[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:KFC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.207.214.5 (talk) at 13:56, 19 November 2007 (→kfc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Controversies page"

there sure is a bunch of unsourced statements here. and backing up greenpeace's accusations with greenpeace propaganda? give me a break!

all gone. - Unsigned statement by M.U.D. (talk|contibs) on 9 November 2007 04:50

There are quite a few sourced statements in that section. The article is cited exactly the way it should be and you had no business removing that section. When an accusation by an established group such as Greenpeace or PETA is made, it is notable and as such acceptable for inclusion. You may not like the organizations, but it is inappropriate for you to delete the content based on your biases.
Because of your bias, these statements have been restored. If you keep deleting them there is the possibility that you will be blocked. - Jeremy (Jerem43 07:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Discontinued Items

The ETC Marinade was 14 minutes not a whole day. For awhile they changed the recipe of "Original Recipe" also by marinading the chicken in salt water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.94.14 (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Fried Chicken and Kentucky Fried Movie

The "See also" section is for related topics that are not mentioned in the main article, not for any article that has a couple of words that sound similar. There's no reason to include Maryland Fried Chicken or any other competitor of KFC; there's no reason to mention a movie that just happens to make reference to the former (and current) chain name of KFC. THF 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. It's for topics that are related, sometimes in a tangential manner, and indeed those links are. Keeping them out is needlessly nitpicky. I'm restoring them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are either of these topics related to KFC? THF 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also means "If you're interested in this topic, you may also be interested in...". They don't have to be subject inclusive. Kentucky Fried Movie is derived from Kentucky Fried Chicken. And Maryland Fried Chicken is a derivative company. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I won't challenge the prod of Maryland Fried Chicken, so if it goes, then I'll accede to its removal here, obviously. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone interested in reading about KFC be interested in reading about Kentucky Fried Movie? That's a non sequitur: the latter has absolutely nothing to do with the former beyond the title. Nor is there any reason to mention a minor fried-chicken chain that ostensibly competes with KFC any more than there is a reason to mention Wendy's or Popeye's or Church's or Arby's, especially when the article has absolutely no content. THF 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the movie title is derived from Kentucky Fried Chicken makes it a legitimate See also. And if the Maryland Fried Chicken article is kept (hypothetical), it's an interesting See also as it's a similarly named chain. See also's do not have to be in the same subject space as the article subject. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - Maryland Fried Chicken has its special place at MFC. Or else I must suspect that this attempt is advertisement-related. If Maryland Fried Chicken et al are competitors & they're related, then they should be in the body paragraphs - infos on the competition. (Wikimachine 23:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Third opinion

Response to request at WP:3O:

  • The link to Maryland Fried Chicken would, in theory, be acceptable if it is a genuine competitor of at least a state or regional level (ie. not just a couple of branches somewhere) and the article offers the reader some information beyond "Maryland Fried Chicken is a chain of restaurants in the United States." Even if it does not get deleted, it would need to serve the reader properly in order to be a "See Also" link. Put yourself in the mind of a reader and you would feel very short changed by that link! So I think that it should be removed or at least restricted to body text until/unless the content improves.
  • That film seems to bear no relation to KFC other than the title. This link has perhaps slightly more value (because of its content) but I can envisage the reader being a little bit confused by the apparent absence of a tangible link. The title might have been an arbitrary choice. In the interests of compromise, however, you could leave this link in place. Though it would help if an explanation for the title could be found.

I hope that helps you both. Adrian M. H. 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this reasoning. Why not include every fried-chicken chain as a see also? Why not include every movie or beverage or geographic location that mentions the word "Kentucky"? (Kentucky Fried Movie has nothing to do with KFC, other than the name, which is a joke: movies can't be fried, much less kentucky-fried, ha ha.) Burying the "See also" section in dozens of irrelevant links hurts the article. THF 18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Maryland Fried Chicken ends up being deleted, the issue is moot. If it's not notable, it doesn't deserve a link at all. But re: Kentucky Fried Movie, the title is obviously a play on Kentucky Fried Chicken, even if the movie isn't about what it suggests. It is a topic the reader might also be interested in reading about. Why make such a big case out of this? It hurts nobody. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it hurts the professionalism of the encyclopedia, so it hurts Wikipedia to have a substandard article. And, again, there's no reason to single out Maryland Fried Chicken, and you haven't identified any reason to do so. Create a template for fried-chicken restaurants if you want links to every fried-chicken restaurant in every fried-chicken article, it doesn't belong in the See also section when it's unrelated. THF 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Which is why the first link would only be suitable if it was a genuine competitor. I assume that there are a small number of strong competitors to KFC? (This is certainly the case in my country, where there is, at best, one strong rival with anything more than a regional presence). At least one competitor should be included to maintain neutrality. The other link could stay as a compromise, but if you do not wish to compromise and would rather push for both links to be removed, I will have to leave you to that. I have provided my opinion in good faith. Adrian M. H. 18:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No other article on any other consumer vendor has a "See also" section where competitors are listed. I don't see why KFC should be singled out, much less why Maryland Fried Chicken is the one vendor named when there are a dozen more significant ones.
Again, I don't object to a Template:Fried chicken franchises if someone wants to create one. But it doesn't belong in the See also section. THF 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just keep Kentucky Fried Movie and be done with it. After discussion, I see no real need to list competitors, and a template might be a good idea. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kentucky Fried Movie has just as much right to be here as Chicken Little. I rest my case. User:Tastywheat/sig 07:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the first is obviously influenced by the subject, and the second one isn't. I see no case rested. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, both use words from "Kentucky Fried Chicken". Neither has anything to do with the movie. User:Tastywheat/sig 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
So, Kentucky Fried Movie was named from out of the blue, then? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say drop the movie reference. Other than the name of the movie itself, there is no relationship whatsoever to the food chain. Therefore, I don't see a point to having it linked here.HubcapD 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dropping the movie reference. I haven't seen the movie, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the movie have absolutely nothing to do with Kentucky Fried Chicken, not even using it as a prop or story element? If that is the case, then the deliberately joking title of the movie is not information about the fast food chain. Under those circumstances, it would be easier to argue that the movie Tapeheads would be more relevant: Roscoe's Waffles and Wings, which serves fried chicken just as KFC does, is an important part of the story. Drop the reference. VisitorTalk

I'm amazed at how many seem to misunderstand what "See also" means. It links to articles that the reader might also be interested in looking at, given their reading of the current article. A subject with a similar name that's obviously based on "Kentucky Fried Chicken" is related enough for a "See also" link. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Stevie, the only thing about the movie that is related to the fast food chain is the title. The movie is not about Kentucky or food from Kentucky; it's not about chicken, fried or otherwise; it's not about food at all; it's not about Col. Sanders. It's just a series of comedy sketches with the completely arbitrary title that was picked as a bit of meaningless, anarchist humor. There is no reason to imagine that people interested in a history of chicken fast food would also be interested in a sketch comedy movie, merely because the moviemakers chose to put a completely meaningless, unrelated title onto their movie. VisitorTalk 07:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 07:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to remove the Kentucky Fried Movie reference soon. There is no evidence that a reader interested in an article about a fast food chain would also be interested in a completely unrelated movie with a similar name that was chosen as a joke by the filmmaker. For comparison, the articles about Taurus (astrology) and Ford Taurus (vehicle) do not refer to each other in the "See Also" sections, for exactly the same reason: someone interested in an ancient horoscope symbol cannot be assumed to be interested in a modern automobile that happens to have been named after it, and vice versa. I believe the burden of proof is on Stevie to demonstrate the value of the "see also" link. "There are two words in common in a play on words" is not a compelling argument about similarity of content. VisitorTalk 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with VisitorTalk, remove the KFM link. Jerem43 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hehe. KFM has about as much relevance staying in this article as "Clerks 2" does for McDonalds. SpANG! 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone else beat me to the removal of the reference. I recommend that this entire discussion be archived and the RFC tag be removed. VisitorTalk 08:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFC nickname

The correct year when KFC started to use the nickname was 1986 when they made a new bucket design. It says so on a KFC poster.

Charge for use of recipe

The correct amount that the Colonel charged for use of his chicken recipe was 5 cents a head (a whole chicken), not 5 cents a piece. 64.186.57.226 20:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding treatment of chickens

This was a huge issue a while back. Quite a lot of media coverage, as I recall. Why hasn't it appeared in the controveries section? 74.242.103.81 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content of the controversies in the US section was removed in late June 07 without discussion. I have gone through and found documentation for that section and will be replacing the removed content - mostly about animal welfare concerns.Bob98133 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with at least mentioning this controversy, although it appears to take up more space than is appropriate. Also, the line about what an anonymous member of a group said is unencyclopedic. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which line has an anonymous member quoted? I agree that's not right, but I didn't think I put something ike that up. Also, I agree this could be shorter, but my suggestion would be to remove the rat-in-KFC incident. I think it was discussed before that it happens at lots of restaurants and, while it's disgusting, it's not really controversial.Bob98133 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the anonymous Adele Douglass said is unencyclopedic. Anyone can say anything, and as she's just a member, I don't trust this as a finding of fact. Just because somebody is quoted in a newspaper doesn't make it worthy for inclusion. Further, I was talking about reducing the new material, not other material. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Douglass is a Director of the American Humane Association, so perhaps adding that would make her comment worthy? At one point, this article just had something like - "PETA is protesting KFC" and not too much else - so there has to be a bit of what the controvery is about and I think it's right to include KFC's defence. And both sides should be documented or referenced. For awhile, this page showed a picture of people protesting but had no text at all to explain why. How would you suggest it get shortened? Maybe it's a separate issue, but do you think the rats thing is noteworthy enough to include as a controversy? Thanks. Bob98133 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why it wasn't mentioned in the first place that Douglass was a noteworthy figure, so, yes, that _probably_ makes her comment notable as long as her position is noted. And I think I've already alluded to this, but YES, I think the rats thing is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Bottom line: Please update the text to ensure noteworthiness of Douglass' remark. As for reducing, that will probably happen with copyediting over time anyway, so let's drop that for now. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Move requested

This is not the current move request, please see below

- Jerem43 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This'll be back at the same place as the article soon, hopefully. Children, if you're going to contribute to Wikipedia by moving articles around then please spare an hour or so to drop a note first. Article naming was well-discussed before. Chris Cunningham 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Sanders quote AGAINST the people who took over

Colonel Sanders had something to say about what happened to KFC after it was brought from him.

I found THIS gem in a book on sociology in a section about the corporatization and regulation of our lesure activities (Mcdonaldization.)

"That frigging . . . .outfit . . . . They prostituted every goddam thing I had. I had the greatest gravy in the world and those sons of bitches they dragged it out and extended and watered it down that I'm so god-damn mad." (qouted in Ritzer 1993, p.64)

Sociology; Themes and perspectives Australian edition by Haralambos, Van Krieken, smith and Holborn (c) 1996 Longman P. 364 Corrupt one 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a complete citation. Not the textbook, but where did the textbook get the quote from? Just saying "Ritzer 1993" isn't sufficient information for including the Colonel's criticism in the article. =Axlq 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for section merge

I think that the International operations section should be merged with the List of Global locations section as since the former seems to reinforce the data in the latter.

Any Opinions?

Jerem43 17:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFC vs Kentucky Fried Chicken

Copied from User_talk:Thumperward user dicussion page. I believe that this is the proper place for the discussion. Jerem43 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFC has begun to identify themselves as Kentucky Fried Chicken again, the article be damned - the company is calling themselves Kentucky Fried Chicken. So if the company decides to call themselves Kentucky Fried Chicken we have to also. Look at their web page and see that they have the name Kentucky Fried Chicken emblazoned across the top of the page, NOT KFC.

I am going to make an edit that will fix it all. Please stop being so proprietary about the article :-).

Jerem43 14:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

technically, last I checked, we go with whatever is most commonly used, not what the company uses. I'm not going to get involved in this, but I've not heard someone say Kentucky Fried Chicken and not been advertising for the company-- and even then most of the company's ads still say just "KFC" --lucid 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. The company name is still KFC, the web page be damned, and I imagine this will need fixed again tomorrow, but don't let me stop you from having fun. Chris Cunningham 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of things that are commonly called one thing that is not their proper name. As I look through Wikipedia, I find that the proper name is the article name and the commonly used name is created as a redirect link to the properly named article: Coca-Cola is the official name of the soft drink and is commonly called Coke. The Coca-Cola Company also has the trademark for the product under both names, but the article is still called Coca-Cola, not Coke; People still commonly refer to the former AT&T networking division as Lucent but the proper name is Alcatel-Lucent. There are dozens of examples of this, and the same should apply for for Kentucky Fried Chicken/KFC.
I believe that Thumperward's argument goes against the policies and spirit of Wikipedia.
Jerem43 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe that I have better things to do with my time than go back over the long and arduous series of arguments which led to the current article title and introductory text. As for "the policies of Wikipedia", KFC is both the official name of the company and the most common name used to refer to it. Quite why you think that a web page's title overrides this is beyond me. At any rate, the article's title is now at odds with the introductory text, so unless you're going to bother going back through Requested Moves to get the article shifted this will end up going back over MoS concerns. Chris Cunningham 15:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Company name is KFC but the restaurant name is being changed back to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Isn't the article about the restaurant and not the company that operates the restaurant?

Chris, to save you some time I looked at the original move discussion; the points made in it were valid at the time, however the situation has been changed since then. The company has decided to re-embrace their historical name: while the operator is KFC Corporation, they are now calling the stores Kentucky Fried Chicken in the US. Please look here, here and here for proof. Additionally KFC Corp is process of re-branding itself with a new logo, products, cooking oils and store formats, as seen here.

I think it is time that the Wikipedian Community revisit the naming issue based on the new data. I also believe that I can get visual proof that the reasons for the article renaming are now out of date with in the next few days.

Jerem43 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until six hours ago the article already contained all the information you've provided, but didn't have any style problems concerning its title. I'm at a loss to explain why you felt this was worthy of rocking the boat for the sake of a marginal change in advertising strategy in the US, but I'm not going to spend much time getting into an argument over it. The infobox is now titled differently to the article and there's duplication where there was none before. At some point this will need to be fixed. Chris Cunningham 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this is not just a new advertising program, but a whole new re-branding that includes tens, if not hundreds, millions of dollars not just spent another round of ads, but new decor, signage, building layouts and much, much more. There is a newly redesigned store in the town I work in and they shuttered the whole operation for two months, gutted the building, built a new kitchen, a new dining room with all new decor and the new signs. Look at the links I provided you with and you can see my point, especially the VMSD.com one. An analogy that you might understand better was when Apple dropped the older MacOS 9 on PowerPC and adopted its current FreeBSD-based Mac OS-X on Intel Core. Yeah, they still supported OS 9/PPC for a few years, but after time the old MacOS was gone for ever (officially). Like Apple, this is a complete u-turn for the company and they way it markets itself to the public. Eventually, KFC Corp will re-name all of its stores as Kentucky Fried Chicken.

also:

  1. I put this in the opening because it is a major turning point in the companies operations over the next few years;
  2. I did not change the Info box to its current form, I had it as KFC/Kentucky Fried Chicken (reflecting the name transition);
  3. My edit today resets it back to the original opening that was there before you cited it for needing factual citations (citations that I added) and the edits made yesterday by John Stattic, otherwise the opening is almost identical to what it was.
  4. I looked through the article and it contained nothing about the company restructuring, its new business plans or new advertising. The last mentioned ads were from 2006, also looking at the changes logs going back to the beginning of August I can find no mention of the restructuring either. I can find no evidence that there is duplication.

Jerem43 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to request a move back to Kentucky Fried Chicken, argue your case, and fix all the double redirects if it succeeds. That would at least indicate that you think this is a serious enough change of tack that the article needs to use a different main title. User:John Stattic used the "I looked at the US website" logic, which I don't believe is solid enough. The "duplication" thing refers to the intro having to use the full "Kentucky Fried Chicken" phrase more than once, which it didn't previously. Chris Cunningham 09:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Not seeing a move request having been initiated. If the editors involved in the recent intro changes don't feel that the changes are important enough to warrant a page move, I'm going to restore the original intro text. No proof to indicate this is more than a US advertising gimmick right now. Chris Cunningham 08:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris,
Read the citations, as stated before, it shows that this is not just an advertising gimmick. It shows a new store with the new (old) Kentucky Fried Chicken logo. Just because we did not request a move does not mean it is not true.
In order for you to make you happy, I did it just for you.
Jeremy

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


(Made on 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Cited reasons for article move:

These five examples show conclusive proof that KFC is in the process of rolling its name back to the original Kentucky Fried Chicken moniker and why the article should be renamed.

Please comment on this.

Jerem43 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For: Reasons I stated above - Jerem43
  • Oppose. We shouldn't be a tool of corporate image-making. One of the reasons we use common names rather than official names is so we don't need to participate in these campaigns. If the campaign is successful, and the common name does change, then and only then do we change the article name. Also note, in Australia the signs all still say KFC. Wikipedia is international. Andrewa 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous. Nothing to suggest this is anything more than a US ad campaign at the moment, in particular nothing suggesting that the company's corporate identity is being changed. KFC is also the most common name used to refer to the company, so there aren't even any common-name concerns about leaving it where it is. Chris Cunningham 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the simple reason that the company hasn't changed their signage to reflect one definite name everywhere. Here in Germany, all KFC locations here in Cologne carry both the "KFC" (on smaller signs) and "Kentucky Fried Chicken" (on larger signs) designations. This has been the case since November 2003. Toni S. 10:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 05:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing intro back

Per the failed move request, the article's staying at KFC for now, so I'm restoring the previous naming in the lead. Thanks to Jerem43 for going the distance and following due process for the request, however; if the company's stance changes notably in the future I have no problem with a move being re-requested. Chris Cunningham 07:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

urban legend

There is an urban legend in Greece concerning KFC: The chickens are actually mutated products without beaks or feathers to make preparation quicker; and that's why 'Fried Chicken' renamed to KFC and the word 'chicken' is never mentioned in the menus (I haven't verified this). Does this legend occur anywhere else? Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article and find arguments and counter-arguments for this legend? Pictureuploader 07:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Snopes article on that very same myth (confirmed to be false): [KFC Mutant Chickens] --Chikinsawsage 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Yanei?

A new user posted that there are 234 locations in a country/region called Yanei in the International Operations sections. Where exactly is this? Google doesn't produce any viable information.

Original text: "Yanei

KFC entered the Yanese market in late 1994 and by 2001 there were over 234 locations all over the country. In 2004 the chain merged with local chain, Mel Keety, a ice cream chain and in 2007 it took over a small conivence store chain Cho Vekka and runs 128 of them."

Toni S. 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandalism. 75.109.93.147 has been doing this at the Wendy's article for weeks. I had to request SPP on that article to get him to stop. - Jerem43 06:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of employees ?

This pages lists KFC as employing 750,000 (with no citation). But KFC is owned by Yum Brands (who also owns Pizza Hutt, Taco Bell and some other fast food chains) and Yum Brands sales revenue is less have half of McDonalds while the Wikipedia page on McDonalds says they employ around 500,000.

750,000 for KFC seems far too high. Or at least unreliable.

This is important because no sales revenue figures are cited on this page, so researchers looking to establish how large KFC is will use this employee number as a proxy.

I suggest it be deleted unless a reliable citation can be found.

PS my estimate is that KFC sales revenue is around $2 - $3 billion. Byronsharp 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and remove it, nothing worse than some schoolkid doing a class presentation on KFC using figures off Wikipedia that some guy pulled out of his ass one day. For what it's worth, this page pegs the McDonald's number at "over 1.5 million" at whatever point the page was updated, so while the figure might be too high I doubt that it's going to be so for too long. Chris Cunningham 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero Grams Trans Fat"

I think that the article should be edited because although KFC advertises their product to have "zero grams" of trans fatty acids in their chicken, federal food labeling regulations mention that a serving of a product that has .499 of a gram of trans fat is zero. Clearly, if the KFC chicken product does not contain trans fat, the proper way to advertise a product is by saying "no trans fat." That's how they get you: "zero grams trans fat" vs. "no trans fat." Saying "zero" lets them get away with up to .499 grams.

You should try KFC's nutrition program on their website. Input in the system that you are to consume a regular style chicken breast, it says 0 grams trans fat. But if you input in the system that you were to consume ten of the chicken breasts, the actual total of trans fat is 3 grams. So literally, each piece of chicken contains more than zero trans fat, and less or at .499 grams. Akit 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Products that are animal protein based tend to have a small amount of naturally occurring trans-fat, especially parts like the fatty skin of a chicken. Statistically speaking you are correct, however I believe that the amount, less than .5g, is so small that they are allowed to claim 0g. If someone is eating ten breasts of KFC chicken alone indicates serious dietary concerns besides what trans-fat you would get from consuming the usual 1-2 pc KFC meals, the ten pieces is the equivalent to a full bucket of chicken from them. - Jeremy (Jerem43 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Kitchen Fresh Chicken

Kitchen fresh chicken redirects here but there is no mention of this name. Josh (talk | contribs) 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images

I deleted a whole bunch of images posted by 70.104.164.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that were reposts from the deleted List of KFC global locations article, they did not contribute any thing new to the article or were not reflective of any information in the article.

-Jeremy (Jerem43 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Request for protection

I'm going to suggest protecting this page from vandalism because of the content, even if cited, defies common sense. I'm not even going to list it here, since it's available in the Nov 9, 2007 11:47 drafts. The number of quick revisions suggest an edit war. I also separated the Poundstone citation from the vandalism that letched onto it. MMetro 12:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kfc

breed there chickens with dogs and kfc is soooo peng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.214.5 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KFC&oldid=172482687"