From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Whopper has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 6, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

Unsigned comment[edit]

  • Anyone else feeling motivated to edit the first sentence of the article? I wonder what Wikipedia's stance is on being pimped out for Burger King's invasive little trolling campaign.
  • [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
They pimped out google, who pimped out Wikipedia. Endercase (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017[edit]

The Whopper is a burger, consisting of a flame-grilled patty made with 100% beef with no preservatives or fillers, topped with sliced tomatoes, onions, lettuce, pickles, ketchup, and mayonnaise, served on a sesame-seed bun.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talkcontribs) 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017[edit]

Please add "The Whopper is a burger, consisting of a flame-grilled patty made with 100% beef with no preservatives or fillers, topped with sliced tomatoes, onions, lettuce, pickles, ketchup, and mayonnaise, served on a sesame-seed bun." to the very beginning of the article, before the first paragraph. I want there to be no ambiguity about what the product is, since it is easily mistaken for the Whoppers chocolate and other similarly named items. People have been going in and changing this definition, which is why an administrator removed the line was altogether. This change would really help call out what distinguishes The Whopper as a burger, and the protection would help prevent further tampering with the page. Nchukwueke (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an active TV advertising campaign by Burger King that attempts to force Android Phones and Google Home devices to respond to the person on television saying, "Ok Google, What is a Whopper Burger?". It is part of Wikipedia's 10 Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, specifically Rule #7 to not use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. The above reads as obvious ad-copy. I think the opening of the article reads just fine as is. ASPENSTITALKCONTRIBUTIONS 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done as per the above explanation. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Google Home-related ad[edit]

Should Burger King's recent busted ad campaign be added to Advertising section or Controversies section? I added it in the Controversies for now. --Gikü (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I like how you wrote it as a shameless self promotion, but can we get a link there? The two citations mentioned nothing on it. Thx. (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Whopper Page[edit]

Please add "The Whopper is a burger, consisting of a flame-grilled patty made with 100% beef with no preservatives or fillers, topped with sliced tomatoes, onions, lettuce, pickles, ketchup, and mayonnaise, served on a sesame-seed bun." to the first line of the article. This was successfully approved and added to the Whopper page earlier, but has since been removed. I got a response from one of the admin that I disagree with. You can look through the revisions and see that this is a a bare-bones description provided by one of your editors, and all I'm asking is for this base definition to be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nchukwueke (talkcontribs) 17:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In light of [2] such a change would appear to be ad-copy for an advertising campaign. Wikipedia isn't a promotional tool and isn't the correct place for ad copy or promotional campaigns. -- Tawker (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if Nchukwueke's lack of updates to any other content besides the talk page for the Whopper burger is a meaningful data point... SlapAyoda (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, let's calculate approximately how much benefit Burger King received by using Wikipedia for their advertising campaign, and then send them a nice fat bill, okay? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Burger King ad campaign thoughts.[edit]

Hello! I've seen mentioned that this page is going to be used as part of an advertising campaign. I am glad that the edits made to the page to make it sound like an advertisement are removed, but I was wondering if Wikipedia as a whole should or should not take steps to avoid having the platform being used for advertising in future. Something along the lines of adding a line temporarily to the opening stating "Wikipedia refuses to be complicit in an advertising campaign done without its knowledge or consent." I can see this dissuading any future ad campaigns, while leaving the info as it stands (while still not a blatant and reprehensible direct advertisement of the product itself) may encourage the behavior of other companies whose own product pages may have more favorable opening lines or similar ideas for their own campaigns. Ggppjj (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Google has from the looks of it, made Google Home no longer respond to the ad. MysteryMii215 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, and that's hilarious personally. Glad to see it neutered. Ggppjj (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, the controversy is far better advertising than the original advert ever was. Here in the UK, it's on the front page of the BBC website. I would never have encountered the ad otherwise, and to be honest had never heard of a Whopper burger before. JRawle (Talk) 15:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The correct response is to simply remove the corporate additions, apply temporary protection if necessary, block any persistent corporate editors, and move on with the business of being an encyclopedia. That's been done here, no need to indulge the affair further. A2soup (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why hasn't Fermachando123 been banned.-- (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, he made 2 edits on April 4 and has been warned on his userpage (and possibly via other channels) that they where problematic. Unless he starts doing problematic edits again, that´s good enough from the WP-standpoint. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, he probably did an edit from another account too, but that account is blocked now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I almost want to put an edit in before the commercial goes live: "The Whopper Burger was an attack carried out on Google Home systems by fast food chain Burger King. It's purpose was to advertise the eponymous hamburger, which is ..." lavacano201014 (yell at me here) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

How about "The Whopper Burger is served free of charge at all Burger King locations for the next 24 hours. Bring your friends and bon apetit!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, best enough to just send them a huge bill. Make sure the editors of this page are compensated as well, at a decent hourly rate, for all the work we've done over the years on writing this article that they wanted to use for their ad campaign. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello all, I recently came back to WP from some time off to find the article in a bunch COI controversy. I restored the lead to its pre-controversy format because the various edits made pulled it away from the version that was written as part of the Good article process. As it stood originally, the original version confirmed to the standards of WP:Lead - for an article of this size the lead should be about two paragraphs long and summarize the article succinctly and thoroughly. After the controversy, the new version of the lead no longer followed these guidelines and could leave the article open to a review process.

I know there are concerns of BK commercializing this article for its own benefit, and I fully agree with what has been done to prevent that. However, as I worked very hard in bring this article to its current GA status, I would like to keep it that way.

Unless it gets to FA status that is. Face-smile.svg

--Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 09:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

So this is the lead Jerem prefers:
Note - This is the original version that was there before the whole commercial issue arose, not my personal preference. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 05:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And this is the lead before it was reverted
Note - This was actually the edited version that replaced the original lead. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 05:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The revert also restored the {{TOClimit|2}} template, which was removed to assure Controversies showed up on the contents page.
Going through change by change:
  • I prefer "The Whopper is the signature hamburger" to The "Whopper is the signature hamburger product" and "The Whopper is a hamburger". I believe the word product is unneeded and the
  • I dislike the sentence "The burger is one of the best known products in the fast food industry; it is so well known that Burger King bills itself as the Home of the Whopper in its advertising and signage. Additionally, the company uses the name in its high-end concept, the BK Whopper Bar. Due to its place in the marketplace, the Whopper has prompted Burger King's competitors, mainly McDonald's and Wendy's, to try to develop similar products designed to compete with it.", I would have this either removed or replace with "The burger is a well known product in the fast food industry, and central to Burger King's marketing as it bills itself as the Home of the Whopper in its advertising and signage."
  • "The company markets several variants of the burger as well as other variants that are specifically tailored to meet local taste preferences or customs of the various regions and countries in which it does business. To promote continuing interest in the product, Burger King occasionally releases limited-time variants on the Whopper." seems far to promotional to me. I prefer "Burger King sells several local and limited-time variants on the Whopper."
  • Though not changed, I feel the phrase "signature product" Is repeated too much
  • Though not changed, I believe there is undue weight given to the product's copywrited status and the way it's phrased. I'd like to drop the sentence "Additionally, as the signature product in the company's portfolio, Burger King has registered many global trademarks to protect its investment in the product.", perhaps replacing it with "Burger king has several global trademarks on the product", or mentioning the trademark elsewhere, or perhaps just removing this sence.

Kopf1988's comments: Funny enough the revert was a revert of my revert, so using the words "the revert" got me confused, so I won't be able to reply very well to each point, haha. However:

  • I believe the word product is unneeded, as a "hamburger product" in US English more implies that it's a product that goes along with a hamburger. Windshield wiper fluid might be a "car product" for example.
  • The first two sentences are perfect as is except for that.
  • The third sentence becomes quickly subjective. Best known? That's not verifiable. Best-selling could be verifiable - is it? This whole sentence is promotional, and reads like "The Whopper is very important, Burger King is the best." This I think is the key sentence that needs major changing. Best-known is unquantifiable / unverifiable - even a survey would likely be hard to accept for this, as it would be easy for a company to conduct it's own surveys in favorable markets regarding if their burger is "known". Further "one of the" are weasel words. Perhaps this could be "The Whopper is the oldest signature signature hamburger among worldwide fast-food hamburger chains" <- if that is true. I don't know if it is or not.
  • The fourth sentence has a purpose - to state that the Whopper came first. However it should be written to emphasize that, rather than how great it is.
  • The sentence with 'specifically tailored to meet' was recently re-written as "Burger King sells several local and limited-time variants on the Whopper." which is far more succint and says essentially the same thing without losing meaning significant enough to be needed in the lead.
  • The rest seems fine
  • As I'm typing this, I'm going to go buy one, so is that a COI? :D

Kopf1988 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with tweaks to wording, that is to be expected for any article here on WP. What I was referring to when I restored the original version that the changes stripped the lead of of a more thorough summary of the article as required per WP:Lead while staying within WP:NPOV. Regarding the wording of the original lead, I used very similar sentence structure, grammar and wording in the various other GA-level BK articles that I worked on, so that is where that came from.
And yes, you've succumbed to my nefarious plot to make you desire to make a trip to your local BK and consume mass quantities of fast food hamburgers! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! * cough * --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 19:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I am easily swayed by plots. Heh. I made the changes that seemed least controversial here, feel free to make any others as well. Kopf1988 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we also remove the template limit for the table of contents that was restored? I think there should be no limit - in reality it only hides like 3 or 4 elements right now. Kopf1988 (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, to add length and content, perhaps the last line of the lead could be "The current default recipe includes a hamburger patty with sliced tomatoes, onions, lettuce, pickles, ketchup, mayonnaise, and a sesame-seed bun." Kopf1988 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am the user who removed the limitation of the TOC that effectively hid the Controversies section from the table of contents, and I believe that even before the current controversy, introducing this limit was a questionable change. The effect was the same back then as it is now: five of fourteen sections were hidden, one of these being “Controversies”. The limit was introduced by Jeremy himself in August 2015. I also notice on Jeremy’s own talk page that his relationship with Burger King was put into question in February 2016, leading Jeremy to state he had never been paid for edits and never edited as part of his job (which he had not directly been asked about). While both these times seem at first sight to be too early to be linked to the current attempts at manipulating the Whopper article, I can’t help but develop some initial doubt of Jeremy’s neutrality on the subject. SeL (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Why thank you for Assuming Good Faith and implying I am an undisclosed paid contributor! Which, BTW, for the nth time I am not! I worked very hard to bring this article and the other BK articles to GA-status because people assumed that a fast food article had no place on WP, let alone be of GA quality. I set out to prove that seemingly innocuous items such as fast food products have a legitimate place as articles on WP. Since I spent numerous hours working on this article to bring it to GA status, including that it is conforms to all standards found in the WP:MOS, I get a little protective when other editors come in here and start making changes that could cause it to loose its GA-status. So it is a bit more WP:Own than WP:COI.
People forget that companies such as BK, McD's and KFC are multi-billion dollar, multi-national companies that produce products that are temporary in their nature unlike products such as cars, planes or other things - its just a sandwich! If Burger King sells 1m Whoppers a day globally at a $5 price point, that is $1.825b in global sales per year. Show me a company that sells ≈365m products a year and generates billions in revenue off that product and I'll show you a company and product that deserves a comprehensive article set on WP.
At least that's how I look at it.
Also, since you're so into researching me please take a look at Applebee's, TGIFridays and other articles where people such as you who have also accused me of this crap. Just because I edit restaurant-related subjects does not make me a paid shill or any other things that individuals such as yourself have claimed over the years. Also, I often edit out sensationalism and recentism out of articles because they have no place in them as they are just temporary things with no long term affect to a company or its reputation. Personally, I think this whole OK Google stuff in the BK commercial also falls under stuff that is just a tempest in a teapot, but realize that the ire of WP has been raised and removing it would put a giant target on my back from the Wiki-warriors out there who are offended that the site was used in a commercial endeavor. I am getting sick of people, like you, failing to assume good faith and throwing unsubstantiated and baseless opinions around because you don't like how I edit. <expletives>My opinion of you people goes in here.</expletives> --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 18:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I like and appreciate your edits myself. I have removed the TOC limit since no one seems to disagree with that point. Kopf1988 (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead, pt. 2[edit]

Well, several editors have gone and shortened the lead. Again.

According to WP:Leadlength an article of this size - about 21,000 characters within the body of the article excluding references (FYI - The en toto character count is ≈56,000 characters) - the lead should be 2-3 paragraphs in length. The lead that was there confirmed to all of the standards of Wikipedia, yet people have repeatedly edited it down to four sentences in length claiming it violated WP:NPOV without backing up their claims with any policy-based reasoning; they simply cannot be bothered to say what standard they were following beyond their own feelings. From the summaries contained in the edit history, they have yet to state why they believe to actually be non-neutral. Based upon their failure to respond to this discussion leads me to think that they are more interested in punishing Burger King for disrupting Wikipedia than actually improving the article.

When I wrote the lead I went out of my way to ensure that it fully conformed to the standards we have here at Wikipedia, including WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please explain what in the original text you found to be was non-neutral and why you believe that to be true so we can discuss it properly and come to a reasonable agreement as to its content. Simply blowing away half the lead because of the whole BK/OK Google dust-up (which now is overly emphasized because people are angered that it happened and are acting on those feelings instead of following the guidelines regarding recentism) is not how we are supposed to work together in developing encyclopedic articles. Thanks to reckless actions on the part of these editors, the lead no longer conforms to the standards for the lead section, contains factual inaccuracies (it is the signature product of BK, not the main hamburger as there are non-hamburger variants such as hot dogs, burritos, and chicken sandwiches), and now violates the standards for a good article.

I have done my part regarding WP:BRD, and only one person has bothered to respond with actual reasoning that debates my concerns. Good job guys.

--Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 05:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead pt. 3[edit]

Also, I'd like talk about the changes made by Smallbones

The wording

This is my original version:

This is what Smallbones changed it to:

Here is why the changes he made are wrong:

  • In some countries, India specifically, the Whopper is not a hamburger, this is why I substituted the term sandwich;
  • The product is also a line of products including the Whopper Jr., the Whopper Dog, the Whopperito, et al;
  • The sandwich is made with other protein components including chicken, mutton and vegetarian patties.

These are all factual statements that are covered in the article, and they help the lead conform with WP:Lead. The version he has introduced includes these factual inaccuracies and does no provide a complete summary of the article.

Weasel word claims

I am asking why signature product used in the context I originally put it in is considered a weasel word.

According to Wikitionary this is the use of signature as an adjective:

signature comparative more signature, superlative most signature (unusually not comparable)

  • Distinctive, characteristic, indicative of identity.
    Rabbit in mustard sauce is my signature dish.
    The signature route of the airline is its daily flight between Buenos Aires and Madrid.

So based on this, I'm correctly using the word. Heck, the second example of the proper usage is almost structured exactly like I phrased it in the original version. So could he or someone else quantify why the proper usage of the term is a weasel word. It is my understanding, gleaned over the last ten years of editing here on WP, a WP:weasel word presents a vague or ambiguous claim. Could you please state how my version does this?

As I stated previously, the article has been a WP:good article for four years before this whole brouhaha with the BK/OK Google commercial. Why is this version all of a sudden inappropriate? --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 02:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this edit should be reversed, it is not "peacock language". I'm all for not letting articles on commercial products be just another advertising platform but at the same time, things are swinging too far in the other direction on Burger King articles. ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As there has been no further discussion for a week, and no real defense on why "signature" is a weasel/peacock term, I have adjusted the lead to restore "signature" and shorten the claims about protein to compromise. ValarianB (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Open letter[edit]

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter. It is time sensitive. I hope to send the letter tomorrow. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you made Consumer's Union take notice...
Wikipedia Editors Condemn Burger King For Edits Related To Google Home Stunt
--Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Burger King open letter, more concise but in the same vein, but with no intention of publishing it further... it's online for any interested to read and sign, indefinitely. Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A new main image[edit]

The current main image is rather I don't know, limp? Sad? I would be willing to go take a picture of one the next time we go, but I also noticed this one over at the wikicommons,

  • WHOPPER with Cheese, at Burger King (2014.05.04).jpg

that looks pretty good, too. I see there is a bit of a debate over the Ok Google stuff, but that shouldn't have a bearing on how the encyclopedia presents its subject matter. ValarianB (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the main picture is more indicative of what you're likely to get rather than your "spruced up" choice. But it's a large article and there's room for both. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I prefer a quality encyclopedic entry to gritty noir. Compare this to the infobox's image of the Big Mac, Big Mac hamburger.jpg or a McRib, McD-McRib.jpg. ValarianB (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The picture that was used as a replacement is also not encyclopedic quality, and in my opinion of lesser quality than the one previous to it. We don't care how appetizing (or limp) the burger looks - we care about quality pictures. This replacement picture is grainy, out of focus, and looks like it was taken with a mobile phone. As DoctorHawkes implied above, the infobox image was fine as it was, but if you wanted to add yours into the article in another place go ahead. It doesn't look like consensus said we should remove the infobox image with the one you provided. Garchy (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To offer an alternative, instead of just sounding like a revisionist - what about someone taking a new, in focus Whopper picture? I'm not against a picture change, I just think we should wait for more comments (if they come) and compare other alternatives as well. Garchy (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see it, re being out of focus, but I'll take your word for it. I'll try taking my own picture at some point. :) ValarianB (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Is some company's hamburger of sufficient significance to be recorded in an encyclopedia?[edit]

Why does Wikipedia have a page about some hamburger chain's hamburger? How is this not an advertisement, regardless of whether it uses the company's copy? How is it even slightly relevant to an encyclopedia? And at what point does Wikipedia get flooded by burger entries from every fast food outlet from Aberdeen to Zreče? I hear Joe makes a burger he calls 'The Joe' - is that encyclopedia-worthy?

Given that it has been drawn to public attention, maybe this is a good time to consider why exactly this page is here, and whether it and similar pages should be deleted. Presumably anything encyclopedia-worthy about a hamburger company's products could easily be covered by that company's article, while the company can manage hosting of its own ad-copy and beautified photographed burgers.

Thoughts please, before I start recommending pages for deletion left and/or right?Ambiguosity (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ambiguosity: Speaking generally, notable products of companies can and do have separate articles. We have thousands of articles on consumer electronic products, car models, toys, etc. --NeilN talk to me 13:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The issue is whether or not a topic (any topic) receives in-depth coverage from multiple unaffiliated reliable sources. If the only sources about Joe are by Joe, then we don't care about him or his burger. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This article has over 100 citations, with many many many of them directly discussing the subject in great detail. I'd really suggest looking over the project guidelines beginning with WP:Notability before making a possibly rather foolish nomination. ValarianB (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think every product deserves a page - but the whopper certainly passes WP:GNG - our goal is to keep the content encyclopedic, which should be fairly easy given the number of references. Garchy (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Y'know, I normally get involved in different topic types than consumer goods articles, but I scanned quickly through the large number of references for this article, and all I saw were newspaper stories. Has anything serious ever been written on the Whopper, other than news items? Ambiguosity may be facing a case of WP:SNOWBALL here, but I sympathize with his point: this article's sources don't really establish any sort of notability for the product, beyond that it exists and is made by a company. This is not a good Wikipedia article, and in the insane fantasy world of a rabid deletionist, it would totes be a candidate for AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Professional journalists writing in newspapers that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are more than sufficient for any Wikipedia article. An AFD on the Whopper would be laughably brief. ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Valerian (whose new auto biographic film about the City of a 1000 World looks rather cool), many of these citations are from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other print sources that easily meet WP's standards for reliability. Additionally, the Whopper is a 70 year old product, and since the internet as we now know it is only about 20 years old, the vast majority of sources pre-2000 will be print articles that are now archived on the web. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2017[edit]

Please change the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "BK Whopper Bar" section from "The menu at the Whopper features as many as 10 variants..." to "The menu at the Whopper Bar features as many as 10 variants..." so that it is consistent with the wording of the rest of the section. Thanks in advance. Random character sequence (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All set, I made the change. Garchy (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)