Talk:Burger King/Archive 5

Bad Wording - Needs Cleanup and Copy Edit
I was reading the article and noticed some bad wording. I could not edit, so will mention it here. There is a sentence that says, roughly, "Like other multinational corporarions, Burger King has had legal problems..."

That seems to me a gratuitous editorial comment. The first phrase should be omitted. One could as well have said, "Like other Florida corporations..." or "Like other food services corporations..." or, well, you get the point.

Regardless of one's views about multinationals, the phrase seems inappropriate in the context of the sentence and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverTreeOxen (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a comparison to other large companies, all of which have major problems of one sort or another. --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links review
I think someone should look and evaluate which (if any) of the article's external links meet the standards at WP:EL. 69.221.151.26 07:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did and two were bad links. Please refrain from using profanity (I removed it per WP:Civil) in posts and consider becoming a member of the Wikipedia community by creating your own account. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Switch to/from Pepsi?
I don't have the wherewithal to research it myself, but wouldn't BK's switch (in the US, at least) from Coke to Pepsi in the mid-'80s and then back to Coke in the '90s seem to be worthy of inclusion here?

Hannibal V Constantine (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is covered in the Burger King products article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 14:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead...
...is arguably too long as it is and could do with trimming. The obvious candidate for deletion was the legal disputes. There is no real argument for inclusion this early on in the article. As wp:lead states, a notable controversy could be held in the lead, so by all means cite one in a few lines which has changed the course of legal history and there would be no problem in including it in the lead. However, as my summary states simply putting 'BK gets sued sometimes' is a bit silly. A compromise could be a trimmed down version of what was there before (along the lines of starbucks article, about a 10th of the length of what was there before. Again, looking through the talk seems to suggest that there are other editors concerned with the lead so I suggest leaving as is until consensus changes. RaseaC (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is written in summary style; the section you are deleting refers to the legal issues section which is a major part of the company's business. The legal section contains not one major case but five cases that have had a major impact on the company and contractual law in general as well as other legal related matters that have affected the company's operations. According to the summary style guidelines, the lead is correctly formatted, so your initial reasoning regarding the size of the lead is flawed. If you read the lead section of the summary style policy, the lead of a summary style article, summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone (my emphasis on stand-alone), so this lead is formatted properly.


 * I am restoring the section, please do not restore it until a consensus is reached for its deletion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Legal issues are a major part of any business but doesn't appear in the lead in such detail in most other articles because there is rarely anything noteworthy, and BK is no exception. With regards to your argument that BK has had a major impact on contractual law, a quick look through Westlaw suggests this is no more the case than any other company. The lead is not correctly formatted, if we were to take your view on how a lead should be formatted, the whole article would be in the lead, which is obviously not possible. As I stated above, there may be a consensus in shortening this aspect of the lead, but as it stands I, and other editors, do not believe it should stay as it stands, hence my revert. As with that other artcile you are arguing, if this consensus reverses, feel free to re-add or, in the meantime, put in a much shortened version of the paragraph. RaseaC (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with RaseaC's reasoning. Let's face it, the paragraph concerned says nothing that doesn't apply to any large company, and thus deserves to be trimmed from the lead section. --DAJF (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SS recommends putting a short bit in the lede about any major content sections found within the article. Can a nod to the legal section be included in the lede in a manner that doesn't involve one full paragraph? Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have suggested this as a compromise, such an edit would include any major legal action (if any exists) but would not be as general as the existing para. I would suggest that options be posted here first before being published. RaseaC (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From my perspective as a practicing attorney, most of the issues mentioned in this article as well as the Burger King legal issues article are relatively minor issues that really involve issues of public policy more than pure legal issues. The only Burger King legal case that every American attorney who entered law school after 1985 knows is Burger King v. Rudzewicz, because it's often taught in first-year civil procedure courses in law school.  Other than that case (which isn't mentioned currently), I don't see why any of the other "legal" issues deserve mention in the lead! --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without the major BK case mentioned, the current legal section is more of a hit piece than an informative encyclopedic necessity. Somebody who can summarize it properly should insert BK v. Rudzewicz as soon as possible, and put a note about it in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say a summary in the current legal section is necessary, I'm not sure there needs to be anything in the lead. It may be noteworthy froma legal perspective, but this is an article about a burger place, therefore I don't see reason for inclusion. However, I would concede that a brief summary sentence in the loead would be better than the para we had previosuly. RaseaC (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is about a major, international company. BK has been in seven major cases that have set legal precedent in the US and Australia. This is not about some lady suing the company because she burned her crotch with a cup of coffee, it is about cases that defined contract disputes, rights of franchisors and other legal boundaries. Read the BK legal issues and the cases that are linked off of that article to see what I mean. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And therefore BK is no different from many other multinationals, going to court is nothing special and certainly doesn't warrent such a lengthly para in the lead, in this overall article of BK a short section in legal history is sufficient, like you said, there's a whole other article dedicated to it if peopple want detail. RaseaC (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You completely ignored my point, I said precedent setting cases, not standard run of the mill cases. These are important because not all lawsuits are trivial, change the way companies do business or change the market as a whole - which the case noted are. I'll come up with something later. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing the point, what I meant was that laws all over the world are shaped by multinationals and therefore there is nothing exciting about the cases cited. As I've said, summaries are not an issue, go ahead and include them. But as far as the original discussion goes, I think we can agree that the lead stays as is. RaseaC (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many images of BK locations
I removed most of the images of BK locations as this kind of gallery is not recommended per WP:GALLERY. I moved other images to be next to text that mentions something relevant to the image. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that, good job. RaseaC (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No big issue either, but the proper policy is WP:IG, while your at it go hit the gallery at McDonald's. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All Burger King restaurants in Iceland are permanently closed for business. There were at least 3 locations in the Reykjavik capital area. There are no longer Burger King restaurants in this country. Please update the "Burger King" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.52.12 (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
The following paragraph should be added below the bottom “Charitable contributions and services”:

===Environmental Record=== Burger King scored 10/100 on ClimateCounts.org's 2009 Climate Counts Company Scorecard Report,  which “provides people with an objective, balanced way to gauge which of the world’s most well-known consumer companies are seriously committed to reversing climate change.” This is an increase of 10 points from its 2008 score.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweeezil (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 December 2009

Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. This appears to be more of an advertisement for that group than a useful addition to this article. Celestra (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

South African location?


According to this website, there is a restaurant called "Burger King" in South Africa. Can anyone tell me if this is official?--Kanzler31 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)