due to their donations. There are even more sources for this then before. ContentEditman (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Same sex marriage section UNDUE per WP:SUMMARY

It is clear the same sex controversy around CFA and it's founding family should have significant coverage. I suggest that per WP:SUMMARY the material in the main article should be cut down and synchronized with the sub-article specifically on that subject. The level of detail in the parent article is undue given a primary article on the subject also exists. SUMMARY suggests linking the lead of the child article into the text of the parent article. This will ensure accurate synchronization of the two. I've used the UNDUE tag though that isn't quite correct as the material is clearly significant but the length is improper in the parent article given the existence of the sub article. Springee (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you propose removing? The material in this article is a summary. This was very widely-publicized controversy. - MrX 🖋 14:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Per summary the material in this article should basically be the intro from the other article. I wouldn't say it needs to be exact but there is a huge amount of overlap. Since we have a primary article it shouldn't be as extensive here. Springee (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Chick-fil-a is primarily known for two things: 1) fast food fried chicken sandwiches that appeal to the masses and 2), their unwavering financial support of anti-LGBT organizations while insisting "Chick-fil-A embraces all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity,"[7]- MrX 🖋 20:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking about the article intro. It's generally fine. The issue is the LGBT section which should be a summary of the primary article per: SUMMARY. Springee (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Donations to anti-LGBTQ groups

I added a mention of Chick-fil-a's donations to anti-LGBTQ groups which was reverted by User:Springee with the comment "undue for the lead."[8] However it appears to be the major subject of news reports about the company.[9]

I had added it to the paragraph about the company's values and religious influences, which their anti-LGBTQ position is a major part of.

TFD (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This has been extensively covered. I also restored the bit about the major 2012 controversy that someone tried to memory hole.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm generally ok with the previous, now restored into. The version that only mentioned the accusation was the issue. I still believe we are doing readers a disservice to not provide details about the current donations. Springee (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the material was in the article for about three years before someone came along an removed it without consulting the talk page. The reason given was "The statements of a founder do not belong in the opening paragraph for a company. It is addressed adequately in the Controversies section". A couple of problems with that: It was in the second (not first) paragraph, and the lead is supposed to summarize major points in the article. Also, the founder's statements were not what were in the lead; it was the controversy involving CFA because of its founder's statements and more importantly, the press coverage about the donations to anti-LGBT groups. - MrX 🖋 01:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality of Composition.

I do not seek to reopen a discussion that has clearly been controlled by a wikipedia editor. I merely wish to point out that this reads like a company press release. Obsession with content appears to have blinded editors to the obscenely obsequious tone of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.2.244 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Financial Success

Should there be more on the subject of CFA’s financial success, such as it is projected to become the 3rd largest food chain in the US, or should that wait until the actual numbers come in. It could even be a short sentence such as “they are projected to become the 3rd largest food chain in the United States in the 2019 fiscal year” Note: I do work for this company, and want to make this clear that I will not edit the page, but will clear ideas with the talk page. I do not want to violate any conflict of interest guidelines.

Jacket2018 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Jacket2018 I would say that once they make the spot it would be a good addition here Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mitchellhobbs Sounds reasonable.

Jacket2018 (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Jacket2018: ~ Fyi ~ here ~mitch~ (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Founding Date

Okay, so I looked up, and the first actual Chick-fil-A was established on Nov, 24 1967. The Dwarf House just paved the way for what was to come. Also, the restaurant itself seems to consider Nov, 24 1967 as its birthday. It promoted its 50th anniversary in 2017, and on official social media accounts, it addresses that day as the day the company made its debut.

I'm new to Wikipedia and can't edit this page. So if anyone agrees with what I'm saying, do you think you could add this onto the page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Junebug2500 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I second that. I too cannot edit the page, but someone who can should Jacket2018 (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• just to let you all know ~ Twitter and Facebook ~ when used from a primary source is not really a Wikipedia:Reliable sources Mitchellhobbs (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

While true, why not put both dates, the founding of the dwarf house and CFA? CFA is notably different from The Dwarf House, we could change it to a “self proclaimed” founding date in the article if need be Jacket2018 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jacket2018 ~ both dates are already mentioned in the info box Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs Yes, but it's the 1946 date that is considered as Chick-fil-A's official founding date according to this wiki page, when really, CFA itself says otherwise. Plus, the Nov, 24 isn't in the infobox. Junebug2500

@Junebug2500:, Nice to meet you ~ I researched the "Nov 24th' I can't find a RS for the month~ I did find however the original name was not the dwarf house but the dwarf grill ~ and made the changes accordingly in both the info box and the lead ~ if you can find a RS (not a primary one from chick-fil-a) ` let me know and I will be glad to show you how to edit that info ~ once again ~ nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Leader line removed again; restored

I made this edit to restore content removed during this edit by User:RaphaelQS. I reworded it to make it more general and not place undue weight on COO Dan Cathy's statement specifically. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 17:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the controversy around gay marriage and CFA is due in the lead but does the company literally have a stance against gay marriage? I thought the issue was the owners were opposed which is what the removed text said [[10]]. The article only states the company has supported organizations that have become controversial due to their teachings/stances around same sex marriage. As currently phrased the sentence isn't supported by the body of the text. What about, "The company's support of organizations that oppose same sex marriage has resulted in controversy"? Springee (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, According to Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, Dan Cathy made this remark about the Company practices. As he is a C-level executive I believe this meets the level of authority necessary to attribute this as a company statement. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 18:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that. We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Thanks for the reply, in my eyes that confirms that the earlier text was correct. Cathy said that in a personal interview. No where does a CFA corporate statement say that. I agree that when a member of the owning family makes such a statement it does reflect on the company but that is still not "the company's stance". The earlier sentence, "In 2012, COO Dan Cathy's public statements in opposition to same-sex marriage became the subject of public controversy." was factually correct and supported by the body of the article. We can't use the contents of a different article to support the lead of this article. Springee (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, That's fair, however it's also true not to give that statement undue weight since much of the controversy is over continued support by the company. I like your earlier suggestion and suggest the following modification: The company's continued support of organizations that oppose same sex marriage has resulted in controversy. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 20:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PonyToast. What about something that includes Cathy's statement and the company's support since both are cited? As a minor thing, I don't think we should hotlink to the controversy article in the lead since we have the hotlink in the section. That's only a style opinion so if my understanding of the hotlinking guidelines is wrong please disregard it. Springee (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Fillets

Do (only some, surely) Americans seriously mispronounce the English word "fillet" as if it were the French word filet because they don't know the difference? One might have thought that they were ignorant of the English word and substituted instead an extrapolation from from filet mignon, the popular cut of beef tenderloin. Or is this a case where they prefer to replace a perfectly good English word with a foreign word for effect, as was done in referring to coriander as "cilantro." Torontonian1 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

los angeles time = los angeles times 2605:E000:9149:8300:A0EB:2686:820E:42BF (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Same sex section

This was discussed before but no action was taken. Per SUMMARY this section should be a summary of the primary topic. I suggest using the lead of the primary article as the basis for the text here. Springee (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @MrX:, the only other person who weighed in when you discussed this before, that the current section is appropriate in length on the main article given the importance to the subject - this version is a summary. If you think it can be adequately trimmed, perhaps you could suggest specific parts you want to remove? Otherwise, I feel that the fact that you failed to get a consensus a year ago, followed by a year with no actions, shows that there's not really any consensus supporting significant trimming to the section - if it were reasonably trimmable, you or someone else would have done so. Tags are meant to be suggestions for viable improvements, not just indicators of protest or disagreement or 'badges of shame' - if the only response when you start a discussion is someone disagreeing, it's not really appropriate to add a tag. --Aquillion (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

So should we remove the subtopic? This is clearly more than a summary which raises the question, why have the primary topic. Can you explain how this is compatible with wp:SUMMARY? As you pointed out, only one editor weighed in a year ago. Perhaps an RfC would help visibility. Springee (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with summaries as long as this one is in the article ~ no matter how important the situation~ the reason we have any article on the issue is because it is so important ~ I am a firm believer with summaries in articles having no more than three paragraphs touching on the issues just enough that gives a quick link to the main article so the reader can satisfy his/her interest ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The content in this article is the summary. If you have specific ideas about what might be removed, please propose it. Perrhaps we could trim the response section a bit. Copying the lead of the main article would be the epitome of lazy writing, so count me as strongly opposed to that approach.- MrX 🖋 19:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: ~ I might be misreading something but I don't see anywhere above this edit where anyone suggested copying and pasting from the lead of the main article ~mitch~ (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• WP:LOL ~ ok I read here "I suggest using the lead of the primary article as the basis for the text here" which I do disagree with ~ but the summary should be trimmed down ~ why go to the main page if you can read it all in one section of an article ~ It does not show a WP:NPOV ~ "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" ~mitch~ (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mitchellhobbs: I interpreted Springee's comment as allowing for that as a possibility. The problem is, articles frequently have poorly written leads and I have seen editors copy a lead from one article to create a summary in another.- MrX 🖋 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I did suggest using the lead of the primary as the basis here. Not an exact copy since the text of a lead often includes some level of intro material that wouldn’t make sense in the parent article. Also, MrX is correct that a poorly written lead there shouldn’t force a poorly written section here (if that is an issue with the child article). Regardless, the material in this article is far beyond a summary. One could reasonably argue for deleting the child article based on the detail here. Springee (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Springee ~ working on it ~ takes a few days to get it right ~ first we have to get the whole article in order ~ then work on each section ~ I agree the summary has to much information in it but in this instance there is a lot of information ~ I think (just off the top of my head) to many ~ this guy did this and this guy did that ~ in detail I might add ~ I glad you brought it back up ~ feel free to help in the article if you like ~ we can always fix a mistake ~ wiki is a living encyclopedia ~ by the way nice to meet you three ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

~mitch~, thanks for the good efforts. I've had (and still have) limited time for this right now. I think the same sex material could be cut down to one section with 3 paragraphs. I'll take a look and think about how to do it as well as trying to synchronize the primary article with the parent. I'm very open to your suggestions here. Springee (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Springee ~don't worry about it ~ take care of what you need to ~ if you see the history of what I've done so far ~ I check the sources ~ make sure their ~RS's ~ if not take the statement out ~ I only stopped where I did to see if there would be any challenges on my edits ~ so far so good ~ just keep a NPOV ~ and check the sources ~ which I believe all the quotes are just knee jerk reactions ~ so over the next week or so ~ we will get it cleaned up ~ Thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs:, are you still working on this section? Springee (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Springee:, I was ~ my wife passed away ~ so I won't be doing much editing ~ until I've recovered ~ thanks for asking ~mitch~ (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

CNBC video explaining the company that may be good as an EL

• "The Rise Of Chick-fil-A". CNBC. 2019-08-29.

This may be a good EL as it's made by CNBC WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Link for Salvation Army?

Can't Salvation Army get a link to their page when they're mentioned in the article/entry? I would add it myself, but my edits are removed when I try to edit Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has a policy of banning users based on their sexual orientation, though Wikipedia claims anyone can edit it. Thank you.71.48.203.139 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dwarf houses

Chick-fil-A now has 12 dwarf houses which sell the coleslaw and other stuff that isn't sold in the restaurants.Nobodywillkn (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Chick-fil-A logo 2011.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

Justdance2020 (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

chick fil a does not support trump

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Under the heading "Same-Sex Marriage Controversy", the sentence that reads, "Chick-fil-A stopped distributing the toys, claiming that unrelated safety concerns had arisen prior to the controversy." bares no relevance to this topic and should be moved or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:447F:18A0:7D54:45CA:42F6:D885 (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

~ large removal of content ~

Just to let every one know, I am working on the content I removed and editing into to the main article ~ per discussions on this talk page that has been archived. ~mitch~ (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~mitch~ (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting the material down. I haven't had a chance to review the new version vs the primary article. My feeling is this section should be a SUMMARY of the content in the primary/child article. I'll try to review it in the next day or so. Either way, I strongly support reducing the length of material in this article and it looks like you have done that. Springee (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Springee:, I agree it should be a SUMMARY of the content in the primary/child article. It was just a start, the best I could do for now. Thanks again. ~mitch~ (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts after reading through this. I think the length is about right. I'm not sure the detail about the toys needs to be here vs in the sub-article. I would generally use a rule of thumb that if the details aren't in the sub-article's lead they shouldn't be in this section. I like that the sub-article's lead summarizes the impact - mixed. Sales didn't seem to suffer as some people/politicians moved to support the chain in response to the boycott. We mention the FAA-airport bit in the second paragraph but as stated it's not clear why.

"The United States Federal Aviation Administration also responded to two cities that were preventing Chick-fil-A from opening in their international airport"

This sentence doesn't say what the response was. It looks like the FAA is saying such rules would be a problem. However, I can't find any articles saying the investigations have concluded. I think the high level here is that due to the controversy CFA received both criticism and support from private individuals and political figures. CFA tried to distance themselves from the controversy and now donates to groups seen as LBGT supportive. Still, in general I think these are small improvements. The big fix was reducing the overall size and leaving the bulk of the topic in the sub-article. Springee (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, what are your reasons for the restoration of this material [[11]]? I'm not really sure how it fits into a summary of the issue. It seems like a supporting detail. Springee (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I've re-removed it. - MrX 🖋 21:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete the sentence that reads, "Chick-fil-A stopped distributing the toys, claiming that unrelated safety concerns had arisen prior to the controversy." This sentence is under the heading "Same-Sex Marriage Controversy". It should be deleted because it bares no relevance to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:447F:18A0:FCAB:D246:5DF4:C309 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Erronious statement

The article claims that chick-fil-a was the first fast food chain to phase out trans fats, which is not true at all. Since 2003 trans fats has been banned completely in countries like Denmark, so all their fast food chains had to phase it out long before 2008. (the US did not ban trans fats until 2020) Perhaps it should say "the first american" fast food chain instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.219.156.98 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Vegan Menu

Why don't they offer a vegan menu? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

15 Aug additions to same sex controversy section

Aquillion, I'm not sure these recent changes are an improvement to the Same-sex marriage controversy section [12]. To some extent I think a problem is that we have a primary topic for this material so this section doesn't need to be too long or go into too much detail. That said, I'm not going to claim the current included/excluded details are ideal nor that it's the best summary of the primary article. A primary concern I have with the new addition is when the donations occurred. Looking at the dates of the supporting articles they appear to be around 10 years old. As the opening paragraph to the section it should be clear when the donations occurred and that the company's policies have changed. Alternatively, this material could be put later in the section. That students pushed to have the company removed from colleges would fit with the other boycott/protests discussed later in the topic. I would suggest putting the first sentence, along with some dates somewhere in what used to be the first paragraph. Ultimately this would retain all the content but better integrate it with the existing material. If you are OK with the changes I will make them. Springee (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The donations are obviously central to the topic; as you implied, the section as a whole seems to have been fairly crudely trimmed, since we removed almost almost all mention of them while leaving a much larger amount of text devoted to statements by Cathy that are a more minor part of the controversy. If we need more recent coverage, there is still plenty emphasizing the controversy, eg. [13]. I would agree to a degree of restructuring and especially adding dates for when things occurred, but only if it expanded and elaborated further on the donations and mentioned them, at least in some context, in the first or second sentence - without that the whole section is misleading and sometimes confusing, since it doesn't properly explain what the controversy focused on. We could probably somewhat reduce the focus on Cathy's comments, which had less sustained coverage. Also, reading the whole thing again, we should probably drop the paragraph on Huckabee's reaction - it is simply trivia compared to the rest and not significant enough for the main article. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous information (minor)

Under the heading "Business Model" the phrase "Chick-fil-A selects the restaurant location and builds it." is not necessary, and should be deleted for readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediniast (talk • contribs) 06:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In the introduction to the article, the statement "The company operates more than 2,605 restaurants, primarily in the United States with locations in 48 states" is technically incorrect since Chick-fil-A is located in 48 states and territories, one of which is the District of Columbia, which is not a state. This should be edited for clarity. Phoenix35192 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears this issue may have been resolved by another editor. " . . .locations in 47 states and the District of Columbia."Kerdooskis (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Description of name in lead

Isn’t the name Chick-Fil-A a portmanteau, combining the words “chicken” and “filet”? I know it will just get reverted if I clarify that in the lead (the revert tool is often abused) so I thought it should be discussed first. Have a good day, everybody. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EricaLiu1260.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

CBN reliability

Is CBN a reliable source for source 13? It is a far right news source that has a clear interest to make Chick-fil-A look more liberal so liberals would eat there. Also see history of this page - CBN was removed as a source for Covenant House pro LGBTQ. 2600:4040:2DC4:3D00:89EE:7B43:31F4:FE14 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

You can't call them one the largest in the US considering they only have like 3 locations west of the Mississippi. MAYBE one of the largest on the east coast but not the whole country so get your facts straight before telling lies on the internet with false information. Or don't lock your fake info so it can be corrected by someone who actually knows more information. 174.253.192.238 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I count at least 15 in the SF Bay Area. Ovinus (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

There's 167 in California alone. That's not as many as places like Georgia where they are from, but it's certainly more than 3. - Aoidh (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

Remove the section: "though the company has begun loosening its stance on this issue.[13]" because the source is CBN, a far-right Christian news source that is not reliable for this subject matter. (The same source had already been removed as a source for Covenant House, which CFA donated to, being pro-LGBTQ, on both this article and the Chick-fil-A and LGBT people article.) 151.188.25.146 (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've replaced CBN with WP:WAPO in [14]. Ductwork (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"Steerleaders" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Steerleaders and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Steerleaders until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A : )

Ok one of the first reasons I love Chick-fil-A is one because of its lower prices, a chicken sandwich MEAL there is about $2 less than a Mcdonalds chicken sandwich MEAL. So your paying less for better quality which brings me to my 2nd point. Chick-fil-A is a lot healthier than other fast food places, they focus on simple and healthy ingredients you see this in the logo, the A stands for grade A chicken. Also the Chick-fil-A people are really nice and patient with you! Chick-fil-A takes time before opening a new restaurant to train their workers and then train new workers before letting them work there. Some of my family members worked at Chick-fil-A during high-school and part of college and got good pay and great working conditions! Chick-fil-A is my go-to fast food whether I'm traveling or just for a treat, I love Chick-fil-A very much and would recommend it to anyone! 2600:1702:1580:7B50:91EF:122B:682:B1E5 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Most homophobic fast food chain"

I know this is a fact, but it sounds kind off biased for a Wikipedia article. Is this a real approved edit or is it just a troll? 201.141.107.215 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It definitely does not belong in the introduction. Reverting. -- Golemwire ^(talk) 00:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

New draft regarding racial-related incidents

Someone has submitted a draft at Draft:Chick-fil-A and Asian Americans. This is in effect a WP:SPLIT of the controversies section of this article. Feedback, either here or on the draft talk page is welcome. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: thanks for linking that, I'll leave a comment on the draft's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The author in question remains very keen to write an article listing incidents between Chick-fil-A and people with Asian heritage. Please see my talk page for the discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The word "progressibly" appears in this article

Under the section on sauces. I believe the proper word is "progressively" as the word "progressibly" does not exist. Although deleting it altogether would be an improvement over that. 170.142.177.121 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed the word; didn't serve a purpose, and you're right, it wasn't spelled correctly, either.EdJF (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Can a section be added to the article that describes Chick-fil-A products that are being distributed through American supermarkets and other retail grocery services, such as Walmart, Target, Amazon, etc.? If needed, a suggested section header could be "Supermarket items". Suggested text:

In the spring of 2020, Chick-fil-A test-trialed the sale of two of their dipping sauces in 8 and 16 oz. bottles at select supermarkets in the state of Florida with all profits earmarked for a scholarship fund for company's store level employees. The trial distribution was successful enough that the distribution area was expanded to the Southeastern United States and eventually nationwide in the following year with almost all of their restaurant dipping sauces available in bottles on supermarket shelves by 2021. Two more sauces were added to supermarket shelves in 2023.

With the success of the sale of dipping sauces in supermarkets, the company decided to trial the sale of the company's line of custom-made salad dressings in the refrigerated section of selected supermarkets in the Cincinnati metropolitan area and in parts of Tennessee in October 2022. Since the success of the latest trial, the nationwide distribution of salad dressing is expected to commence in spring 2023.

References

Since the trial initially started during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when indoor restaurant dinning was banned by local health authorities, should this fact be included? -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done with some changes for style and conciseness. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: - It appears that the refrigerated salad dressings are now available at Walmart and other stores since last week, at least according to the NBC Today Show and Branding Eating. (BTW, the salad dressings are kept in the cold food section while the sauces are kept on the ordinary shelves in a different part of each stores.) 108.71.214.235 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. It's important that we do not give too much weight to this somewhat minor part of the brand in the article, so I wouldn't go into too much detail. Do you have a specific suggestion as to what should be included here? Actualcpscm (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: I would suggest adding something like "nationwide distribution began May 2023" and use the above Today Show and Brand Eating links as citations (don't forget to include the relevant title, authors, publication names, and publication dates when using the {{cite news}} template). Something short and to the point. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Menu

The restaurant serves breakfast before transitioning to its lunch and dinner menu

In the US, breakfast is always served before lunch so this shouldn't come as a shock??

Maybe interesting to French or Britons but maybe not something that's important in the lede?

24.51.192.49 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Business model questions

In the section "Business model" there are claims that the company builds each of its restaurants and retains ownership. How can this be true? Many of their locations are inside other businesses. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

Number of locations has a typo. According to the source, it should be 2,973. The article currently lists it as 2,9273 (extra 2 is the typo) 2603:8080:1E40:2F3:6166:91F1:A237:C4D0 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2023

Change

"Chick-fil-A grossed an average of $4.8 million per restaurant in 2016, despite opening only 6 days a week, the highest sales of all fast-food restaurants in the United States. (Whataburger was second with $2.7 million per restaurant average).[39]"

to

"Chick-fil-A grossed an average of $6.71 million per restaurant in 2022, despite opening only 6 days a week, the highest sales of all fast-food restaurants in the United States. (Raising Cane's was second with $5.44 million per restaurant average).[39]"

Here is the updated source: https://www.qsrmagazine.com/growth/finance/ranked-the-top-50-fast-food-chains-in-america/#:~:text=2022%20AVERAGE%20SALES%20PER%20UNIT%20THOUSANDS%C2%A0%E2%96%B4 SanJJ3225 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for suggesting. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)