Talk:In-N-Out Burger

Existence of the Article

why is there an article?--"Shut up, Brx." 13:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is an example of commerce interwoven with religion. Valid article on that front. I find this distressing, because their burgers are the best thing the USA ever accomplished. VOX^HUMANA 13:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Brx, thank you for this constructive intervention; I know it can be difficult to see the extent to which critiques of the place of religion in society is woven into the article in question. We actually have a small category of similar articles. Perhaps you could contribute to helping said category grow. Have a great day. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

They have Biblical verses on their wrappers. So what? They have no controversial positions, they provide service to all equally, they have no discriminatory hiring practices. Are we going to have articles on all Christians, then? I don't get it.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's helpful to contrast it with Chick-Fil-A, which is similarly Christian, but takes very explicit social stances. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging it with the Chick-fil-A article would make more sense, then--"Shut up, Brx." 13:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

EC Brx, thank you for your well-thought out reply. I think you would agree that there is a difference between an article about a firm that combines a message about faith with the secular activity of commerce and "articles on all Christians." What is remarkable about this company is that it forces its customers to confront religious messages at a time and in a place where religion is rarely overtly discussed--the point of sale. If you think about the implications of that, I am quite sure that you will come to understand why it is noteworthy enough for a little article on this particular website. Enjoy the day!! Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No Brx is right. As long as religionists aren't taking "controversial" positions beyond, oh I don't know, pressing religion in our faces, they have no place on this wiki. It's the spirit of accomodationism at work and it's how we roll here. I suppose we should change the mission statement. Welcome to the New Culture. 13:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Brx, I am afraid I have to disagree about merging the two articles in question. While that is a useful suggestion, at the end of the day it makes more sense to develop articles on these two different firms, and their differing philosophies with links between them and articles on other companies that blur the line between Christ and commerce. It's a complicated issue that deserves more, and not less,space in the confines of this project. Best Wishes, etc. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forced? Please. It's a motherfucking wrapper over a burger. Before I was a vegan, I ate at In-N-Out multiple times and never even noticed any Biblical verses. If you want to make an article about the intersection of faith and commerce, go ahead. That might work. Otherwise, having articles to magnify the harmless quirks of certain companies (and this is indeed a harmless quirk, let there be no doubt about it) is just silly.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Imagine they had scientology quotes, or quotes praising homeopathy. We'd certainly mention that, so I don't see how these bible quotes are any different. It is promotion, pure and simple. I don't regard it as a "harmless quirk" (and I adore their burgers). VOX^HUMANA 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Brx, I see where you're coming from, but I cannot agree that--in the context of the website's mission--that this behavior on the part of the company is merely a "quirk." It speaks to the extent to which people weave their religious belief into the society at large. That said, I doubt that I will be able to convince a person of such great intellect as yourself with my humble arguments. Might I suggest we put the issue to a vote? Hope all is well, Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that this page is worth it, or at least a List of Businesses That Proselytize, is worth it: the fact that Brx didn't personally know about this or see it, yet it's true that it did happen (yes, there are verses on the wrappers, I have laughed at them before) just proves that he wasn't informed about it and this learned something new reading it. It's on-mission, perhaps needs more research and clean-up, but on-mission. What's the legitimate excuse for canning it? Because it contains information Brx didn't know? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 14:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because he doesn't think it's a big deal. That's it. 14:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So, from the comments above

• Delete

• Bricks

• Keep

• Vox
• ToP
• NR
• KoTLDR
• Ty
• Me

Looks like a keep to me. Can we delete the template now? Bad Faith (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I already did when the consensus never swayed unless fucknuts kept edit warring. 14:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's me, one step behind the times as ever. Bad Faith (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Existence of the Article 2.0

I think that it's an important part of our mission to document the societal indoctrination that exists in things as small as the food we eat and businesses we are surrounded by. However, having a bunch of one-off articles like this seems like it would be less useful than one large article (say, "List of Businesses that Proselytize") that both compares Chick-Fil-A-style and In-N-Out-style indoctrination and synthesizes information about all of them, such as profits and impact. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Corporate Christianity or an essay would a decent place for that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this article isn't being deleted. Growing up in SoCal, this has at least some sentimental value to me. Besides, you do know that many people have gotten In-and-Out bumper stickers but altered them to read "In-and-Out Urge" right? --Chair tater (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Corporate Christianity per RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/In-N-Out Burger. Sophie^Wilder 18:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)