Talk:Chipotle Mexican Grill/Archive 2

Chipotle map?

That map of Chipotle locations is wrong and should be removed. The Chipotle Website says there are 8 locations in Washington and I have been to one of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.82.199 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The map should be removed it isn't even in agreement with the number of states listed as having Chipotle restaurants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.137.127 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a new store opened this year in Greenville, SC, and there will be one in Nashville, TN, this fall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.188.163 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A Chipotle opened in Nashville, TN in November 2009. PDCook (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New Chipotle in Burlington, VT and in Baton Rouge, LA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.186.93 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

One Chipotle has opened in Vancover BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.127 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

CIW

I am finding the few sentences about the CIW to be heavily slanted against Chipotle. The term, "intense public scrutiny" is a loaded term, and even the Denver Post source explains how it seems that the CIW is attacking Chipotle for publicity, even though only 5% of its tomotoes come from the region the CIW represents. Also, this doesn't seem to be national news, just regional news when the CIW comes into town with their "massive" protests of 32 people. I personally don't see this as even being relevent or newsworthy enough to add to this article, but I'll first make it more balanced before we start debating that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryapathy (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The information itself as well as the wording completely lacks impartiality.. they're weasel words. Can we clean this up? Sailoralea (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've editted the section to make it more balanced. I'd like to remind the people adding this info that most of the sources I can find and that are provided may not be reliable. Most of the newspapers that mention the CIW are independent newspapers with a liberal slant, and do not discuss the issue in a non-biased way. The only reliable source I could find so far was the Denver Post article, which actually presents both sides of the situation. Also, I call into question using the CIW website as a source, as that is definately NPOV. Please make sure the information added isn't a witch-hunt on the company using WP as a soapbox. Angryapathy (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove CIW

I have been trying to make this section as neutral as possible, even though I personally believe that the information about CIW should be removed. I can barely find any references to the CIW/Chipotle issues in real news outlets, and most of the sources for information are the CIW itself, mirror organizations of CIW, or slanted newspapers/E-zines. There are very few notable news outlets giving this any coverage. I think maybe the CIW could have it own page, but not have it only on the Chipotle page. One policy about this is WP:UNDUE, as we don't have many reliable (or recent) sources about CIW. This also applies to WP:SOAPBOX, as Wikipedia is probably the #1 source of info about CIW/Chipotle. Finally, and probably most importantly is WP:NOTABILITY, as it seems that the issues fails to fall within the Notability Guidelines. I think this should be removed, and if someone wants to create a CIW page, then that would be the proper place for the info. If I don't hear any objections, I'll remove it soon, but I'd like to hear other people opinions on the subject. Angryapathy (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The CIW section should be removed from this article, and CIW should have its own page.THD3 (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Create the CIW article first, make sure it establishes WP:N, and then move most of the text out. Some of it should stay here, just enough to give people an idea of what the situation is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the CIW affair even notable enough for this article is my initial question. While it may be important to those involved, I don't think it has enough coverage to deserve a place on this page.Angryapathy (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. sorry, I misread. No, I don't think it's notable enough to exist on its own right now, but you might be able to add it to Coalition of Immokalee Workers and then link over there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this- we move what is on the Chipotle page to the CIW page, then put a sentence about the whole issue in the "Controversy" section of the Chipotle page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryapathy (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor Overhaul

If anyone looks in the history, you might see a few recent edits from me. Well, I noticed a lot of areas that weren't cited (with or without tags) and decided to do something about it. I've added a good amount of info to the page with citations. Feel free to help. I think this page could eventually be made into a featured article if we get all the sources done right. I've found a wealth of info on Chipotle online, so I think we can change this article around for the better. Anyone want to help out? Angryapathy (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a lot of headway with citations, but I also know I need to format the citations better. If someone wants to help, please do, otherwise I'll get to it eventually. Angryapathy (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still working on the article, making some headway. There have been a lot of areas that needed wikifying. I redid the history section, adding more info on the history of the business, and cut down the two paragraphs on stocks. Can we use the Chipotle website as a source for information on the food/ingredients? I think so, since simply listing types of food isn't breaking WP:NPOV. Also, I think that the Decor/Enviromental Responsibility sections can be effective merged into a section called, "Architecture." Any comments on my edits? I know I've done a lot, but it seems like this article wasn't up to WP standards with citations. Angryapathy (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I am done with the overhaul of the article. A few areas could use a little work, like the introductory paragraph, and making sure that the list in the menu section is properly referenced. But I think almost all the info is properly sourced from reliable sources, and that most of the available information is included. Of course, it's still a work in progress. Angryapathy (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Burrito health facts

I think I need to expound why I have removed the burrito health facts that cites the Chipotle nutrition info. "Based on the nutrition guides provided by the company, a standard burrito can contain more than 1000 calories (approximately 50% of the Reference Daily Intake (RDI)), 40 grams of fat (approximately 63% of the RDI), and 2400 mg of sodium (approximately 100% of the RDI)." First of all, what is a standard burrito? Secondly, the health facts provided only show ingredients, NOT burritos. Hence, the original synthesis. The info has been added up (arbitrarily) and calcuated independantally of the source. Finally, the reference does not include the RDI info for calories. This info comes from an unnamed source that is not referenced. This is why I found a better source. Also, citing from the Chipotle website also causes issues from WP:PRIMARY, since the citation is a primary source, we should aim for a secondary source.

So pick your poison, either this sentence is original synthesis, or it has unsourced statements. Either way, it needs to be improved, deleted, or cited with a better source. Until then, I am deleting it until something better is put in its place. Angryapathy (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Angryapathy on this. If nothing else, it's synthesis of primary sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fast Food or Fast Casual

Chipotle is currently listed in the page List of Fast Food Restaurants, which at the top says it is distinct from fast casual restaurants. I know nothing about these categorizations, but the top of this page does identify Chipotle as one of the first fast casual resataurants. Perhaps someone who has more knowledge about the subject would take it upon themselves to decide whether Chipotle should be in the Fast Food list?

Also, the List of Fast Casual Restaurants page is currently a redirect to the page Fast Casual Restaurants, which seems a tad bit unprofessional to me. Maybe if Chipotle really is fast casual someone could make it the first entry in a new list ;-). RampagingCarrot (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Health Concerns & Calorie/Fat/Sodium Content

A regular Chipotle burrito with the normal ingredients is an incredibly unhealthy meal. Their "natural" origins don't make up for levels of fat, calories and sodium that can even hold its own against a Big Mac combo (Bag a McMeal and check out ChipotleFan.com to see for yourself). It is important to remember that a burrito counts as one meal (and one serving). I noticed that this is hardly mentioned in the nutrition tab. While it was noted, it is done a perfunctory manner and the majority of the section goes toward the tendency toward natural ingredients. One would think that the horrible fat/calorie/sodium numbers deserve at least equal time with the ad copy posted below it. Thoughts? -amarstan- 147.9.224.47 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

CIW statement

Guyanakoolaid removed this statement in bold: "In September 2009, Chipotle reached an agreement to raise the wages for its tomato-pickers, with assurances that the money will be going directly to the workers (unlike agreements made by other food outlets." from the source: "Chipotle Raises Pay For Tomato Pickers" stating: "Absolutely nowhere in the referenced source did a guarantee that money will go directly to workers appear, much less any talk at all that other restaurants had not done the same." I feel that is explicitly stated in the source. I'd rather have a discussion instead of edit warring, so any comments? Angryapathy (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks supported by the source to me. I don't understand how "the company will ensure that those who pick the tomatoes actually get the money" (from the cited ref) could leave any doubt. Likewise for the other half of the concern. Is Guyanakoolaid actually reading the right article? DMacks (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it was a misstatement in the summary of the news article that was supported nowhere in the actual audio clip that was the source, and if it was said, it was a fabrication. Maybe the you read that in the summary and genuinely thought it to be true, but unfortunately it is not. Chipotle was hardly the first to agree to the penny-per-pound increase, and in reality was a holdout after other major restaurants, including McDonald's (in 2007) and Taco Bell (in 2005), had agreed to the exact same terms several years ago: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/articles/us-farmworkers-reach-historic-agreement-with-mcdonalds Guyanakoolaid (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I added another line with information that comes directly from the cited source. It directly states that the majority of the other companies' "pay raises" still sits in escrow accounts. Chipotle's money goes directly to the workers. Angryapathy (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So which is it, is Chipotle "the first", or simply ahead of "the majority"? Chipotle is to be commended on seeing that the extra money they pay for tomatoes goes to the workers instead of held in escrow, but again, Chipotle is hardly the first.Guyanakoolaid (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement I had never said or implied that they were first, but instead said that they were ensuring that money is going to the workers. It might explain why Chipotle didn't sign the agreement earlier. I am fixing your edit, as your link to McDonald's needs to be sourced as a citation instead of an external link to the article. Angryapathy (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The current description of the Chipotle/CIW issue implies that the dispute is resolved. A recent article in the industry journal FastCasual (hardly a "liberal" or slanted source) substantiates the position that there is still a recognized dispute over Chipotle's tomato supply chain practices. Sandillero (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.221.253 (talk)

The article does in fact say that the CIW still considers the dispute to be unresolved (I tweaked the wording to say so). But the article in Fast Casual focuses on Chipotle's reluctance to sign CIW's agreement, and makes no mention that any of Chipotle's tomato sources are engaging in the abuses that the CIW has been fighting against. Angryapathy (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this article as a B-class article for the following reasons:

• It is well written
• It is well sourced
• It has a good grasp of the subject

Issues that I have found:

• The menu section is too descriptive of the items it sells, a simple link to the item would suffice. The only place this is not the case would be any items that are specific to the company. That means a product that is unique in its composition and naming, not a variant on a mainstream product.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article status

I think this article is close to being ready to be assessed for Good Article Status. I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs of that process, so does anyone have any input on that subject? Angryapathy (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There are instructions on WP:GAN. Basically all you do is add the GAN template to the top of this page, add a link on the appropriate list, and then you wait. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps we should wait a bit. Did you see Jeremy's comment about the menu? We might want to rewrite the first paragraph of the menu section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After Jeremy's comment, I condensed the menu to a couple sentences. I think it is appropriate since the McDonald's article has a brief synopsis of its menu, and since the Chipotle menu is small enough to be included in a few sentences. I think I saw a quote from Steve Ells regarding the menu size, so I might include that to show that the info warrants inclusion in this article. Angryapathy (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, the quote is added...I think the small menu is key to the company, but if that is something that would hold the article back, it could be reorganized again. Angryapathy (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the article for nomination for GA status. Angryapathy (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

South Park

The mention on South Park last night seems to have made the news. About 89,000 hits on Google now for "chipotle south park". Worth adding a mention in the article? -- SpareSimian (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No. A Google search isn't a reliable source. And per WP:TRIVIA, we don't just include every single place Chipotle has ever been mentioned. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the page next to the Ozzy Osbourne ref. It seems to fit well there, and there were a couple reliable sources. But I don't think we need to go into detail regarding the content of the episode (that's what wiki-links are for). But I agree that Google search results are meaningless, only the content of the search results matter. Angryapathy (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some pre GA review comments

Just a few comments about the article from an uninvolved editor. Two on the tomato source controversy: (1) I think it should be said that most restaraunts did the same thing Chipotle was doing, that this is the norm. Chipotle was just being unobservant or hypocritcal to its principles. (2) More detail on exactly what was going on with tomato pickers wages is in order, it was more than just not being paid enough-- there was fee gouging that culminated in slavery. I suggest digging very carefully through the sources, and the sources sources (see this one!) to get at the truth of the matter.

Who currently owns the corporation, i.e. that it is publicly traded corporation may belong in the lead, since all the previous owners are. As the lead is now, it could be misinterpreted as meaning that the company is back in the hands of the original owner.

Also, how about describing how to pronounce "Chipotle" since it's nonstandard? Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary for the Chipotle Mexican Grill article to be a destination for a detailed description on the Florida tomato pickers controversy. For this topic (Chipotle), the subtopic of the CIW issues should not end up dominating the article on Chipotle, as giving even more coverage to the tomato controversy would violate WP:UNDUE. A full description of the tomato issues in Florida should be at either the CIW article, or perhaps a Florida tomato wage controversy article. The tomato wage issue is small in respect to the history of Chipotle; the current coverage is in proportion to its relevence to Chipotle Mexican Grill as a whole. As a reminder, Chipotle is not the company that "enslaved" the tomato pickers, it is instead the tomato companies.

As for Chipotle being hypocritical, Chipotle did something different than most companies. While most companies came to agreements with the CIW to stop the protesting, the money promised to the workers has not yet reached them. Chipotle's agreement ensures the money actually goes to the workers due to the "defection" of East Coast Growers and Packers, which was not an available option two years ago.

As for the ownership of the company and the pronounciation, I think those are worthwhile additions to the article. I will try and get some of that info added soon. Angryapathy (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article isn't the place to have extensive coverage of this issue of tomato picker wages or tomato picker slavery. By extensive, I mean several paragraphs. I didn't really say that in my post, but I can see why you might think that's what I intended. I just think things are not being described right. A few more sentences might help do this and of course, would not be afoul of WP:UNDUE.

I think we must consider that widespread slavery in the tomato fields of south Florida is fact, and report it as such. The article I noted is a reliable source and describes it so. Further, of the sources in the article making statements about how widespread the problem is, the author-- who has done estensive research, and the prosecutor and sheriff-- who have been investigating it, are in much better position to say. The Florida Dept. of Agriculture thinks slavery is not that extensive-- but they haven't been actively investigating, as far as we know. And several separate criminal cases have resulted in convictions. These involved over a 1,000 victims of slavery, and this can only be a fraction of the total number.

It is that CMG promotes itself as food with a conscience that opens the article to the information on food sources that are otherwise. Slave labor is a major exception to CMG's mission statement, and CMG's "Food with Integrity" policy is a main aspect of the topic. After all, this CMG sets itself apart from other restaurants this way. As for being hypocritical, I don't think the article should describe CMG as such, just report the facts.

"Food with Integrity" as a whole could easily have its own section, if desired. There the mission statement could be described, the things CMG have done towards its goals described, and the problem with the tomatoes discussed, instead of differnt pieces in different places, like now. In fact, I think that would be a fair way to handle everything. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support a rewording of the current controversy section (as long as it passes NPOV), but again, I don't think the Chipotle Mexican Grill article is the proper venue for a detailed description of the florida slave wage issue. Chipotle only gets 20% of its tomatoes from Florida. Chipotle also sources a great deal of other ingredients- beef, chicken, pork, dairy, etc. In the supply chain of Chipotle, probably less than 1% of all its sourced ingredients actually come from the region in which this issue exists. To spend 6 or 7 sentences just on this issue is giving undue weight to matter with respect to Chipotle. This issue belongs at another article, like CIW or perhaps its own article. (That's why we have wiki-links and redirects). To add even more description of the issue would create the impression that the situation in Florida is directly caused by Chipotle; Chipotle plays a very small part. The real problem comes from the co-op that controls the wages. To put a higher focus on the slave-wages in Florida on this article would be UNDUE.

I have tried to include information about the tomato-sourcing from neutral secondary sources that mention both Chipotle and the wage issue. Using info from the CIW site or from Chipotle would be biased info. Also, we shouldn't use sources that do not mention Chipotle at all. (For example, the source you provide does not mention Chipotle)

I have looked into expanding the Food with Integrity description; however, I can find very few reliable sources that specifically mention it. I haven't seen much more secondary source info about the mission statement.

The slave labor in Florida is an issue, but making Chipotle the focus of the issue is improper. As a reminder: Chipotle does not employ any tomato pickers. They source their tomatoes from tomato farms and co-ops, who employ the pickers. The focus should be on the farm/co-op's, which would be a different article than this one. It seems that it is easier to blame Chipotle, as they are a large, well-known company with a "Food with Integrity" mission statement. But this WP page should not be the venue for discussions in slave labor. That is best left to other articles. Angryapathy (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think after reviewing sources, this is what happened:

1. CIW protests other companies for wage increases at least and poor working conditions. One company at least agrees.(pre 2006)
2. in 2006 CIW starts protesting Chipotle for wage increases, and working standards improvements (that is, to work things out with growers etc. so that workers have better working conditions)
3. Chipotle later agrees to the penny a pound increase, like other companies had, but puts the money in escrow. Other companies agree to a penny a pound increase, and eventually their money is held in escrow by CIW.
4. In 2009, CIW gets together with Food, Inc. makers, et. al., and sends letter to Chipotle protesting the growers are withholding the money, and the conditions are still bad.
5. Chipotle, in response, agrees to get it's tomatoes from East Coast Growers, which doesn't withhold the pay raise, and is going to have better working conditions.

I got the overall picture from here.

The article doesn't explain how things transpired, and also says the dispute was only about wages. In the current section or an integrated Food with Integrity section, these things need to be correct.

I came across this article while looking for something to GA review, and decided I didn't want to review this one but rather leave some comments. So I won't change things myself. Best of luck. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your summary, except for #3: Chipotle did not agree to the increases before working with East Coast Growers. The section as-is on this article reflects the other four points you have listed, and any more background information would be taken from the CIW wiki-link. And also, the link you provided does not mention Chipotle. Angryapathy (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they did agree, but put the money in escrow instead. The other companies just ended up doing the same.

Actually both the Denver Post article and the BNET post describes the dispute as about working conditions as well as wages. The CIW statement does too, and this source at a minimum is reliable for their own opinions. If a party in a dispute complains about X, it is safe to say that X is part of the dispute. So the article doesn't include that the dispute is also about working conditions. It also doesn't mention that CIW have been complaining to Chipotle about working conditions since 2006.

The article I linked to indeed doesn't mention Chipotle, but is just useful as a general summary and background information. It's an editorial anyway, and information in the article of course shouldn't come directly from it without quotes. But I think from CNET and other sources you can draw a timeline. Diderot's dreams (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I finally see your point (sorry about totally missing it earlier). You are right, the CIW protested for more than wage increases, and wanted worker conditions to be improved. I added that information to the start of the controvery section. And I don't know where the 2006 got dropped, but it probably got editted out once the protesting was over, since the protest then became a past item. But again, in the interest of being more informative, there is no reason to add the start of the protest back into the section.

As for Chipotle agreeing to the increase prior to the agreement with East Coast Growers, I will have to look through the sources to see if I misread that. Angryapathy (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. How about the paragraph describing the working conditions as "substandard" and mentioning what the 64% wage increase was up from, if that data is available? These additions would clarify that the initial situation was pretty awful, and just requires adding a few words. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the section as is represents the extent in which Chipotle is involved in the situation. Again, The Chipotle Mexican Grill article should not rehash the entire tomato controversy in Florida, as Chipotle is only a small part, and the real issues (i.e. the companies employing the tomato-pickers) revolve around the growers. Anything more would be Undue Weight. Angryapathy (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fallout from South Park, page hits on Wikipedia- still non-notable?

So I checked the page hits for this page, and wow, was there ever a surge of attention from the South Park episode. Even a week later, the stats are way higher than the day before the episode (but slowly tapering off). See for yourself: http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/chipotle_mexican_grill I guess it is kind of difficult to say the mention was non-notable when it generated this much interest. Angryapathy (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean.. a stats page isn't a reliable source. My question is, where would we put it? We don't have a trivia section, and they're not allowed anyway. And then there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE - something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion". I'm just not sure where we could add it in without either violating a policy or doing something really awkward. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I had added it next to the piece about Chipotle being featured on the Osbournes; it seems to fit there since they are both TV shows. There are reliable sources that mention the Chipotle/South park issue; I did not go into much detail, just a sentence mention The South Park episode "Dead Celebrities" (which links to Chipotle's page). Here was the addition: "Chipotle was mentioned on the television show South Park in the episode, "Dead Celebrities." While I have great disdain for the vandalism that the episode has indirectly caused, being mentioned on a popular television show warrants mention on this page. Angryapathy (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Yeah, that's not bad. It's not really advertising (I highly doubt that Chipotle paid for that sort of coverage?) but I suppose that's fine. For now, at least. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point...it is more of publicity. Maybe we can change the title of the section to Publicity/Advertising, since their are other items in the section that are not paid advertising. Angryapathy (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Advert tag- any other opinions?

I often see people confusing an article that describes the company with an "advertisement" for a company. I disagree with the tag (it's easy to vaguely tag something, another to actually work on it), but since I have made many edits to this article, I hope to hear thoughts from fellow editors as to whether or not the intro section deserves the tag. Angryapathy (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on the user's talk page, so hopefully s/he will give an explanation. I'm confused about it too, though... maybe the "restaurant is known for its large burritos, assembly line production, and commitment to natural ingredients" part? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the edit history of Carewolf, the editor who added the advert tag, and noticed that they are on WP in rather infrequent bursts. I suggest we remove the tag for the time being, and if they would like to start a discussion about changing the intro, they can do so on this talk page. I honestly don't see the intro as being an advert; it seems to provide a quick synopsis of the following article. But if Carewolf would like to offer some more input as to what part of the intro seemed to violate WP policy, then we can understand the reasoning, other than the edit summary. Angryapathy (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for the late reply. As someone noted, I am on wiki infrequently. Two things standed out, first the article is very positive, in it self not a problem, but suspicious. The quote "commited to natural ingredients" is on the other hand both ad-speak and POV. Finding a fast food chain that wouldn't or doesn't claim the same thing is very hard. The fact that someone put a reference on it, and the overall positive nature of the article, made me think someone with a dedicated POV was controlling the article, by marking it with its problem I was hoping to draw attention to the issue.

I am just going to read over the article and dump comments here:

• Overall the acticle is in great shape.
• There is a lot if really carefull paragraphs.
• But then there are some that for me reads like they are written with different colors. Facts disappear and ad-words pop in.
• I mentioned the first: (known for their) .... commitment to natural ingredients // Fluff speak, no content
• when asked about expanding the menu, Steve Ells said, "[I]t's important to keep the menu focused, because if you just do a few things, you can ensure that you do them better than anybody else." // Prepared sound bites, might well be sound advise, but in this article in that place all it does is promote the franchise.
• On April 1, 2009, Chipotle began testing a new menu at various restaurants in Denver. The new "low-roller" menu offers smaller portions and lower-priced items, including single tacos, side salads, and soup. A new kids menu features quesadillas. If successful, the new menu could be available at all restaurants by the end of 2009 // is this notable for WP? It looks more like prepared articles sold to local newspapers as news.

I was quite sceptic after the first read-though. After the second now, I believe this a really good article. You need to work on tonning down Cpipotle's own messages or place them in better context. Once that is gone, it might be time to reapply for GA :) Carewolf (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Carewolf. To respond to the first of your critiques of the article, the "commitment to natural ingredients" is one of the trademarks of Chipotle; you will find very, very few fast food chains that use a significant amount of natural ingredients. In fact, Chipotle uses the most natural meat out of any restaraunt chain in the country. Most articles that discuss Chipotle mention this fact, and have a mission statement which lays the groundwork for this philosophy. That is why it is mentioned in the article, and in the lead, since this fact seperates Chipotle from its competitors.

As for the menu portion, the limited or focused menu is also something Chipotle is notable for. The quote from Steve Ells in which you reference is from an interview where he was asked point-blank about why the menu is so small. I included the quote because it prevented any POV is trying to phrase that statement. This then leads to the new menu portion, which was covered by a number of news outlets due to the potential expansion of the menu, which has not occurred often in the company's history. So that is why I included it as "notable" to the topic of the article.

As for the suggestion that the article is written with a POV in mind, I will only say that my contributions to this article were only to take the available information and references and put them into this article. Most of the article in its current form is reworking/referencing of information that had been in the article previously. I have strived to make every statement in the article properly referenced according to WP standards, shying away from WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I do not know how to have any POV on the other side of their use of natural ingredients, or another POV in the general description of the company. If others find this to be a problem, then of course some reworking of the material is necessary. I am curious to see what other contributors to this article, like HelloAnnoyong and Everything counts, think about this, since they have copyeditted and formatted many of my contributions.

I hope this answers some of your questions, and if you are not satisfied with these answers, there is always this talk page to discuss improvements to the article. Angryapathy (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Angryapathy. The tag is unwarranted. Everything in the intro is written in a factual manner and backed up by sourcing.THD3 (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any unnecessary praise of Chipotle as the article itself is very neutral sounding. Bipartisan185 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Images on page

Well, I have made an attempt at adding/editting the images on the page, but as I am very new to pictures on WP and Commons, I was hoping someone could go over the new pictures and locations to check my formatting. Hopefully this will help in the GA review. Thanks! Angryapathy (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect "Chipotle" to "Chipotle Mexican Grill"?

I've been looking at some of the page stats for the Chipotle pepper and Chipotle Mexican Grill, and it seems that when Chipotle is in the news, the chipotle pepper article recieves proportional amount of hits. I think we should redirect "chipotle" to this page, and perhaps rename the other article to chipotle (pepper). But I am new in the area of redirects, and am not sure how to go about the process. Any thoughts or help on the subject? Angryapathy (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would seriously avoid doing that. For one, you're doing it unilaterally and based on fairly shaky justification. Two, in making a change like that you're basically saying that the restaurant chain takes precedence over the meaning of the word itself", which I really don't agree with. If you were to just go ahead and move articles around like that, the chances are pretty high that someone will undo it, and they'll have to go to an admin to move articles over each other. I think the link at the top of the chipotle article is sufficient enough for most people. If you really do want to make the change, I would say go to WP:REQMOVE and follow the instructions to list it for discussion. It involves starting a thread on the chipotle talk page. But again, I would seriously recommend against this - and if you do decide to follow it through, I will vote against the move.

Wow, I just read over that and it came off pretty harsh. Sorry about that; I really wasn't trying to sound like an ass. But I feel pretty strongly about this one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that's pretty clear that it's a "No." My rationale is mainly that I do truly believe more people type in "Chipotle" to look for the restaurant than for the pepper, since the restaurant is usually referred to as "Chipotle". My evidence of that belief? Um, well, yeah, I don't have much. But it can't hurt to keep the status quo and for people to see what a chipotle is when looking for Chipotle. Like I said, I've never dealt with redirects and renames, so I thought I'd see what others thought. Looks like we'll keep things the way they are. Angryapathy (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but that's not a good reason. More people probably type in "Apple" to look for the company than the fruit, but we really really should not have "Apple" going to the company instead of the fruit. This is because Wikipedia usage stats (or even Google stats) is only one of several major criteria that should be used to determine the primary meaning of "Apple" (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F for some discussion on this). --C S (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Chipotle Mexican Grill re: food sourcing

(This has been moved from my (Angryapathy's) talk page)

Hey there. You recently became the next in what's shaping up to be a long line of people who undo an edit I've made to Chipotle several times. The edit in question removed the statement, "Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant." This is the third time I've made that same edit, as a matter of fact. I'd vaguely hoped to get the attention of user:HelloAnnyong, from whom I've been waiting for a response for some time. I know he's seen it - I forgot to sign my post and went back and signed it in a seperate edit - he undid that, but didn't respond. That's the problem - I can't get anyone to talk about it. Be the first?

Here's what I told him, or her -

"...I'd expurgated the statement, "Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant," because it's difficult to support, rather than for a lack of trying on the part of whomever it was that initially added it. I still think that sentence ought to be omitted from the article, or else qualified to make it less absolute - one source does not a truth make, and the source was misquoted. What the sourced article actually says is, "This year, Chipotle will serve more than 60 million pounds of naturally raised meat - more than any other restaurant company - including all of its pork and chicken, and more than 60 percent of its beef." Clearly that statement refers only to the company's doings in the year 2009. And given a source that said what the article says in the same words, the statement still wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article because it's subject to constant change, and depends upon the assumption by the writer that the author of the sourced material compared every single restaurant that existed at the time, which is unverifiable, which is the bottom line."

I still think so, and it occurs to me - the problem is that the sourced article doesn't cite its sources. I mean, if we knew where the author of the sourced material had gotten his information, if we knew what restaurants he'd compared, for example, one could write a more accurate statement, maybe to the effect that, "In 2009, Chipotle served more naturally raised meat than any other publicly traded company in the United States," or something. If you have that information, or can find it, let me know. But otherwise the original objection stands.

I'll do for you what I did for him, I guess, or her. Wait a week, then re-do the edit. Gimme somethin' to work with man. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the information gleaned from the source in the question. I have since reworded the sentence in question to reflect what is stated in the source: "In 2009, Chipotle planned to serve over 60 million pounds of naturally raised meat, more than any other restaurant company." A little clunkier of a sentence, but I think that is closer to what the source states. Angryapathy (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a little passive-aggressive. I didn't actively decide to ignore what you wrote; honestly my personal life got in the way a bit, I was unavailable for several days and your comment fell by the wayside. But I think qualifying the sentence with "In 2009" is a good solution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool guys, thanks. I like it a lot Angryapathy. It's all good HelloAnnyong - we're still friends. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Growth graph

I went through the documents at Chipotle's website, and created a graph of the company's store growth since 2002.

I'm not sure if it belongs in the article, and would like to hear other's opinions. Angryapathy (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First, the style leaves a bunch to be desired. That font is kinda lame and makes it pretty hard to read. It looks like you built it in Microsoft Paint or something. Second, ditch the URL at the bottom - it's not helpful at all. Third, you should probably build it as an SVG. And fourth, does this infringe on WP:SYN in any way? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Steve Sauer as designer of chairs

To avoid an edit war, I'll move this discussion here. A few edits and reverts were made to the article regarding who designed the chairs for Chipotle. All sources mention Bruce Gueswell as the designer of the chairs; however, an editor (User:Shsauer) attempted to add this as a ref that Steve Sauer designed the chairs. As Oixio is a site run by Steve Sauer, we would need other reliable sources to add that information. As it stands, searching "steve sauer" and chipotle returns 5 results. The ref provided does not pass WP:RS, and unless a better source can be cited, the information should be omitted. Angryapathy (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo of the original store in all stores

There's a brief section that mentions that every store displays a photo of the original. This is not true. The original store has a photo of the previous Dolly Maddison that occupied the space and no photo of itself. Further, other stores (at least the one at 333 East Alameda, Denver) do not have a photo of the original store. I think it's a shame that a "news" article which claims this common myth is used as an authoritative source. Should I take some video of walking around these two stores to become a source for this fact? greggles (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we'll not be entertaining original research here. Just because you can't see the picture doesn't mean it's not there. Per the company site, "There’s a picture of Evans, our first restaurant, in every Chipotle." So maybe it's in the back. Either way, we go based on what the sources say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I would post the research elsewhere first. I've seen 100% of the original location. I assure you, there is no picture of that store inside the store. greggles (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Make sure that the research you post abides by WP's guidelines on reliable sources before trying to add the information to the article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no trouble believing that Greggles is correct. Why would they take a picture of the first store and put it inside that same store? Makes no sense. --C S (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

According to a post to the company's Facebook page by an employee, " August 13, 2010 at 9:07am - Most Chipotles feature photographs of the original location on Evans Street in Denver. However, at Evans Street we display photos of the previous tenant, Dolly Madison Ice Cream. A little food for thought next time you're standing in line and looking at the art work. -Colin". So note the usage of "most" and also the confirmation of Greggles observation about Dolly Madison. Post also includes a photograph of the said photograph. Considering the likelihood of the correctness of this, I'm going to amend the sentence in the article. -- C S (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Prepared items

The list says that only the carnitas and beans are made at a central location. When I worked there, tortillas were not made in-house and barbacoa came pre-made in a bag that was heated up just like the Carnitas. Has that changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.13.60 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipotle does not make those items in-house. It's a poorly written statement in the article. "Nearly all the food is made in-house except..." Well, it doesn't say all of the food, which would mean there are other items. Thay happen to be tortillas and carnitas. Those who are reverting, you can continue to have incorrect information in the article if you want. But to make such an unnecessary and dogmatic statement in the article from a poorly written statement that leaves many possibilities is poor judgement. It seems difficult to find a source on this, probably because Chipotle doesn't go around shouting "Our tortillas are made in a factory!" I did find a message board that says as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyPiersall (talk • contribs)

As is stated in WP:Verify, Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth". We are limited to what information we can glean from reliable sources. If you can find a source that states exactly what food is not made in the stores, we can change the sentance to include that information. (As a side note, message boards are not considered reliable sources.) Angryapathy (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware a message board is not a source. That is why I did not post it. But the statement in the article verifies nothing. The statement does not need to be in the article. That's great about all the BS, but it's wrong information. The statement in the article is like I said, poorly written. But that wasn't addressed. I would say just remove the statement about the food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyPiersall (talk • contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking through the info, I changed the sentence in question to make the statement less certain about which foods are prepared at the restaurants themselves: "The majority of food is prepared in each restaurant, with some exceptions being the beans and carnitas, which are prepared at a central kitchen in Chicago, Illinois." Would you say this solves the issue in the question, since we cannot find a sources that specifically lists the items not prepared at the restaurants? Angryapathy (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this just buys the company line without verifying anything. A company can say "a majority" when they mean "more than half", but the reader gets a far different impression (as intended by the company). It's clear that more than beans and carnitas are prepared outside of the restaurants. The question is what. And we have only a vague claim by the company that a lot of stuff is prepared in the restaurants. Wikipedia can and should do better. We are not here to give PR to the company. The goal should be to include only verified factual statements. --C S (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. I like the wording. Thanks for reasoning with me. JimmyPiersall (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding into France

Rumor has it that Chipotle will open a restaurant in Paris. Is there any proof? Bozketa (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Chipotle in Rolla,Missouri

details please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.144.15 (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

CIW section redux

As I have explained in the past, this section should be as concise as possible. This article is about Chipotle Mexican Grill, and the CIW issue is a very small part of Chipotle. We should take care to state the facts and not give WP:UNDUE to the information. I believe the information could be greatly expanded upon in the CIW article, since the CIW is the one who finds issue with Chipotle, not the other way around. Angryapathy (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Scarecrow (2013 film)

Contributors to this article might be interested in assisting with the expansion of The Scarecrow (2013 film), a promotional film by Chipotle that has received a lot of press coverage. Please feel free to contribute! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For the advertising segment, would it be better organized to put it in chronological order to see the progression of the advertisement over the years? BlackBetty27 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Breakfast

So breakfast has changed a bit http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Food-Service-Retail/2013/04/Chipotle_for_breakfast.aspx?ID=%7B39D2A95C-C9A7-4057-B4FF-B441AD8FFA97%7D&cck=1 So the article is out of date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.42.0 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I just updated the breakfast information. Upshot: tested in two DC-area airports but ultimately rejected.
— Molly-in-md (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ShopHouse

So I just realized that this article doesn't mention ShopHouse, a venture that CMG started in 2011. It still only has a few locations, but it's got a number of sources discussing the openings, and has at least one mention on the company website. The problem is, I don't think it has the notability to be a separate page, but this article seems to be more about the actual Chipotle restaurants than the company itself. Any ideas about where this info should go?

Bpmcneilly (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done At some point ShopHouse was added in the Infobox as a division and a paragraph was added to the section on "Operation and distribution". This work was done by another editor (thanks, whoever you are!); I am simply adding the "done" tag so another person will not mistakenly think the subject is still missing. — Molly-in-md (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Chipotle pork ref

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/chipotle-pork_n_6466350.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green Please use if you'd like. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Another editor had already added this information, and I just updated it. — Molly-in-md (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Quesarito

The 'Menu' section currently includes this statement:

• According to an urban legend, Chipotle has a secret menu item not listed on their menus, the Quesarito, supposedly a burrito including melted cheese, like a quesadilla.

The cited source (BuzzFeed) makes this pretty clear: the Chipotle Communications Director was interviewed and denied this is a part of any official menu or training, but rather a custom request that some customers have made. His quote: “If you go into a Chipotle and order one, more likely than not, you will be met with a blank stare.” This ceases to be an "urban legend" once the company has formally denied it, and as it's not an official menu item, secret or not, I don't think it has any place on this page. If we listed every item you could potentially specially-request at every restaurant chain our articles would have no end.

 Done Walkersam (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)