Talk:KFC/Archive 3

message: Just passing through, but I noticed that the article seems puzzled that the chain is PFK in Quebec but still KFC in France.
May I suggest that the reason for that is as simple as Quebec's language laws, which have been enforced rather vigorously and may have forced the chain to use an acronym based on the French name of the chain?
Of course, someone would need to find a source for that. Daniel Case 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The law does not require companies to use a French name. For example, Burger King is not 'Le Roi des Hamburgers' (or Hambourgeois...) in Quebec  -Adjusting 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the province made Eaton's become Eaton, IIRC. Daniel Case 05:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the wikipedia article on Eaton's, the 's was dropped voluntarily in the 1960s to change its image as an "English" company. The Official Language Act wasn't passed until 1974. -Adjusting 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, KFC could have done it voluntarily. This seems like an area that could be researched for the article. Daniel Case 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's very interesting, but based on how little information I was able to find online about the Eaton's/Eaton name change, I think you might have trouble tracking down anything concrete. -Adjusting 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's online. There's a wealth of info offline. And has anyone considered asking the company themselves? They might even be able to help find a source we could use. Daniel Case 06:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFK in Quebec 

message: Why did 84.69.157.208 remove a lot of interesting (if accurate) material about the change of name etc.? (I haven't reverted it in case there was a good reason.) Barnabypage 18:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on name 

message: 74.129.222.184 21:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arent all outlets in Singapore halal? how many outlets are there BTW?
Kirlia7755 10:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Country Listing 

message: I've reordered things a bit. The article needs quite a bit of work. Those huge lists are mostly either too trivial or too fictional for inclusion, for a start, and the work section is more of a rant than anything else. Chris Cunningham 12:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Could I use http://www.kfccruelty.com/ as a resource to edit the KFC page? If not, how about http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/10/17/anderson.kfc/index.html? I understand the first one is a bit prejudiced. I want to add a section to KFC about it's treatment of the chickens.
: Feel free to use any unbiased source. It's important, however, to present a neutral point of view when giving information. The deleted material made no attempt to present information in a neutral, objective manner, and read like a piece of propaganda. Chris Cunningham 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that KFCCruelty would be an OK website to cite on matters relating to that particular campaign, but definitive statements on the treatment of KFC's chickens should be discouraged. Falsetto 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could I? 

message: I would love to see a section about the changes that KFC has made (or is making) regarding Trans Fat in its food... There is some info under the 'trans fat' article on Wikipedia, it could be expanded upon here.  Any info that could be added would be great!  There is a similar section on the McDonalds Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.221.45 (talk • contribs) 
:My thoughts exactly. There's some controversy about KFC's trans/saturated fats (deep-frying). Adding information for this topic is a good idea. Snowonster 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I dont know how to revert, but this needs it bad.
I have added a 'Nutritional Section' to include information on the food itself and added a reference to the court case as a start.--Herne nz 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trans Fat Issue / Changes 

message: There is alot of controversy surrounding peta and kfc, and i think this article should be locked both to keep a NPOV and to prevent any vandalisim by peta members. --Dallin Tanjo22 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs to be locked 

message: I have just put a non-worldwide view banner for this section. It only really represents the American menu and the section should be expanded to include a more worldwide view of the menu. For example, in Australia, KFC does not serve corn at KFC. I work at KFC so I would be able to help out with expansion of this but before we do, we need to get set menus of what each main country serves at the KFC's in that country and then put the items into tables and subheadings. What do people think? --Lakeyboy 10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Food section

message: Up until the late 1990's Kentucky Fried Chicken was called Kentucky Fried Chicken in Australia.  I'm unsure of when the name changed in the US, but (whatever the food worlds version of Greenwashing is?  Fatwashing?) it was abbreviated to KFC during a massive shoot out between health food industry spokesfolk in relation to 'fried' food, thus negating the fried aspect.  I'm sure it had a further marketting angle involved also, however this isn't why I'm even writing this.
What I want to know is, why does the entire article cite KFC, even for pre-KFC dates?  It should state the appropriate name for prior dates.  Kthxbai.  Jachin 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article should mention the notorious mutant-chicken hoax of the early 90s. This was widely believed by the kids at my school. Drutt 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. Drutt 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kentucky Fried Chicken vs KFC

message: Here's what doesnn't make sense. This is KENTUCKY Fried Chicken, but they play Sweet Home ALABAMA as sort of a "theme song". ALABAMA and KENTUCKY are two different states. That's like playing the Canadian national anthem at a New York Yankees game (at Yankees Stadium), though not as much of an insult. Still, it's IRONIC!!!! JustN5:12 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they chose it more for the feeling it evokes in listeners that down home southern sound, that the song conveys. EnsRedShirt 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be glad it's not the Dueling Banjos from Deliverance! :-D --BillyTFried 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which took place in Georgia.  Of course, the only real alternatives are My_Old_Kentucky_Home which is a crappy song, and Blue Moon of Kentucky...which is also not the greatest choice.  69.64.3.68 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweet Home ALABAMA??? This is KENTUCKY!

message: It is located near the intersection of 25E and 25W in North Corbin, Laurel County - not "Corbin" - which is partly in Whiltley and Knox counties.  Ancjr 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual location of Original "Sanders Cafe" 

message: Why is there nothing about the rats showing up in a New York KFC/Taco Bell last month?  WAVY 10 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay Lenno mentioned this and about ones in California. It is called Fried Rata. 205.240.146.147 04:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this or the Lisburn incident can really be called "controversies". We could start a section called "Hygiene Issues" or similar, but without some citeable evidence that KFC has significantly more issues of this kind than similar-sized chains, it would be a bit POVish. Barnabypage 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rats in NYC KFC 

message: The name of the section alone is a little weasel-worded, and it seems that this is one persons opinion on what's imitation and coincidence, considering no articles are cited. Can this be removed? 1337wesm 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the existence of copycats is worth noting, but we probably don't need more than a couple of sentences (and specific examples aren't really a good idea). Feel free to cut the section down and merge into the rest of the article. Chris Cunningham 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clones section 

message: I am speaking on behalf of ESW Partners who happens to do KFC marketing for the Chicago DMA. KFC now has an additional wesbite specifically for customers interested in KFC Catering. Since KFC has good catering options and not many people are aware of that fact, an additional hyperlink to www.gokfc.com would be beneficial to both KFC and the client. Please make this adjustment.
Thank you!
Kate Pageau (May 11, 2007)
katep@eswpartners.com Katepageau 17:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add KFC's catering-specific website as a link in this article 

message: Some missing controversies:
* In 2004, KFC was sued by Burger King for implying that their chicken breasts were healthier than Whoppers, when in fact they have over 90% of the fat, almost 90% of the saturated fat, over 300% of the trans fat, over 200% of the sodium, and more total calories. On top of that, a single chicken breast is not sold as a complete meal, and in fact has to be ordered special, unlike a Whopper. Burger King dropped the suit after the FTC made KFC change their ads. (I can't find a direct reference, but see http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/04/kfc_takes_back.html for some substantiation.)
* Somewhere back when they were still called Kentucky Fried Chicken, the FTC nailed them for selling 2/3rds of a chicken breast as a breast. When they agreed to start selling whole breasts, they advertised their breasts were now "50% larger"--which was true, but only because they'd been defrauding people for years. They were forced to stop that as well.
* KFC's "chicken wings" are actually made from processed breast meat, rather than wings. The FTC decided not to go after them for this one as long as they admitted the facts. See http://www.kfc.com/menu/chicken_boneless.asp, where they openly advertise that their wings are made of 100% breast.
--76.203.74.26 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you quite understand what a controversy is. You might want to take a look at controversy. A controversy does NOT have to involve illegal practice. Indeed many controversies don't involve illegal practices. If a controversy exists about the rate of pay, even if that rate of pay is at the minimum rage and the minimum rage is arguably fair then that is a controversy even if it's not illegal. In the Australian case, there is no reliable source which establishes a controversy exists therefore you were right to remove it albeit for the wrong reason. But if a reliable source is found for any controvery which establishes a controversy then it should not be removed even if you don't think there is anything controversial there Nil Einne 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: In Australia, many KFC stores are covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement with the SDA. Despite this, their wages are barely above the Award rate of pay, as fast food outlets fall under the category of "food retailers", for which an already (relatively) low rate applies. 
I've taken the liberty to remove the above since there's no controversy in the statement. Appears to be a your typical internet diatribe. A controversy would exists if the employer (KFC) had conducted something illegal or unethical (restrictions upon employee associations, pay below/at legal minimum). No such thing exist in the statement. I certainly am concerned about the other 'controversies' but will leave it to the users in those countries. (Note: in Australia award/minimum wages are reviewed annually with adjustments made in consultation with inflation etc.) Htra0497 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you quite understand what a controversy is. You might want to take a look at controversy. A controversy does NOT have to involve illegal practice. Indeed many controversies don't involve illegal practices. If a controversy exists about the rate of pay, even if that rate of pay is at the minimum rage and the minimum rage is arguably fair then that is a controversy even if it's not illegal. In the Australian case, there is no reliable source which establishes a controversy exists therefore you were right to remove it albeit for the wrong reason. But if a reliable source is found for any controvery which establishes a controversy then it should not be removed even if you don't think there is anything controversial there Nil Einne 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies - Australia

message: I seem to recall, from a visit years ago to the KFC museum in Louisville, that Sanders originally developed his cooking technique for beans, not chicken. But I can't recall any detail. Does anyone know more about this? It would be an interesting addition to the historical section. Barnabypage 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure cooking and beans 

message: :Image:KFCnewlogo2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:KFCnewlogo2.png

message: Does anyone else remember the marketing campaign they had where it was claimed the original recipe was lost, then 'found' again? I noticed the chicken tasted WAY, WAY better during that time, far better than their crispy chicken...not only did it taste like it, but it looked like it had herbs in it, too. Nowadays the chicken doesn't taste anything like I remember that time when it improved...it was more like before. This was during the 90's, by the way...--Kojiro Takenashi 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the 1990s when KFC felt sales pressure from Boston Market and its roasted chicken. KFC introduced its own roasted chicken product. The commercials stated that the recipie was from a lost Col. Sanders recipe. Jerem43 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I too remember the 'original' taste of Kentucky Fried Chicken. My first taste was in about 1969, I was 13 and visiting a friend in Birmingham, UK. It was a real treat and seeemed a luxury. I recall the way the chicken was coated was almost as if it was covered in traditional (sage and onion in the UK) stuffing, with a definite taste and look of herbs in the mixture. I also remember saying to my friends mum that it was delicious but needed 'a little extra salt'! Lumps of the coating were to be found in the nooks of the chicken piece. The recipe definitely changed, being saltier and herb-less; more like plain fried chicken. I have always associated the recipe change with around the time they changed their name. The 'rumour' being that KFC were not allowed to use the original Colonel Sanders recipe though I now tend to the view that it was simply a cost saving combined with a marketing change. I have (so far) found little evidence to support my memory. Brian R Hunter 19:13, 03 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Recipe 'lost' then 'found'?