Talk:Jimmy John's

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old discussions 

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

message: "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)
thread_title: This part of the article does not fit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Post high school options

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD]] Tagging

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Union 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of union activity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political leaning 

message: 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)
replies: text: You could register an account so you can edit locked articles. JKruger13 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to be made by someone with permission 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fast Food or not? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jimmy John's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  James John Liautaud Biography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citing self-published sources 

message: 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 () 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)
replies: text: Still no response from editor .  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)
thread_title:  Expanding the company history considered overly laudatory? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo of elephant you kill !!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Menu Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor customer service 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is up with the amount of times the whopper song is on this page