Talk:Colonel Sanders

This article needs to mention and cite Col. Sanders' own autobiographical book from the 1970's, Finger Lickin' Good. Starhistory22 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)starhistory22Starhistory22 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Steamboat Pilot

I see he is listed as a "Steamboat Pilot". Is this an official title? (S2333 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

Colonel Sanders

His article name should not be his given name because under wikipedia guidelines we use the most popular name... in this case it is Colonel Sanders. DWood 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

Colonel Sanders already redirects here. The MOS also prohibits the use of honorifics in that manner. Use of honorific titles in this manner may not be compliant with policy. See MOS:HONORIFIC. A similar example would be Colonel Eli Lilly. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does that policy "prohibit the use of honorifics in that manner"? WP:OSE isn't always a good indicator, I realize, but Colonel Tom Parker is not a redirect, and, I think, a similar case to this one. (I've had this discussion before - on this very page - and I thought it should be under Colonel Sanders, especially since many people don't know his first name anyway.)  Frank  |  talk  13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the policy I see it is not what I thought it was (although i am almost positive it used to be that way). In that case I am fine with a name change. The more common title is definitely Colonel Sanders. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, he absolutely is best known as "the Colonel." We don't call Ice-T Tracy Marrow even though that's his "real" name because that's not the name he got famous under. This seems fairly uncontroversial really, I'll move it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, a peek at the archives will show this has been discussed (and changed) more than once; I for one agree with the move (as you'll see more extensively in the archive) but suspect some may disagree. Discussion can occur when (and if) necessary.  Frank  |  talk  22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's weird, I didn't see any of that in the logs when I did the move. In any event, the most recent previous conversation was 20 months ago and was apparently inconclusive but leaning in the direction of moving it. I am quite certain that both the naming conventions and precedent are on the side of this move, having dealt with nearly identical issues before. Many celebrities are not known by their full birth names, such as Hulk Hogan or Cher. We don't call their articles "Terry Gene Bollea" and "Cherilyn Sarkisian," preferring instead the names the public knows them by. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2012 redux

It's just been moved again without discussion or even explanation. have reverted that move for all the reasons already detailed, namely WP:COMMONNAME . It's always a good idea to at least check the current talk page before making a move. In any event I have requested move protection so that it will not be moved again without consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Image policy-vs-article quality

Fair use aside, the previous image is of the iconic Colonel Sanders, and the one that it has been replaced with looks like any young man of his era. Without his trademark white hair and goatee he just doesn't look the man people come to this page to read about. I realize there are copyright concerns in play here, but are we sure that we have no choice but to replace the very vibrant and interesting image that was in the article with the very bland and uninteresting one that now graces the infobox? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is an awful result. If we really can't have an iconic Colonel in the infobox, I'd prefer to use one of the drawn KFC images--or even no image at all--over this generic photo. The young Harlan photo could be a perfectly good addition in the body of the article, but using it in the infobox just seems all wrong--in no way does this photo relate to the visual image that the Colonel cultivated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #1 is clear on this issue. The image is replaceable. Since it's in an infobox it's only being used to show what he looked like. The fair use image fails NFCC because it isn't being used in conjunction with critical commentary in a way that clarifies that commentary. Therefore, the image isn't critical and irreplaceable. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your points, but I don't agree that it is so cut and dried. Colonel Sanders' visual image was an essential part of his identity--probably one of the more famous faces in America--and it is surely important to an article explaining him. The article discusses in several places the relevance of his appearance to his life and success--in the lede it says, "His image is omnipresent in the chain's advertising and packaging, and his name is sometimes used as a synonym for the KFC product or restaurant itself." and further down it talks about how it was "after 1950 that Sanders began to look the part, growing his trademark mustache and goatee and donning his white suit and string tie" and that "he was buried in his characteristic white suit and black western string tie." NFCC #1 says "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose," and I think it's clear that the 20-year-old Harlan photo in no way serves the same purpose as the iconographic photo. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arxiloxos states the case for the Fair Use photo well. Ray Kroc, for example, has no photo, but if we faced the same situation there the "young Kroc" photo would be fine because few people know what the "old Kroc after McDonald's made him a millionaire" looked like. Colonel Sanders is different; the fact that his name is still a metonym for the restaurant he founded, 30 years (!) after his death and 45 years after he sold it, says something about the relevance of the "beard and string tie" photo to the article. YLee (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that Burpleson is missing is that the photos aren't really of the same thing. As is indicated in the article, Sanders didn't even begin building his empire until 20 years after the blander photo was taken. Another way of putting it is that we have one photo of Harland Sanders and another of Colonel Sanders. Yes, they are technically the same person, but until he started KFC he hadn't done anything remotely notable. If some part of our image use policy says we should only use the photo of him as a young man, this is the perfect time to ignore a rule if following it would prevent us from improving the article. As the tag on the "Colonel" image states quite clearly, it is to be used "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" There is apparently no free image of the Colonel as he appeared during the portion of his life where he was famous, and obviously it's far to late to create one. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this is not an uncontroversial deletion I have removed the deletion tag from the image for now. I think WP:FFD is warranted if there is still a desire to delete it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean uncontroversial? Where is the critical commentary that the image is necessary for? The image is only being used to show what he looked like. Whatever, do what you like. NFCC is being violated, however. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is a perfect time to ignore a rule if it would prevent improvement of an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

KFC vs. Kentucky Fried Chicken

The company that Harland Sanders founded was known as "Kentucky Fried Chicken" until the date of his death, and well beyond that. Use of "KFC" in this article should be avoided, except incidentally when it is part of a title in a reference or footnote, or an external link, since that name change was applied to the company after it changed owners a couple of times after Sanders' death.—Quicksilver^{T @} 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Quotes

We should have a section for his quote "Im too drunk to taste this chicken.", popularized in the comedy movie "The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" 76.93.232.253 (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Children

The article says "He had a son, Harland, Jr., who died at an early age, and two daughters, Margaret Sanders and Mildred Ruggles." However, the infobox in the article lists four children, none of whom are named Harland (and Mildred's last name is listed as Sanders). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The source cited in the text is his obituary from the New York Times, which I can't find online. None of the other sources I have checked even mention his family, except the geneology.com ref, which has a family tree that unfortunately stops with the Colonel. I'm not sure how we should resolve this, but it certainly should be consistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I found several sources saying he had three chidren - apparently named Harland David, Jr., Margaret, and Mildred. I found no mention of a fourth. I think the infobox is wrong. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See the reference I just added to the article. Mildred was the youngest of the three. She was born on Aug. 15, 1919, in Jeffersonville, Ind., and she died on Sept. 21, 2010 at the age of 91. (R.I.P.) —BarrelProof (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Usually a married child would be listed as Mildred Sanders (Ruggles). Unless she changed her last name for reasons other than marriage, this is how it probably should be listed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

String tie?

When did Colonel Sanders first start wearing a tie or bow-tie or whatever you call it?

Was it before or after James Garner started wearing one as Bret Maverick?

The main page of this article would be improved if there were a description of his tie (and remember to include the authority you are basing this on). 216.99.219.250 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statue Recovered

The article should be amended by an authorized user to note that the statue mentioned in the final paragraph of "Death and Legacy" was recovered in 2009, as noted in Wikipedia's "Curse of the Colonel" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Colonel). Either that, or the discussion should be limited to a link to that page. Judy Hennessey (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Twin Teepees - Seattle - 1940's

There are many reliable sources about Colonel Sanders working in Seattle at the Twin Teepees restaurant in Seattle in the early 1940's (1942 - 1943). There is a fair amount of "legends" surrounding his visit here including one that mentions that he perfected his chicken recipe while working at the Twin Teepees. I do agree that mention of unsubstantiated legends should not be a part of the official Wikipedia page but there is still a fair amount of information that has reliable sources to back it up. I see NOTHING about his time in Seattle, his time at the Twin Teepees, or what he was doing in the early 1940's.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010815&slug=godden15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.39.234 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The book...

In the article, it states: A manuscript of a book on cooking, which Sanders apparently wrote in the mid-1960s, has been found in KFC archives. It includes some cooking recipes from Sanders as well as stories. KFC plans to try some of the recipes, and to offer the book online. Well, they've got it online as a PDF at KFC's page at facebook.com right now, available in three versions: the whole book, just the story, and just the recipes. Colonel Sander's Cookbook Is it worth adding that to the official links? Or maybe just add the KFC Facebook page? Both? Nomad Of Norad (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

I'm not sure what a "restaurateur" is, but I'm sure that the Colonel was a fine one, whatever it is.

In other words you're missing the "n" in "restauranteur".

Oddly enough, it's actually spelled "restaurateur".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously bias line

"He had a flair for promotion and a dedication to providing quality fast food."

I am sorry but that line reads blatantly like a promotional line ripped right out of KFC's own historical promo materials, and should not be in the article for NPOV reasons. --Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Vadalism by Travman1980

Replaced the religion to "feces." Change it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.172.244 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion

I hate to follow the previous with this serious question, but it did remind me of the issue... (blushes)

I saw a photograph of Col. Sanders in front of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and the caption claimed that he was Jewish. I now read his infobox and his religious affiliation is listed as "Disciples of Christ." The article mentions he died at the Jewish Hospital in Louisville, which may be a coincidence. Then I read that perhaps he had a religious conversion late in his life and became a "born again Christian." Can anybody help me sort this out? Did he have different religious affiliations through his life, or was he associated to different faiths because of family links, such as marriage? Demf (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)