Jump to content

Talk:Burger King legal issues/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
    • Absolutely.


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations

{{help}}

What is the appropriate way to cite a television news story or documentary? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask this on your user page or at the help desk...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadik Brothers

This article is overlooking the Sadik brothers lawsuit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

At this time it is just an allegation by a disgruntled franchise. Until the case winds its way through the courts and all the facts come out we do not know if it truly was the reason for the franchise's failure. What was the pricing of their other items? Was a Whopper priced at $7 at the Sadik locations instead of the company average $3.29? The concept behind the value menu is to encourage sales of other high value items such as fries and beverages, which cost the restaurant pennies on the dollar. If they overpriced the rest of the menu, then they would have forced their customers to the lower cost, lower profit value menu to the Sadik's detriment. The articles that I have read only show the franchise's Whoa is me, look what the big, bad company did to us! side of the story, and is a bit biased because of that.
Also, according to sources I have read major fast food companies engage in 3-4 suits with some of their franchises every year, and this just could be another case. If we were to include every one of those cases, BK's legal issues article would be ten times as large as it is now. Because of this, I have only included major, company altering law suits that had significant impact on the industry as a whole; at this time that suit is only a minor blip on the radar.
Additionally their accusation doesn't fit because I have seen franchises in high rent areas that ignore the pricing advertised by the company, so the franchise's allegations seem a bit hollow to me.
this is a slightly edited copy and paste of my reply from Tony's talk page.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HJP section fact tag

While HJP is now the exclusive master franchisee for Burger King in Australia and has the right to allow new Burger King locations in the country, no new locations have opened and only a small handful of BK restaurants remain in New South Wales

This from the article this reads like an editors footnote of the event based on original research, it's either needs a source, removed or reworded. Gnangarra 11:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Poké Balls law suit

Shouldn't this be mentioned? It's certainly of note, and it was a significant embarrassment for the company. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Are this and this to what you're referring? To be mentioned here the question of "What makes that toy recall so notable?" must be answered. Of course, I'm trying to figure out what makes any of the issues described in the article notable. Every major company in the country/world gets involved in legal actions all the time, and none of the ones mentioned here seems more significant than any other. The ice cream face seems a stretch. A man in Israel – without BK's permission – opens up a store in a controversial area with no dire results. A couple of businesses – out of the millions of fast food joints and diners around the world – want to use the same name. A Big Business becomes the target of a labor union. And PETA and CSPI go after another business (whom don't they target?). The only case that appears to be noteworthy is the Hoots Supreme Court one, and that can be treated on the main BK page.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the lawsuit never came of anything. (IMHO, if anything the parents should have been prosecuted for neglect, giving a toy that specifically says not for children under three to a one year old. That is neither here nor there.) The company that suffered was the licensor of the Pokemon franchise, not BK. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Hoots was not a Supreme Court case, only Federal District Court. The Supremes declined it seeing no fault with the verdict of the Court of Appeals. The Rudwicz case was a Supreme Court case. Remember to read carefully! --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My bad, but the point is still the same.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that the parents didn't really have a leg to stand on (even though it's a shame what happened to their child), it was still a legal issue, I believe. Perhaps the article could be changed to reflect controversies rather than legal issues, which would expand the contents of it to include more serious issues? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In creating the content for this article I looked at a lot of various controversies. I chose these ones for several reasons, including:
  1. For the cases of note I only listed major cases that had significant impact on the law, regardless of the country in which they occurred. The result was the three I already have included plus two more which I have yet to include.
  2. I tried to avoid "flash in the pan" suits, those cases that had a quick burst of publicity then disappeared from the public notice such as the one mentioned in this post or the Sadik brothers case listed earlier.
  3. For the controversies I chose instances where there was a legal outcome; I looked for instances where the law was changed as a result, where there was a legal question that did not involve a lawsuit or where there was a legal outcome like a contract or binding agreement.
  4. When investigating the controversies, I also looked for incidents with a longer period of conflict or extensive history with multiple sources for citations representing a larger group of points of view. This was done to ensure that I had a large pool of data on which I could draw to give me the best way to present the information with a NPOV.
  5. I tried to avoid instances of state level suits because, by their very nature, they have a limited area of application when the verdict is handed down. Where I did mention information that was local in coverage, I tried to show that it was the part of a trend or part of a larger group of incidents that eventually induced the company to change its behaviors.
The only section that initially appears to have no legal implications is the ice cream label incident, however the reason I included this is because in the Islamic faith there is the concept of Shariah. Shariah is the Islamic concept of canon law, or the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain (from the article). For those offended, they truly feel that the perceived blasphemy that occurred was also a crime under the precepts of Shariah. Since Muslims make up a sixth of the global population, this could have huge implications for the company as it expands in the Mideast; in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the company could theoretically be tried for heresy because Shariah is the law.
As stated previously by me, I have found that the major fast food companies are involved in a legal dispute three to five times a year for various reasons, as both plaintiffs and defendants. Including all the cases would be a violation of the what Wikipedia is not policy. I hope this explains why this article concentrates of those topics already included.
One more thing, it appears the lawsuits (at least three) filed against BK never went anywhere, but were just a quick attempt by several individuals trying to cash in on BK's trouble with the product. The reasoning behind these suits was tenuous at best according to the NYT, most members of the suits didn't have anything to do with the deaths.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the scope of the article goes past "legal issues". Namely, it could be Criticisms of Burger King, or Burger King Controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Under what criteria do we deem such information worthy of inclusion? Yeah I know, WP:Note. The two incidents I listed are perfect examples of why they should not be included. Yeah they have significant press coverage at the time of the incident, but what happened afterwards? How did it affect the company? The restaurant industry? The law? The very inclusion of every case would violate WP:Not. I think the criteria I listed keeps, God I REALLY hate this word, cruft from accruing in the article. I agree with Jim's question from above, What makes these case notable? Also, If we include these types of incidents without a counterpoint to them, we violate the standards of WP:NPOV. Additionally because of the frivolous nature of these cases, you will be very hard pressed to find any information beyond the initial listing of the case in order to comply with the "broad coverage" requirement. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeat concerns about GAN review

Jerem43, with regard to the BK GAN, I suggest delisting it and asking for another editor to review the article. There are a number of issues being worked out surrounding the initial reviewer, and given your passion for the article and all the hard work you invested, I think you would value the results of a different review. IMO not all the issues were resolved which are listed on this archived section. Either way, I think the article is much better. Some issues, but maybe they are FAC issues as you think, maybe not. I just think a clean GAN process would mean more to the contributing editors.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See the GAR request above.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


BK v. HJ

I reworded the section on good faith dealings being introduced into the Australian legal system. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste of discussion on Sandy Georgia's talk page. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you posted this on my talk page about the Burger King legal issues FAC that you withdrew. I have some questions I would like to ask if you are OK with that?

The Burger King legal issues was archived only four days ago, and has seen only two edits in the interim. The typical period to prepare for a new FAC is at least two weeks. I had a look at the article to see if it appeared ready; because I easily identified a number of issues that should be dealt with, I'm going to withdraw it to allow more time to better prepare, so that the article will have a better chance at success next time. I suggest that you ask User:Epbr123 to run through and check on all issues after you finish, but at least, I noted the following:

  1. I saw quotes italicized. See WP:ITALICS.
  2. I saw inconsistent use of italics in the citations. Periodicals, newspapers, journals are italicized, websites etc. are not.
  3. Inconsistent date formatting throughout the citations, some have wikilinked dates, others have raw unformatted ISO dates. Please be sure to use a consistent date format, and view the article both logged in and logged out to make sure all date formats are consistent either way. See WP:MOSDATE. Because different citation templates handle formatting in different ways, it may take some fiddling.
  4. Attention to WP:MOS#Ellipses needed.
  5. Page numbers are needed on book sources.
  6. Curly quotes shouldn't be used (switch to regular quotes).
  7. I'm not certain what the case citations are at the top of each section or if that is standard formatting.
  8. Attention to punctuation on image captions needed per WP:MOS#Images.
  9. In the Animal welfare section, text should not be sandwiched between images, see WP:MOS#Images.
My questions -
  1. I fixed that.
  2. I did not italicize any of the citation names, that is a function of the templates I used, {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite episode}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite press release}}. What can I do about this as I cannot change the templates?
  3. I am guessing you mean the instance where I only place a mmmm yyyy date (June 2008) verses a yyyy-mm-dd (2008-06-01) in the citations. In those cases the source only gave the former form of the date as such that is what I used. When I linked the latter (June 2008) they were deleted per comments in the GA nom and GAR. If I cannot get a more exact date, what can I do about this issue?
  4. Are you referring to the ellipses I used in the quotations? Per the link to the MoS you provided "Use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation..." I believe they are being used correctly, am I mistaken?
  5. I fixed that, it was a typo.
  6. I don't see any curly quotes in the version I nominated.
  7. I removed them.
  8. I believe I fixed those.
  9. I fixed that.

Thanks for you assistance,

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your numbers don't match mine, so starting over. There is still incorrect punctuation on image captions per WP:MOS#Images (full senteces are punctuated at the end, sentence fragments are not), WP:MOS#Ellipses are not fixed (see guideline on spaces), Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists is not followed, there are left-aligned images under section headings (check WP:MOS#Images), there are still curly quotes (example, ... what the industry calls “indulgent” ...), citation review in order ( ... "History Illuminates the Rage of Muslims". the New York Times. ... it's The New York Times), yes, the citation templates do allow for italics on periodicals, you can do that in two ways, either add the italics on the publisher parameter, or use the work parameter which automatically italicizes. The fastest way through this sort of work is to ask User:Epbr123 for help. Also, there were content-related and prose issues on the previous FAC, so asking those reviewers if they're satisfied now will give the article a better chance next time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Quick replies:
  • Images - I'll look at them later, I cannot see the fragments vs the sentences.
  • Fixed the "... foo" issue.
  • The bullet list is part of the quote, to change it would be bad.
  • Removed the curly quotes, they were in the original sources and were from the cut an paste of the quotes
  • I will work on the citations in regards to italicizing names. I fixed that.
  • I did fix those errors and will get back to the commentators.
Thanks again --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Burger King legal issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burger King legal issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Burger King legal issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Burger King legal issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burger King legal issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burger King legal issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burger_King_legal_issues/Archive_1&oldid=1078749558"