Talk:Einstein Bros. Bagels

this chain used to be called Melvin and Elmo's.
 * I thought it used to be called "Bagel and Bagel" --96.255.132.198 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Name
How did it get the name "Einstein Bros."? Badagnani (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously written by some corporate mucka-muck
Anyone read this article? Might as well be a pamphlet you found in the restaurant itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.206.28 (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

now this article sounds very hostile towards its subject 131.94.186.20 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

specifically the product section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.186.20 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I object to the info that bagels were originally soft and fluffy. The very opposite! --Conscientia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conscientia (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some of the above posters, whatever this article used to say, it now has a very negative and derogatory tone towards its subject (particularly the product section). Was this edited by someone from Bruegger's?? I was waiting to read how they spit into every pre-made, bagel-esque product that they sell just to reduce the tooth-jarring harshness of its barely edible crust. I mean, come on! RunDogRun (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the advertisement nature stated, this article and others like it on companies provide me a commercial realtor from outside the USA with valuable information on retail concepts I have never seen. Please reconsider your deletion review. Toronto, Canada 99.250.98.107 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"[citation needed]"
This edit -- as of "08:39, 9 July 2015" (in some time zone) -- says: "(→‎History: removed unsourced info)".

I don't know the details of what happened before that edit, (the "Talk:" page is pretty silent about that); but apparently in most Wikipedia articles, there is a "custom" of attaching [when appropriate] a little label, as a "superscript" -- saying something like "[citation needed]" (for example, using the " " template, which expands to this:).

Shouldn't this article also follow such a custom? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC) - You are correct; a "citation needed" tag should go in "when appropriate". There are 12 citations in the article now... if you see any claims or statements that are uncited, but should be cited, either tell us what you think should be cited, or just mark them "citation needed" yourself.

Petershank (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Needs rewrite
This entire article is unorganized and makes no sense. The history of the corporation is not based on a timeline that makes any sense. The intro section has a sentence that doesn’t make sense. The article says the company was founded in Colorado but makes no mention of Colorado in the history section. This article does not clearly answer who owns the company, how it started, where it started, the history of the merges, etc. 71.196.190.13 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)