Talk:Burger King legal issues/GA1

GA on hold

The article is great, and the only thing it needs is new references. Please look here for references that need fixing. I will check back at this article in a week. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 15:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead statements

In the Lead it states, "refusal to concede its position regardless of the outcome." This creates the impression that BK is reckless or irrationally stubborn. I am unable to find supporting material in the article body for this. Did I miss something?
Jim Dunning | talk 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See the CIW labor dispute. BK had no intention of capitulating until VP Steve Grover and spokesman Rika Goldsmith were found to be trolling and seriously embarrassed the company and forced their hand; additionally they were facing congressional hearings that would further hurt the company's standing. That is the source of the comment. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, relative to the Rudzewicz case, the Lead includes the statement, "Several legal decisions have set contractual law precedents in regards to long-arm statutes, the limitations of franchise agreements, and ethical business practices; many of these decisions have helped define general business dealings that continue to shape the entire marketplace." This sentence is supported by two refs to here and here, both of which appear to be the either the case brief or a summary of same. Neither one supports the assertions that "Several legal decisions have set contractual law precedents" and "have helped define general business dealings that continue to shape the entire marketplace." Additionally, the second cite, a webpage by a law school student named Peloso, doesn't appear to meet the requirements for reliable sources. Further, in looking over the Rudzewicz treatment in the article body, it appears to be merely a summary of of the case; there is no analysis or context that supports its notability or significance in business law. I'm assuming there is a reason why the section was included in the article, so I'm hoping commentary from a reliable source can be found, added, and cited. Finally, where are the "several legal decisions"? The Rudzewicz case is relevant to the "long-arm statutes", but how are that and the other cases relevant to precedent-setting for franchise law? And where are "ethical business practices" addressed? I can guess where they might be, but not once after the Lead is the word "ethics" or its various forms mentioned. Is there material that can be added to support the ethics statement?

Why are these cases significant? I am again assuming they were selected for singling out of the thousands of legal actions BK has been involved in for a reason, but other than the seemingly unsupported Lead statements, a reader cannot discern that reason from the article. We need to add more context to this article to support its existence before it can be considered for GA.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam events' significance?

What is the significance of the two events involving Islam? Neither seems particularly controversial: in both instances the situations were resolved. Is there a larger context? Was there more religious or political whiplash than is mentioned here? If so, it should be mentioned or there doesn't seem much point to including these events. Which brings up the question of "What legal issues are involved?" This article is about "legal issues", but no suits or charges were involved in these situations. How are they applicable to this article
Jim Dunning | talk 01:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's add the other three "controversies" to this issue: Animal welfare, Labor, and Nutrition. None of them involves any legal action, so either this article is misnamed or those four sections should be removed from the page. Are there any legal issues relevant to these "controversies"?
Jim Dunning | talk 01:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

1. Islam:

a. The question is the legality of the settlements in regards to international law, does allowing operations in those settlements impede or affect the legal standing of the Palestinian people and their proposed state in the West Bank? Does BK have the right to license the Israeli franchisee to open store in lands that the UN says belong to Syria? Whose laws apply: Israel's, Palestine's or Syria's? It also touches upon the question of business ethics- do you support and do business with one group if it is detrimental to another?

• None of those questions is ever addressed in the article. The cited newspaper article does include quotes making oblique references to "this sensitive time in the peace process" and "Arabs' desire to freeze out Jews who live in Judea and Samaria", but with no context or sourced discussion of the event's applicability to the legal standing of a Palestinian state. There is no mention of Syria or the United Nations. As to does "BK have the right to license the Israeli franchisee" to open a store on the West Bank, Burger King never avers it does; in fact, it says it never intended to. The applicability of which organization's laws (Israel's, Palestine's or Syria's) is never mentioned in the WP article or the single cited article.
• Your statement, "It also touches upon the question of business ethics- do you support and do business with one group if it is detrimental to another?" hits upon the central concern with this section. That issue may indeed be a valid one, but not only is there no verifiable, reliable source cited that makes that analysis — therefore placing the event in a legal context — but questions of "ethics" are never explicitly raised in the article. For inclusion of this issue (or the others) in this article, there needs to be additional context that addresses the broader situation and legal issues you mention here. And the relevance of those broader issues needs to be made by someone other than a WP editor.
  Jim Dunning | talk 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

b. The religious offense is whole moral quandary in itself, the offended group called for a Jihad against the company. How do you treat that? Is it a moral crusade? Is it a call to terrorism? There are issues with civil rights and religious freedom laws in the UK as well.

1. Being trite, labor disputes often involve labor laws; the issues also have some questions over the legality of the these agreements- can they be enforced, can the purchasers force the suppliers to pay these wages and several other questions that BK's legal department had issues with and are mentioned in the labor disputes section.
2. Animal welfare and the legal status and rights of a living animal, plus there are issues about the scope of humane treatment laws.
3. Nutrition - see CSPI and its California lawsuit over trans-fats.

• Okay, I see from the CTV article that the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued BKH in 2007, but the lawsuit is never mentioned in the WP article (it characterizes CSPI's action as "arguing"). This would answer some of the concern about the lack of reference to legal actions in that part of the article. Perhaps the resolution (or status) of the case could be added to the article? (I found a CSPI press release about it from Feb 2008, but can't find a corroborating source from the more well-known news organs.)

I forgot to include it. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still not finding the source for the American Heart Association mention, though.
  Jim Dunning | talk 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read it somewhere and forgot to cite it, I will go a huntin' later. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I mis-quoted the sources, they refer to the American Heart Association guidelines for the inclusion of trans-fats in food stuffs. I have corrected the passage to reflect that. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss the rest of your points later and expand upon the issues as well, right now is bed time. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Name clarification needed

I noticed that Burger King has several different appellations in this article: Burger King, Burger King Corporation, and Burger King Brands. It's difficult to tell whether these are separate entities or just variations on the same theme. Perhaps some clarification regarding these names and their relationships to each other would be helpful. Also, I recommend against using abbreviations: first, they are inconsistently used, and, second, their antecedents can be lost in a long article.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming

1. Before 1969, the company was Burger King;
2. From 1969 to 2002 it was Burger King Corporation;
3. After 2002 it is:

• Burger King Holdings for the parent
• Burger King Brands in the United States
• Burger King Corporation Internationally

So depending on the time frame and location set forth in the section will depend on the name.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking it could be clarified in the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the various suits and controversies are in different times. The more recent ones are with the current company while the older are with the previous company, and that can be problematic if we were to settle on a single name. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the names to reduce confusion. I only use BK as the abbreviation and refer to its parent company as its parent. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN

I needed to add an ordered list to help myself keep track of the issues that need to be addressed with the GAN, so please excuse any repeated comments from above, this is just putting things in order. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Limetolime:

I have gone through the page and checked the veracity of all citations and they are now correct in links and structure.

• Jim Dunning

• Lead - BK is reckless or irrationally stubborn.

See the CIW labor dispute. BK had no intention of capitulating until VP Steve Grover and spokesman Riva Goldsmith were found to be trolling and seriously embarrassed the company and forced their hand; additionally they were facing congressional hearings that would further hurt the company's standing. That is the source of the comment.

I just read through the entire section twice and cannot find anything to support that BK refuses "to concede its position regardless of the outcome." This implies recklessness and irresponsible fiduciary behavior and there is nothing in this article that characterizes BK as being reckless and irresponsible. For that description to exist in the article we need a credible source to make it and it needs to be in the article. Also, there is no mention of Congressional hearings at all. Where is that mentioned, and where is a credible source's analysis that it was a significant situation relative to business law?

Try reading the article linked in cite #43: At Senate hearings on farm conditions held by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., earlier this month, Eric Schlosser, author of the best-selling "Fast Food Nation," praised Yum! and McDonald's for working with the coalition and urged Burger King to do the same. "The admirable behavior of these two industry giants makes the behavior of Burger King ... seem completely unjustifiable." That quote from the Fort Myers News-Press pretty much sums it up right there. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

You're missing the point: per WP:LEAD, if you state something in the Lead, the material it summarizes must APPEAR in the article. I'm not sure how Senator Sanders's statement that BK's behavior "seem completely unjustifiable" is the equivalent of refusing "to concede its position regardless of the outcome", but – for the sake of argument – let's say it is, then you have to include the sourced assertion IN THE ARTICLE, not hidden in the cited source. Why didn't you just put Sanders's quote in the article? Again, it doesn't support the statement in the Lead, but it does state an opinion of a noted source relative to BK's behavior. I don't understand why you don't expand the article with pertinent material.

By the way, I can't find the passage you quoted above in 43 (or 40, 41, 42, 44, or 45), but interestingly Sanders is described in #45 as praising Burger King for agreeing to raise wages.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss things: I moved the cite to reflect this, it is now #2. There is a quote. You need to read closer, this line followed my post above. I'll put the quote in. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

I have now included the quote in the text of the article and linked the citation to the one listed at the top of the article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lead - Several legal decisions have set contractual law precedents comment.

I will try to clean that up and provide some clearer citations.

• Why are these cases significant?

As you read the case summary, you will see in the last paragraph, except in th BK v. HJs case where it is the second, as to why they are significant.

• BK v. HJ's - the suit was the first major application of the American legal concept of good faith in contractual law to the Australian legal system, where it was not used before.

So you're saying the precedent (therefore this case's significance to contract law) is that it was the "first major application of the American legal concept of good faith in contractual law to the Australian legal system, where it was not used before."? First, it does not say that in the article, which states, "Additionally, the case helped introduce the American legal concept of good faith negotiations into the Australian legal system, which until the time of the verdict had been rarely used in the Australian court systems." "Helped introduce" does not convey the same import of "first major application of ..."; "rarely used" is not the same as "not used". If it was the first major application of good faith in Australia's legal system, then I might agree that the case is significant. But let's look at the cited source, which says, "An unreported judgment late last year in Hungry Jack's v Burger King indicates that the notion of good faith may well be implied between the parties in some contractual disputes." "Indicated" is not the same thing as "first major application", so I can see why the WP article says "helped introduce." Also, how can it be a precendent setting case when the source says that the judgment was unreported? Second, the source is not credible: it is a blurb on law firm's website, not a legal journal. I don't see why mention of this case should be included in the article. It was "unreported" and a law clerk or lawyer at some minor law firm opines that the judgment is evidence that the concept of good faith exists, not that the decision introduced the concept or had a significant impact on its application.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, that law firm, Allens Arthur Robinson, is one of the largest and most respected law firms on the Western Pacific rim. It has won several awards from its peers in the field and clients (there are several articles on the web backing this up, like this one). The page you question is explaining the legal precedence that was put forth as a result of the decision; it is not advertising but is a published document by legal expert in the field of Australian Corporate Law. Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

It does not "explain the legal precedence" of the case. Read the page carefully and you'll see it says, "An unreported judgment late last year in Hungry Jack's v Burger King indicates that the notion of good faith may well be implied between the parties in some contractual disputes." How can an "unreported judgment" be a precedent? And "indicates" and "may well be implied" are not the language of an analysis that a case resulted in a precedent setting decision. Also, please do not "reword" a passage to create the impression that a source supports your characterization, especially after someone else points out the problem to you.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I edited it to address you initial concern and make the statement more concise. Please do obscufate the reasons behind my edits to bolster your opinion. Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

But the website in no way said, "the case was the first major application of the American legal concept of good faith negotiations into the Australian legal system." It said, "An unreported judgment late last year in Hungry Jack's v Burger King indicates that the notion of good faith may well be implied between the parties in some contractual disputes."
Jim Dunning | talk 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is why I did not change you edit, it also works better. Please see WP:MoS#Brackets and parentheses on the usage of parenthesis in an article in regards to your recent edit. Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

I have located a legal summary of the verdict and an explanation on its importance to the Australian legal system. The section has been reworded and is cited as such. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• BK v. Rudzewicz - the suit confirmed the applicability of long arm statutes in interstate legal proceedings. Basically that if you seek a business relation with a party in another state, the state that the party resides in has jurisdiction. Also it states that your 14th amendment rights of due process are not violated by the long-arm statues application.

Is this your analysis or that of a credible source? If it isn't that of a noted legal professional, scholar, or a law journal's analyst, then it is original research. The decision may confirm the "applicability of long arm statutes in interstate legal proceedings", but is this the only case to similarly agree? How is this case any different than the hundreds of others that are decided similarly?
Jim Dunning | talk

The US Supreme Court decision is in the citations, and states the result of the verdict. It is not OR, and we are not involved in a legal debate on the decision's application in contractual law; however I have provided you with a valid link from a legal notebook by a scholar, Stephen C. Yeazell, who is a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law. You will have to buy it or go to your local library to read up on it. The link goes to an updated version of the book from the publisher. I have also included some links at the bottom of the article to other cases that cited this decision. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...), amended on 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• BK v. Hoots - The precedence regarding the Lanham Act statutes: Federal Trademarks trump state trademarks regardless of the age of the mark. Additionally, if the user of the state mark has prior usage of the mark, they can continue using it without fear of reprisal, but they are limited to to a specific geographical area of exclusive use.

You cannot use the legal decision itself to argue the importance of the decision. The decision's import and effect on other cases and legal applications must be characterized by experts, not by the judge(s) rendering the decision (how can they know what the downstream effect is going to be at the time?) or by a WP editor. Is there a credible source that supports the assertion this case is about the "most prominent incident of infringement in the United States"? A small-town newspaper that says it is a "celebrated case -- at least in law schools" doesn't cut it as a reliable, credible source for legal analysis. If it is that celebrated, then there must be a solid source that says so and explains why so it can be explained here in the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided not one, but two links to legal texts on the subject, additionally another contributor pointed out the exact location within the Title 15 of the US Legal code where the decision and its legal precedence resides. They clearly explain the importance of the subject and confirm the validity of the point. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

• Islam

• Occupied territories location - Why is this a legal matter for BK?

Reasoning provided, links added.

• Offensive label reasoning - Why is this a legal matter for BK?

Still need to address this.

I rewrote the section completely and added reasonings for the blasphemy being important. While not a legal issue, at least not in the west, the issue is culturally significant in several ways, as shown in the new cites and information.

• Labor - BK v. CIW reasoning

Issues addressed and cited.

• Nutrition

• American Heart Association comment

I mis-quoted the sources, they refer to the American Heart Association guidelines for the inclusion of trans-fats in food stuffs. I have corrected the passage to reflect that. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

• Trans fats suit

It is now included, with several citations complying with WP:RS. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

• {{Copyedit}} tag

I removed the tag, I believe all issues have been fixed. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Naming and abbreviations - Please state the difference between the names used in the article: Burger King, Burger King Corporation, and Burger King Brands.

I adjusted the names to reduce confusion. I only use BK as the abbreviation and refer to its parent company by its parent at the time of the sections occurrence. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

• Spelling

I use the spell checker found in Firefox and cannot see any errors in traditional words. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

• Grammar

I have proof read almost all of the article and believe I have corrected any grammatical errors. Please feel free to correct any I missed. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

Legal precedent

According to the Lead, the cases included in this article are there because they represent "Several legal decisions [which] have set contractual law precedents in regards to long-arm statutes, the limitations of franchise agreements, and ethical business practices; many of these decisions have helped define general business dealings that continue to shape the entire marketplace." However, the article body does not support the Lead as required by WP:LEAD:

• There's nothing that supports "shape the entire marketplace."
• The only place "ethical business practices" is explicitly referenced is in the Lead.
• "Precedent" is mentioned relative to only one of the "several" (three) cases, Hoots, which covers trademark law (and by extension, the Lanham Act). If the other two cases resulted in setting a legal precedent, then it should be mentioned (and sourced).
• Neither of the sources cited in the Lead supports the assertion either (in fact, one of the sources is a school student's web page, not a credible source).

If any one of the cases discussed here were truly a "major legal precedent", I could begin to see a raison-d'etre for the article. But the editors fail to even state that two of the three are indeed precedents, much less support that characterization with valid cites. Even the Hoots case – which is described as a "major" precedent – does not have a source describing it as such. Certainly, reaching the US Supreme Court supports its significance, but more information about its route the that court and the resulting impact on other decisions is in order.

If these legal decisions are precedents, then that means that subsequent legal decisions have been based on them. If it's a major precedent, then major legal decisions (or many, many less major ones?) have used it as a basis for their findings. There is not one, single reference to such a case or event in the article; no downstream cases are discussed at all. So, either such a treatment needs to be added to the article or the element of "precedent" needs to be removed.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is false, all that you claim I need to do goes beyond the guidelines that Wikipedia uses. This is an article presenting the information in summary style, it is not a dedicated article on each of the subjects mentioned. As the primary author of the article, it is my responsibility to present the information, cite it within the manual of style guidelines, place wikilinks within the article to other articles that present information relevant to the subject in the section, and establish links in the See also and External links sections to articles and websites that are similar in nature or directly related to this one. As part of the guidelines of a Good Article nominee, I also have to ensure that the article meets the five standards of a GA, which it currently does.

If this were an in-depth article about the individual topics, then your points would be valid. Since this is an article in summary style, it is not.

Your assertion claiming Christopher Peloso's web page is not a reliable source is also wrong; according to Wikipedia guidelines for verifiable references it is allowable because it easily meets the seven standards for self published documents (specific section link). Since Mr. Peloso is only presenting the information as it was presented to him by his professors and in his textbooks, is not drawing any conclusions and the information he is presenting is from other verifiable sources it is allowable. This standard also applies to the Arthur Allen Robinson citation used in the BK v. HJs section.

Your earlier assertions about the Israeli occupied territories are also faulty. I do not need to explain the nature of the Occupied territories in detail, a reasonable reader can ascertain the nature of the Jewish settlements and why they are controversial and possibly illegal under international law through the wikilinks I provide in the article. The same goes for the other points you raised about the worthiness of the controversial subjects I have included. While they are not legal cases, there are legal points and issues which are implicit in the nature of the subject and is put forth in the text of the sections. I do not need to explain every legal point and minutia in explicit detail or be required to lead the reader like they were ignorant fools. If I were to do that the article would be in danger of veering into NPOV territory. Bluntly, I do not need to explain that contracts, verbal agreements and negotiations over issues of labor agreements are legal matters, and I do not need to explain that animal welfare is covered by laws regarding animal treatment and cruelty at the federal, state and municipal level.

I have explained what the precedents are and have stated the reasons for their importance in the third paragraph of the three legal cases sections. I have provided links to legal documents and articles explaining the relevance of these cases and added pertinent links in the See also and External links which bolster the article. The information presented in the lead is shown and expanded upon in the various sections of the article. The information is presented in such a way that a reasonable reader ascertain the subjects without a prior knowledge of the subject or can glean the required knowledge by following the links provided. I do not need to do more than that. Your other suggestions are very useful, but these assertions about the validity of the information and citations goes beyond those of a summary style article and a Good Article, and even possibly beyond the standards of a Featured Article.

I have addressed your pertinent issues, everything else is excessive. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Relative to the reliability of the Peloso page, it is not considered a reliable source because it is not a "reliable, third-party published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, Peloso probably doesn't meet the requirements for scholarship of sources. Additionally, check out the self-publication link: it applies only if the WP article is about Peloso; it's irrelevant to this situation.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing some research into this and I think I can address some of the problems with this. I spoke with Mr. Poloso and he explained that this was not his original work but an online version of the class notes of the particular course he was taking at the time. I will ask him for the texts the professor was using and move the cite.

Also, I would like to point you to Mr. Poloso's resumé. While he is a still just fourth year law student, this is his fifth overall degree and his fourth advanced one. Looking at his credentials, he is a little bit more than a simple law student, as he appears to have been working with law enforcement for some time in regards to the issues counter terrorism and weapons proliferation. He is just codifying his experience into a formal degree. While this does not make him a full blown lawyer yet, it does boost his credibility a skoach.

With the addition of his credentials, I think this may apply under the law section of WP:Reliable source examples

There are several legal structures for the creation, validation and enforcement of law and the resulting corpus of law is only valid in the jurisdiction of origin. The opinion of experts within the jurisdiction is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators. Legal material may also be divided into the legal statement itself, material to support or inform that legal statement and judgements of opinion when applying the law in practice.

I think this, along with the other sources, may may make the usage of his page allowable. I am not sure about this, but I am working on it. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition and verb tense

In the Nutrition section it says, "The modified Kid's Meal line will include several new products, including broiled Chicken Tenders, apple "fries", French cut apples served in a fry box, and organic apple sauce." Since this is not a quote, does the future tense mean that the modified Kid's Meal line hasn't been introduced yet? If it's still to come, then should a planned target date be added? Also, I may be reading the source articles incorrectly, but aren't the "apple 'fries'" and "French cut apples served in a fry box" the same thing" If they are, then why mention them twice in the list? Maybe there's a way to clarify this further.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

simply stated, they could be fried apples. It is to ensure that people understand that they are not cooked. I'll add "raw". They have not been introduced yet so it is still a "will". --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So, are there two apple products (as stated in the list) or just one? Also, I don't see anything in the two source articles that say they are Julienne cut, just that they're cut like French fries.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• French cut=julienned. Look it up, start with French fries- specifically the second paragraph of the second section. Look in the third part of the first sentence, the follow the links from there. You could also look at the link I provided in the original version.
• Apple "fries", <description>raw, julienned apples served in a fry carton</description>, we're back to grammar here. Read up on commas, serial commas, semi-colons, WP:MoS#Brackets and parentheses and WP:MoS#Punctuation. Your edits introduced incorrect data and have been reverted. Further edits such as these will be constituted as vandalism and will be reported. If you are unfamiliar with the product, ask and I will correct the errors properly. If you do not understand grammar, look up the proper methods regarding of correcting it, in this case lists separated by commas and semi-colons, before making edits

Any other questions? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC), amended 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There were no semi-colons there when I last edited and serial commas were nite clearly used. Also, I did ask you about the products.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did and I responded that it was one product. The word fries was in quotes, followed by the description which was separated by commas, as I stated above. Twice you changed the commas to parenthesis, which goes against the rules stated in the MoS grammar section for brackets and parenthesis. I added the semi-colons afterwards to help better state the list as I saw how you made the error. I pointed out the grammatical rules to you so that you understand the way you should have edited the article. Also, after I stated that the products had not been introduced yet, you still and went and changed the verb tense to a past form. I do not mind you helping bring the article to GA status as you have pointed out several holes in the article that needed to be addressed, but you must understand that is extremely frustrating when I point something out and you fail to pick up on the point.

I am sorry I "bit" you, as I was getting a little frustrated after a week of editing. You must understand that most of this article was sourced directly from the Burger King article, which is already at GA status. The reason this article exists was because its parent became too large, and most of the content has already been vetted for GA status by at least four other editors; after all your suggestions and critiques I was getting a bit... "annoyed". I got a little close to WP:Own, and my responses became demeaning. This is my mea culpa. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Council of Better Business Bureaus press release quote

Normally direct quotes only require one cite – to the quoted source document – to support them. Why is the Reuters article needed to support the quotation if the quote is verbatim from the BK press release]?
Jim Dunning | talk 03:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the press release is a primary source, I wanted to include a secondary source. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Murder King campaign — source discrepancy

The first paragraph in the Animal Welfare section states, "The group and its supporters, including celebrities such as Alec Baldwin, James Cromwell, and Richard Pryor, staged protests outside Burger King restaurants across the United States calling for the company to establish new compliance guidelines for its poultry suppliers." The source article does not say that the three celebrities actually participated in protests outside restaurants, only that they "supported" the Murder King campaign. Should this be clarified in the passage? Also, it specifically mentions June 28, 2001 as a date BK implemented certain programs.

Changed wording to avoid confusion. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source that can support that date? The first article doesn't mention a date at all and the article appears to be erroneously dated. The other cited article is dated 25 March 2002 and refers specifically to PETA's praise of the Veggie Burger, but it seems to state the "praise" (in the form of handing out burgers) occured in March 2002 (the passage appears to tie PETA's actions to the June 28, 2001 date as well). Is there a way to reconcile these dates or clarify the events, perhaps with another source?
Jim Dunning | talk 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it later, I have to go to work. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have cited the source of the statement so that dates and participants are properly noted and confirm to the citations. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The info in the article looks great! And the expanded info on the campaign involving the celebrities is a good addition. Maybe attaching a date of "March 2002" to the "These changes, along with the company's new vegetarian offering, the BK Veggie sandwich, drew praise from the group" statement would add some helpful chronology context.
Jim Dunning | talk 09:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

CIW Protest — need other sources?

The Labor section opens with the statements:

"A protracted South Florida labor dispute between the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) and growers of tomatoes in the region expanded to include Burger King and other major fast food companies, including McDonald's and Yum! Brands. In 2001, the CIW sought a pay raise of 1¢ per pound for tomato pickers in the region and began to target the chains with protests, letter writing campaigns, and petitions demanding that the companies purchase tomatoes only from suppliers who agree to the pay increase."

In looking at the lone citation in the paragraph, I'm not sure all of the passage's statements are adequately supported by the cited article (QSR Magazine, Tomato troubles). The passage says that the CIW started a letter writing and petition campaign in 2001, but the article does not specifically mention those actions. Also, it does mention a "boycott" that started in 2001, but states that the "protest" is about to start (in 2008) "Students, a main source of support for the CIW, are expected to stage a series of protests in the coming months," those months being in the future of the article's February 2008 publishing date.

Finally, although CIW's demand that there be a penny a pound increase may indeed have been initially made in 2001, the article doesn't clearly say that. This may just be a problem with the article's clarity, but all that can be certainly read from the source is that there is a demand for an increase in place in 2008. Is there an article that specifically supports that the one cent increase was originally made in 2001? That would help greatly.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I broke this down into individual line items so that I may address them more easily, text has not changed. I will take a look at this on Wednesday. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC), amended 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening to better show the time line, groups involved and the nature of the pay raise. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm still having difficulty finding support for the statement saying CIW targeted chains with "protests, letter writing campaigns, and petitions demanding that the companies purchase tomatoes" beginning in 2001. The cited source at the end of the statement doesn't mention those activities, and although one of the other citations in the paragraph does mention a petition, it doesn't happen until 2008. Is this information coming from another source I'm not looking at? If so, it should be added as a ref.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I added several links to groups that were part of the letter writing campaign and clarified the wording. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Celebrated" instead of "most prominent"?

In the Hoots section it says, "The most prominent incident of infringement in the United States occurred with the similarly named Burger King located in Mattoon, Illinois." In looking at the newspaper article cited for support, wouldn't "A celebrated incident of infringement ..." fit the source better?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think celebrated is too close to being a weasel word, prominent gets the point across without putting into question the possibility of someone calling the phrasing into question, as such. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

However, the source does not seem to support the characterization that the case is the "most prominent" trademark case BK has ever had, much less the "most prominent" any company in the United States has ever had. That could very well be true, but the source doesn't say anything like that (although I think the situation surrounding the Esso-to-Exxon name change would make that worthy of consideration of that title). It does say that it is a popular case for discussion in law schools, so it seems it would be best to keep it to that narrow description.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the Hamlet or Whopper Burger cases? You probably haven't, but they are two other major cases of infringement in the past few years. I have done a search using "Burger King" and "infringement" and came up with very few other cases. But we all know that Google page hits are not key to WP:note, this is just a good indicator. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The only other case I could find of any significance was Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1983) which established, again under the Lanham act, that a terminated franchisee cannot continue to use marks of the franchiser once the contract is canceled. This prevents the franchisee from liquidating any assets that have a corporate logo on them. Would the phrasing One of the larger infringement cases... be better? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Why not stick with "a popular case for study at law schools" since that is what the article says. That certainly presents its importance. Also, if there is any way we could get access to a legal search engine like LEXIS/NEXIS.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a statement clarification that I believe clears up your concerns on this one. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Labor — blogging characterization

Relatively small item, but important for accuracy and objectivity. In the Labor section it says, "Further clouding the issue, Grover was found to be trolling websites that have posted pro-CIW media." I'm afraid that saying that the deceptive blogging Grover did "clouded" the dispute with the CIW is more than what the two cited sources say. It is personal analysis that a reporter or business analyst might make, but inapropriate for a WP editor.

Per NPOV and NOR the article must be neutral. Even if a reporter had said the incident "clouded" the dispute circumstances (which is not supported by either article), it would be appropriate to say, "Reporter So-and-so said Grover's deceptive blogging clouded the issues surrounding the dispute ..." (see Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves).

Also, I'm having difficulty locating mention of the "stridently worded e-mails" referenced in this section. I'll read through the article more closely later in case I missed something.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the opening and am adding some more to clarify issues in regards to the whole termination issue of Grover and Silverstien. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That should get it cleaned up. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, except where does it say BK's credibility was damaged in the Miami Herald article (The WP article now says, "In May 2008 several issues came to the fore that damaged the credibility of Burger King ...")?
Jim Dunning | talk 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording is a summarization of the overall situation and events, which is supported by the information and citations in the section. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've carefully read the article five times now and there is nothing in there that explicitly or implicitly says BK's credibility was damaged. It wouldn't be unreasonable to guess that it was damaged for some people, but the news story never says that. If anything, the effect for BK was merely embarrassing to the general public, relatively minor or nil based on the information in the article: BK fired the employees immediately, citing company ethics violations; the company does the right thing and comes off looking like any company. We can't draw the conclusion that the corporation's credibility was hurt if the source doesn't specifically say that. "Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source ... Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research ...". If there's another source that supports your assertion, then let's find it and add it to the article. A quick search only turned up this relevant comment on BK's reputation, but since it's the CIW making the analysis, it hardly qualifies as a useful, objective source. Also, what are the "several issues"? The article only covers the blogging incidents.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence summarizes what is to follow in the ensuing paragraph and does not refer to any specific incident, I removed the citation from that line for that reason. Also, Sen. Sanders questioning of the company's explanation is a questioning of the company's credibility in the matter. He does not believe their explanation, as do critics such as Rampton, That is implicitly stated. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm not sure you want to make the opening sentence compound ("In May 2008 several issues came to the fore that damaged the credibility of Burger King and its position on the topic; Steven Grover was found to be trolling websites that have posted pro-CIW positions and opinions."). Use of a semi-colon in a compound sentence is for joining two, closely related independent clauses. That construction equates the "several issues" with Grover "trolling websites" rather than the rest of the paragraph. Perhaps the semi-colon should be replaced with a period? Placement of the ref at the end of the second sentence therefore is confusing since it appears then that the ref is there to support both sentences, rather than just the second. Another reason to get rid of the compound sentence: that would make the first sentence a "lead".

I am confused, though. The second sentence says, "Grover posted several comments disparaging the group, its leadership and its cause." However, the article states, "The comments accused the coalition's leaders of pilfering pay increases they had negotiated for migrant workers and 'reaping millions in cash from unknowing or duped supporters.'" How does this translate to criticizing the group's cause? Grover's intent may have been to paint the CIW in general in a negative light, but reporter Elaine Walker only says Grover wrote posts that said the leaders were benefiting from the pay increases.

And as to the credibility issue, after looking at all the cited articles in toto, I can see where you're going, however, it might be best to identify specifically who has the credibility concerns. The way it's worded now it gives a reader the impression that BK's credibility to the general public was damaged when it's really BK's critics — CIW, Sanders, and possibly Schlosser — who are saying its credibility is in question.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points, I believe I have addressed most of your concerns in regards to this, I have added a couple of sentences to the end that I believe go to the heart of the "who" issue. I'll remove the semi-colon and clarify the Grover comment. - Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Oops! Sorry I forgot about the article. Thank you for fixing my concerns! Limetolime ^{I want an award! • look what I did!} 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the concerns were "... the only thing it needs is new references. Please look here for references that need fixing", then you should review the subsequent, extensive discussions about the Lead, content significance, and sourcing issues that followed your post placing the GAN on hold on May 24. This would give some hint that there have been and are problems with article statements matching source material and disagreements between editors about important aspects of the article. Based on Good article criteria #2 and #5, this alone should have at the very least further delayed any consideration for listing this article as GA.

Since Limetolime went ahead and listed the article despite the contents of this Talk page, the next step would be to reassess the article to address the question of whether it should be delisted. Technically, since I am not a major contributor to the article, I can request a GAR. However, because the primary editor and I don't see eye-to-eye about how sources should be used in the article (vis-a-vis interpretations of WP:RS, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NOR), I am stepping back and asking other editors to look at the article and the discussions. Not only shouldn't the article have been listed as GA because of the open issues and sourcing problems, I also think that problems with the cites and sources need to be fixed before it can be reconsidered for GA.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I will go along with you if you wish to request a WP:3. I'll bitch if I loose, but will accept the decision. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)