Talk:Burger King advertising/Archive 1

Dr. Angus (was "PHD in Cheesey")
I want some info from the new "PHD in Cheesey" stuff..


 * I think we need to add dome info on the "Dr. Angus" ad campaign. The main article is completely silent. It seems that this campaign is so popular (and now, long-running) that Dr. Angus was replaced by a different actor. Can anyone confirm? For those who don't know (or have been living under a rock), Dr. Angus is a rip-off of Dr. Atkins. He apparently has a "PhD in Cheesey" and can teach people sit by giving them a Cheesy Bacon Angus Steakburger. Adds featuring him have ranged from southern-baptist-preacher-style early-90s-ish self-help-guru infomercial type to late-70s disco-sleaze.
 * those were the best commercials ver! other than the BK king 1s they were hilarious. Dappled Sage 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Burger King Lady
(Trivia) The Burger King article mentions employees singing the "Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us!" jingle but the main singer was the Burger King Lady, never mentioned in the article. After a couple years, she disappeared and then appeared in a Selsin Blue anti-dandruff shampoo commercial. Was she ever identified and did she go on to other roles? For instance, Elizabeth Shue appeared in McDonald's commercials.

CP+B Edit (removal of links)
Crispin, Porter + Bourgowski is the advertising agency of record for Burger King, and the links in the article go to examples of their work for BK. They are not being used as advertising for CP+B but as citations of the information being discussed. I believe the deletion of these references to be inappropriate since they are pertinent to the subject of the article, thus my undoing of the edits.

Jerem43 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Boomer/BK Kids Club?
I wonder if, since one of the original female characters in the group is nicknamed Boomer and wears a jersey with #7, this could be a reference to then-Bengals QB Boomer Esiason? 205.244.108.219 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whopperheads
Has anyone seen or remember the short lived commercials featuring Whopperheads. They were part of a 2004-2005 promotion in which BK partnered with an online music company (can't remember which one), advertising the chance for a free song with every whopper purchase. I have seen two of these kinds of commercials. The general theme involved some hippy-type youngsters getting talked down to by authority figures who diss the former as "whopperheads," an equivalent of potheads. I find these commercials amusing and would like more informtion.

KIDS CLUB LOGO?
The Kids Club logo section that was made would look better if somebody would post a picture of the logo.

Fair use rationale for Image:Burger King Logo.svg
Image:Burger King Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue has been corrected - Jeremy (Jerem43 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:BKkidsclubgang.jpg
Image:BKkidsclubgang.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue has been corrected - Jeremy (Jerem43 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
 * The image has been replaced with a png formatted one - Jeremy (Jerem43 10:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Burger King Kids Club descriptions
I believe the Burger King Kids Club descriptions were overdone. Too politically correct. 24.4.131.142 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Honbatz.jpg
Image:Honbatz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * fixed. - Jeremy (Jerem43 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Bot review of article
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]✅ Done


 * Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]✅ Done


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 cm, use 5 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5&amp;nbsp;cm.[?]


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 3 lb.


 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]


 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]✅ Done
 * only one example and it covers information on the BK mascot, the Burger King


 * As per Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]✅ Done


 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]


 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]


 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]


 * The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, don't, Aren't, Aren't, Aren't, Aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.


 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!!!!
(I moved this discussion to the proper location, by chronological order - Jerem43 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

If Wiki isn't kept up to date with current events it is pointless. I'm adding more references, but the FACT is that the movie has made controversy and that some on the right are naming its associated advertisers in their criticisms. If this continues to be censored I have serous doubts about the integrity of Wiki. Corporations or people that get themselves involved in controversy should not be shielded from having those current events documented on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blohme (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Three separate editors have found you additions unacceptable. Please do not add this commentary back without following the guidelines of WP. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

The commentary is there... are you saying you're going to hike your leg and remove it again? How is documenting current events unacceptable to Wiki? PLEASE, explain...


 * Try looking on your talk page, chill-out with your comments, and sign your posts.- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Please look at my talk page, by all means. I've been discussing on there, heck I've been trying to get you to talk about it too. I feel that I am documenting current events and that in the context used the cited sources do not conflict with Wiki style and policy. The first time you removed it you said that it was because Burger King was not related to the controversial movie in question, when in fact I've documented two sources saying that they are, in fact, advertising partners with the movie. Second it was cited as being a POV, but I can't say I agree that documenting the fact that there is controversy constitutes attempting to sell the POV that they are correct. Third, in the context used (which was more or less to say "there's pissy right wingers out there pointing fingers at this movie's advertisers"), I believe that what might be considered under the style document to be fringe/extremist sources does not preclude their use. Blohme (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of POV primary sources without proper secondary sources to put the p.s. into context is a violation of the guidelines (see WP:PSTS). Those sources are unacceptable as they stand, which makes the addition POV. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Interesting, every time we talk you come up with a different style or policy article. So... is it my POV that there are right wing whack jobs protesting and boycotting The Golden Compass movie who are also talking about who is partnering with and/or sponsoring said movie? Or is that a fact verifiable with the references listed? I guess my concern here is that this seems to be censorship aimed at the comment because of the referenced source, not a question of fact. If one of Burger King's business partners was accused of, lets say, running a sweatshop and labor activists started denouncing the partner and mentioning Burger King wouldn't that be something we'd want to make note of? I think controversy, if it exists, should be out here as long as it is documented in neutral way. To me, my comments are neutral and only intended to document a current event. Would it be better if I removed the references and just linked back to the article on the movie and we discussed the whack-jobs there? Blohme (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeremy, I imagine that David Horowitz would be surprised to find his FrontPage Magazine called a Catholic newsletter (as you referred to it on Blohme's user talk page), especially since he's Jewish. I imagine you meant the other citation, but you should be careful about lumping these things together. Anyways, the sub-policy you cite WP:PSTS doesn't really apply to this discussion since that is part of the No original research policy. I think it's safe to say that it's unlikely that Blohme is the author of both those articles and since Burger King didn't write them either it quite clearly makes them secondary sources. Now, the Reliable sources guideline does include a section about "extremist sources", but I think you'd find it a tough sell trying to convince a majority of people that FrontPage Magazine and an Archdiocese's newsletter constitute extremists sources- especially when they are commenting on the actions and feelings of their own or similarly oriented groups. As for your objections about not pointing out that there's supposedly only a small number of people involved or that the phrasing of the sentence is poor, remember that this is a wiki and you can just fix it. In the spirit of Assume good faith (my very favorite Wikpedia policy) reverting should only really be used for vandalism, not because you don't like what is written. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Newsletter I was referring to the was the editorial. I never said they were extremist, I said they were POV - major difference. As I said to Mr. Blohme, those are not good sources, as biased primary sources they need to be backed up with proper secondary sources. I have seen very little about this in those sources. And as for the WP:PSTS link was my explanation of how he should be adding them, which he appears to have failed to read.

Maybe Blohme could take the time and properly edit his entries so others do not have to do it for him. Take a look at this article's history and you will see that I have been doing allot of that lately; if contributors such as Blohme did that the first time around, others wouldn't have to. If he spent half the time he spent arguing about this on actually doing it right on the first pass, we wouldn't be having this onversation and editor wouldn't be deleting his entries. If I make an entry that I know will be controversial, I make sure I have crossed the "T", dotted the "i", checked grammar, punctuation and spelling. I also make sure that the tone is proper for an encyclopedia, as required. Take a look at the controversies section in the main article, as I told him to do (which he apparently ignored also) and you will see what he should have done in the first place. Each of these issues was added to the Burger King article in the same manner as Blohme did, and I had fix them: cite them with proper secondary sources and present them in a NPOV manner. This is the ultimate in lazy, just adding content like that in and hoping others will come along and make it the way he should have done in the first place. He couldn't be bother to even put it in the right place, he dropped it in a section detailing the history of Burger King's children's advertising of the 1970s. It should have gone on the main article's page under controversies, a suggestion I made which he also ignored.

Additionally, he failed to put the whole issue in context - his entry is junk if he does not take the time to ensure the whole thing is shown in its full context. What is the issue? What does Burger King have to do with it? What is its origin? What is their [BK] response to the issue? What I have seen in the press is only complaints about issues over the movie's supposed bias by Catholic groups, not any issue with Burger King (or Coca-Cola). BK and other companies are only briefly mentioned in these two sources as companies that WB has contracted with as promotional partners.

So we can avoid further issues over this, here is a list of what is wrong with the whole thing, and there is allot:


 * 1) WP:PSTS - His sources are biased primary sources and are not good enough. This link explains the difference between the types. to quote: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." FrontPage Magazine promotes a conservative agenda and considered by several groups as extremist, and the Archdiocese editorial is an opinion as all editorials are.
 * 2) WP:RS - He needs to add secondary sources that are reliable, examples of which as I stated on his user page. As stated by WP: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." As I sated in the previous note, his cites are far from reliable;
 * 3) WP:NPOV - Yeah, your opinion that they are right wing nut jobs is POV. The entry must be made in such a way as not show bias, which you didn't;
 * 4) WP:Tone - His phraseology stinks, as it is not in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia.

So that my point is perfectly clear, Blohme has managed to violate every one of the core policies of WP and more. That is the entire reason this is going on.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Points 1 and 2: if that's true then how can the Passion of the Christ article have a link to http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37298 ? I think in your reading of this any link to any opinion/POV source is inherrently flawed.  That's how I read your intent... or maybe a link to any POV article you disagree with is inherently flawed and therfore can be removed at the Editor's whim, in which case the only thing we are going to see on Wiki is either neutered vanilla content or one-sided opinion.  Point 3, you used my comments from the discussion page to illustrate that my comments in the article don't have a NPOV?  That doesn't make sense to me...  Point 4, if you think this could be better phrased have at it - personally I think it is a pretty simple, even-toned statement of fact on a current event.  It seems to me that you are clutching at straws with the last two comments, and I disagree with the first two comments.  If Editorials cannot be used in WP under any circumstances then there are a lot of articles around that need to be gutted.


 * As for the rest of your comments, sorry but it doesn't hold water. All you did was continuosly hit the Undo button, be condescending in your comments and inconsistent in your rational for doing so. Blohme (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion
The two sources provided say nothing about Burger King being criticised for sponsoring, just that they're sponsoring. Seeing as companies can sue as well as people, and the material is very contentious, it should not be in the article unless explicitly backed by a major reliable source. Will (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC) ANI thread - WP:ANI#Golden Compass controversies - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Will is absolutely correct. The sources very clearly do not state that the Coca-Cola company has been the subject of criticism for sponsoring this movie.  Suggesting that off those sources in original research via synthesis.  Find reliable sources that actually verify the text or it stays out of the article.  I've removed it as it completely violates policy.--Isotope23 talk 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is the first time the comment was actually removed for a good reason. So long Jeremy... IrishTraveller (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)