Talk:Taco Bell/Archive 7

Puerto Rico and Guam
In the "other countries" section, just a note that Guam and PR are not countries; they are US territories. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Beasley Allen Lawsuit Notability
After reviewing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability


 * A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.


 * "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources, "Independent of the subject", "Presumed"
 * All of the above criteria have been met.


 * "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."
 * This makes it notable since it has received significant coverage.

According to everything I see on that page, and after reviewing the "What Wikipedia is Not" page, I see no reason for the Beasley Allen lawsuit to be dismissed out of hand as not notable.

It has been significantly covered in the news media and could potentially have a significant impact on Taco Bell as a company. If Taco Bell did not consider it notable, their CEO wouldn't have responded on their corporate web site. http://www.tacobell.com/company/newsreleasearticle/Statement-Regarding-Class-Action-Lawsuit

Please provide a defense if you plan on removing the material, since the evidence is very heavily in favor of notability at this time.

-- Avanu (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I already have and it is the policy listed in my post above (now archived) - notability guidelines for events, specifically this line from the inclusion criteria:


 * What this criteria is stating is that notability is not conferred because something appears in the news. This incident meets all of the defined criteria in that statement - despite being widely reported in multiple sources, it is a one time announcement about a filing for a lawsuit - not an actual lawsuit. Additionally, the story, while widely reported on, does not have significant or in-depth coverage that puts the suit into context. This is a single news cycle event with a very short duration; it is basically coverage of a press release/conference. Most of the sources you are quoting are simply mirroring the event or reprinting a wire story. In each of those news stories about the suit, the commentary is a parroting of the two opposing law firms/attorneys views on the case, there is no research by the reporting organization, there is nothing in them that gives depth to the story. Basically what I am saying and the policy is defining is this: until something of enduring significance comes of it, it isn't notable. Additionally, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we cannot say what may happen if the lawsuit were to succeed; as an encyclopedia we do not make predictions of future events.


 * These types of lawsuits appear all the time, and like this one they are not notable. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is famous for this type of suit, allot of fanfare then nothing. In each case the PR department of the company named in the suit releases a press release disputing the allegations, usually signed by the CEO or chair. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It continues to have ongoing news coverage. In this case it is because of Taco Bell responding. At some point here, its going to become undeniable that there is enough notability. The standards I quoted are fairly objective; the one you quote above is highly subjective. Additionally, you quote the crystal ball guideline, but it sounds like you are wanting to define notability by some future event that may or may not happen. You mention that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is famous for frivolous lawsuits, but do you have any evidence that Beasley Allen law firm engages in such a practice? Just because someone else files lawsuits a lot doesn't confer that same status on every legal filing.

I am not going to get into an edit war, but the article with the lawsuit information added is simply factual and does not try to predict anything. It names the parties involved and their contentions. I'll wait a day or so, but as I am seeing in the news, the notability of this event continues to build. -- Avanu (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Undeniable notability. Someone asked me about this issue, which was on the FRONT PAGE of a major metropolitan newspaper, and I said to them, "Go read the Wikipedia page about Taco Bell. It should have the latest and the history of the controversy." There was nothing there. I was embarassed for Wikipedia! This is ridiculous. The lawsuit was FILED, not just announced. Taco Bell took out FULL PAGE ads in major metropolitan newspapers today defending itself because this is such a big deal to the company. This is not notable? It is issues like this that call into question the reliability of Wikipedia itself in the eyes of the general public (including our school system not letting my kids cite it for schoolwork). I am just shocked at this blatant attempt to keep judging something not notable that becomes more and more notable every minute. Let's just all agree that this probably was, at one point, not notable, but NOW IT IS and it needs to be at least mentioned. Three lines - one describing the suit, one describing the response, one describing the current status. To have nothing does a disservice to the Wikipedia reader. This is not that difficult, people. Do I need to point to a hundred other Wikipedia articles that cover issues like this in EXACTLY the same way without having one editor constantly reverting because of more and more difficult to defend unnotability? -- Davealexander (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For all that has been said and done, that is in the two groups of articles, there has only been one set focusing on the filing and one set on the advertising response. You are cherry picking the parts of the notability guideline to justify the inclusion of a lawsuit that does not exist yet. Yes, it does not exist yet, it is only a legal filing which is the precursor to an actual lawsuit and not a lawsuit. It hasn't gone before a judge for preliminary hearings to determine its merit, it hasn't gone through arguments and there has been no verdict. Read the first line of the significant coverage:




 * There is still with no in depth coverage as required by WP:Note. What has changed in the company? Where is the analysis by the media? Where is the detail? As I stated before the coverage has no depth, the articles that was used as sources state only that this firm has filed a suit against Taco Bell and Taco Bell responded and Taco Bell has disputed the allegations of the suit with an ad. That is it. Where is the analysis on the effect of the suit on parent company Yum's financials? Where is the data on how this is effecting the company's sales? Where is information on the public's response to the allegations? The notability guidelines are not about quantity but quality; the notability guidelines on news stories are not an optional guideline you can follow if you want. They are there to help quantify the notability guidelines themselves and provide addition steps to determine whether a subject is notable.


 * You are falling into the situation described in WP:Events by claiming the breadth of coverage is satisfying the general notability guideline. WP:Note states that it takes more than just routine news reports about a single topic to constitute significant coverage, which includes press releases and public announcements. The sources you are using contain press releases and public announcements, so you will need more than just a bunch of news outlets simply parroting a bunch of lawyers chest thumping. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You really need to stop talking about lawsuits not being filed when you obviously do not understand the term "filed." Look it up. The lawsuit was filed. The complaint that was filed IS the lawsuit. You don't need a judge to determine merit to state that a lawsuit was filed. You don't need a court to hear arguments before a lawsuit is considered filed. You need to FILE THE LAWSUIT with the Clerk of Court. And by the way, YUM has refused to comment on the lawsuit's affect on financials and sales until Feb 3 after earnings are released. Is that notable? Will that then be notable? This is really getting ridiculous. Go look at any other fast food page and see how it's done on Wikipedia. In fact, why don't you go over to the McDonald's or Burger King pages right now and try to delete some of the Controversy text there because it does not now nor will it ever meet your extreme and unreasonably interpreted criteria for notability. Davealexander (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for recommending that I take a look into how its done. Since I wrote the Burger King legal issues article (it's a GA) and heavily edited the McDonald's one i really don't have to, I know how it is properly done already. Its nice top know that you finally are getting my point. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As more a reader then an editor I came here to see if there was any info about the lawsuit beyond the he said/she said of the two sides. Also, what about the E. Coli outbreak?  How come there is no information here about that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.43.173 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing. I did check the page at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and found this:


 * Jeremy, using the standard and methods you present, along with others I am observing, would make it very difficult to get any information into Wikipedia. I'll present the following link as an example.  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7404423.html
 * After reading that story, it came to mind to ask about how this relates to 1st Amendment free speech issues, about how students are being given tickets instead of traditional discipline, how a person can get a ticket because someone was simply 'offended'. The story also simply fails to give much detail, or how the school arrived at this kind of condition in the first place.  HOWEVER, all this said... I find this to be a fairly notable story.  So if I can't find sufficient information in the news media, which OFTEN doesn't put a lot of effort into deep research of news like you are claiming to prefer, my only other option is to personally research this.  However, I would think that would be prohibited under the 'no original research' clause.  So, I'm at an impasse.  That is where we find ourselves with this Taco Bell stuff.  So what are we to do?  There is good information to be uncovered, but who is supposed to do it?  And why should it simply be that we wait for researchers or news people to gather it? -- Avanu (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL @ wikipedia. The lawsuit claiming widespread fraud about the contents of the food at their restaurants is not notable? 68.188.25.170 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently it is not according to some silly and anal interpretation of "rules", completely ignoring that there are many cultural references to the lawsuit now, including the large ad and mentions on news shows and talk shows. It's notable to every OTHER kind of media except the one where overzealous editors get to make the calls. It's a huge oversight that someone researching some quick information into the lawsuit can not even find evidence of it on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.145.250 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree this meets requirements for being notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.24.50 (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
In reviewing more of the timeline of Taco Bell (through independent sources), I can see several reasons why a lawsuit like this can be a threat to Taco Bell. Throughout the 80's and 90's, Taco Bell restructured itself to become more competitive. They went from making most items in-house with freshly prepared ingredients, to preparing items off-site. Essentially Taco Bell is now a place where tacos and other items are assembled only. K-minus was an initiative to almost completely eliminate the kitchen, in order to change the restaurants from 70% kitchen space to 30% kitchen space, which allowed for more seating for customers, or overall reduction of space needed to establish a restaurant in the first place. Also, their initiative called TACO (Total Automation of Company Operations) was put in place to reduce management and administrative costs, and allow the hiring of less skilled workers.

If you put this all together, you end up with a different flavor and experience, which, for long time Taco Bell customers, may end up appearing to be of less quality. This might be subtle, but when millions of people feel the same thing, it could lead them to question the overall quality of everything, or in this case, whether beef is really beef, or is mostly other stuff.

The problem I see is this fine line between original research and simple observation, for example, in seeing something that ANYONE can see if you simply point it out, versus coming to a fairly original conclusion. Both might be called Original Research by someone in the Wikipedia community, but one is fairly obvious, and one is not. -- Avanu (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The last part of your posting falls under WP:Crystal ball, we don't include what may happen - only what has happened. However, your analysis of the changes the company has made over the years affecting the quality of its products is worthy of inclusion, as long as you can provide sources that back up the assertion of how the changes effected the company's product and the public's reaction. You could uses this as a source, but you would have to find additional sources that meets the various guidelines (V, RS, NPOV and PSTS) that established the assertions and that linked the two as being related. You would have to have to watch out to ensure that your contribution isn't original research or synthesis.


 * Now lets step back and see other examples of these types of lawsuits that are notable and why:
 * McDonald's coffee suit - the woman sued because a cup of coffee burned he genitalia; she won $2 million (reduced on appeal to $865,000 for medical and legal expenses only). The result? Every cup of coffee you buy now comes with a warning that its hot. There are hundreds of articles, legal journals and books dedicated to this case. It also spawned a societal and political debate on personal responsibility and the overly litigious nature of American society.
 * Cereal packaging lawsuit - A guy in California sues cereal manufacturers because the image on his cereal box doesn't match the contents of the box (the image of the people kibble was two inches across, the stuff in the box was only a half inch); he won. The result? Every box of cereal in the United States now has the simple statement the image on the box has been enlarged to show detail.
 * CSPI trans-fats suit - the CSPI sues everybody over trans-fats (which were only there because the CSPI sued everybody over saturated fats a decade before); legal results were mixed but generally they are considered to have won. The result? Every food company pretty much everywhere reformulated every product sold to not contain trans-fats. Detailed articles on the nature of the food industries workings, the problems of obesity in the United States and overall health issues followed.
 * Fast food made me fat - A overweight New York man sued just about everybody because he claimed fast food made him fat; the case was tossed as being without merit. The result? More articles and reports on the ongoing obesity epidemic in the United states and other related health issues, as well as more societal and political debate on personal responsibility and the overly litigious nature of American society.


 * These are three different types of lawsuits - product liability, false advertising and consumer protection. Each is notable not because they were broadly covered in the press, responded to by the higher ups in the companies as being without merit, mocked by comedians and everything else that comes with the 24 hour news cycle. They are notable because something actually came out of this - whether it was a change of behavior in the companies, an overreaching study of the case because it failed, or what societal issues the case pointed out.


 * This is my area of interest in Wikipedia, commercial foods and hospitality industry. That being said if we included every incident like this one, there would be a disproportionate amount of each article dedicated to every lawsuit that was filed against a company because it received press coverage. The rules on notability on news coverage are not there because we want to be anal (love the IP contributors, get an account ippy!), but to weed out stuff like this. Since the initial burst of press coverage, what else have you seen regarding this incident? I would hazard to guess that the answer to that is probably nothing. I am not being anal or overly rigid here, I'm being pragmatic.


 * What we have to do is differentiate the breadth of coverage over this incident from its lack of depth in coverage. We have been arguing that this doesn't meet notability guidelines, but what we are really debating is what Wikipedia is not with the related news and events guidelines. Look at what these policies say about this type of story:


 * The various postings from you and others have all pretty much ignored these policies solely stating there is significant coverage from reliable sources therefore it is notable, but the general notability guides lines do not cover the inclusion of content of articles. The two polices I listed above are what cover content and you need to work within them, not notability. Yes, there could be serious repercussions for the company if it looses, but making an analysis is not our job here. Despite Dave's assertion there is an ongoing lawsuit, there isn't. A filing is just a legal notification of pending legal action. The case will still need a hearing of merit before the actual suit begins. Right now this is only a claim by one party that another party is falsely advertising the content of its product, and unless it is legally proven that the claim is in fact true, it is still just a claim. If the suit moves forward and if there is a settlement or verdict with a long term consequence it can then be included, but until such time this shouldn't be included. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You tend to make good points, but you keep making one point rather badly. The bit about this being a 'claim', has nothing to do with notability.  I am willing to concede the list you quoted makes sense 'lasting effects' and so on, but I might ask you to 'Remember the Maine' and the 'claim' that Spain was responsible for the sinking of that ship.  It is a claim, and still in great doubt, but it had 'lasting effects, depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of coverage'.  And it was truly notable for helping to lead the US into the Spanish-American war.  Yet it was just a claim.  Now, we can't see the future, but we can pull information together to show WHY Taco Bell felt a response was warranted and the general state of fast food in the US, but the question I was trying to ask you is where do we cross the line into Original Research.  If you and I see a purple tree in the middle of a meadow, but the news media hasn't reported on it in that fashion yet, or university professors haven't researched it yet, or so on, but it is plainly standing there, as obvious as can be, and I write "I see a purple tree." will that get tossed out for being original research? Even though it is a plain and obvious fact to many people? -- Avanu (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Stating that a piece jingoistic propaganda and a consumer protection lawsuit are even remotely related is a tenuous, microscopic connection at the very best. Companies always respond to lawsuits such as this, if only to acknowledge that "yeah, we got the memo" type of response. In Taco Bell's case it was a case of "You've got to be kidding us, this is a load of BS. Here are the facts." It was a bigger response that normally seen, but it was still just a standard response.


 * Yes it would be original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original scientific work or research.


 * BTW that purple tree was probably a red maple. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This "Jeremy" editor is clearly not objective. He sounds like a commentator here to push his ideas on judicial reform. : "These types of lawsuits appear all the time, and like this one they are not notable. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is famous for this type of suit, allot of fanfare then nothing. In each case the PR department of the company named in the suit releases a press release disputing the allegations, usually signed by the CEO or chair. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)" I suggest he be removed from editing this page. The discussion seems over on this issue. He is clearly wrong. The lawsuit is notable. It needs to be added 68.188.25.170 (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your assumption is wrong and baseless; I am neither a commentator nor concerned with judicial reform. Since you lack any knowledge of who I am or what I am doing here, I would ask that you consult the five pillars of Wikipedia before making any more comments about me. If you feel I am POV pushing, I recommend you take your allegation to the proper forum before declaring I should be removed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If I thought Jeremy was completely wrong, I would have just put the content back in. The fact is, I think he is at least partly right, and I am willing to wait for more notability to arise in the case before adding content back in.  I don't agree with bullying a viewpoint, and since Jeremy has been willing to discuss/debate, I am willing to be civil in return and let the issue settle itself as time goes on, or alternatively take a different approach to how we make it notable, as I have discussed in the above questions/comments.  (As part of a symptom related to their cost cutting initiatives, etc).  Other than simply making his case, and having other people be in disagreement in part or in full, I don't see anything wrong with what Jeremy has done.  When this comes before the court, or if I can approach it from another angle, or if more facts come forward, I will probably add it back in.  Otherwise, I'm willing to be patient. -- Avanu (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can do whatever it wants. Just understand that locking the page and preventing true and clearly notable information from being added hurts you in terms of credibility. You say you are waiting for facts to come forward? What facts? There is a lawsuit alleging something. Are you saying that if they lose then it was never notable, even though it has been a major news event prompting unusual official responses from Taco Bell such as buying full page newspaper adds? The fact that taco bell bought an add in order to re-assert that their beef really is beef would be notable even if there was no lawsuit. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Still locked and censored huh? I see that the name of the Cockatoo that was in their commercials was considered notable though. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Jeremy here is being the voice of reason against the people who don't have a sense of perspective and would like to see Wikipedia as venue for furthering their hysterical obesity / fast food moral panic. This is clearly not yet notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.52.20 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Beef section?
Shouldn't the lawsuit alleging that Taco Bell beef is only 36 percent meat be listed in the Controversies section? 98.246.191.164 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw that there were no sections with "beef," "meat," etc. in the title and didn't think there was discussion yet. Seeing all the discussion, it looks like it's time to call in other editors to resolve this, which I'll go ahead and do now. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Beef lawsuit RfC
The law firm of Beasley Allen filed a consumer protection law suit alleging that Taco Bell's filling used in its tacos is only 36% beef with the remainder being fillers. Taco Bell responded to the suit by denying all allegations in a press release and posting a You Tube video featuring the CEO of Taco Bell refuting all claims. Two parties are debating the merits and reasoning of including mention of the suit in the body of the Taco Bell article
 * Summary -
 * Area of dispute -
 * Include - Because of the wide coverage of the suit in American media, the suit should be included. The assertion for inclusion is because the suit was covered by reliable sources and is verifiable it is thus notable and should be included.


 * Exclude - Despite being widely covered in the press it not suitable for inclusion because it is only an unproved assertion at this time and the suit has yet to move beyond initial phase of legal action. The assertion for exclusion is that Wikipedia is not a news aggregator and that the story does not conform to the standards found in the notability guidelines for events. It is has additionally been noted because notability guidelines cover article creation and not content inclusion, they do not apply.

There is a dispute as to whether the lawsuit alleging that Taco Bell beef is only 36 percent meat is notable. See this section for previous discussion. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Original RFC comment-

Discussion
My feeling is — it's too early to tell. Lawsuits get filed against companies all the time. My opinion is that at most, one or two sentences should go into the article for the time being; if no additional coverage comes within the next couple months, they should be removed entirely. --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can find no compelling reason to exclude a mention of the lawsuit from the article. The only policy apparently directly relevant to the dispute, WP:ISNOT (specifically its News reports section), deprecates "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which this is not. The crystal ball argument seems like a red herring, since the question of notability here in no way turns on speculation of what might happen in the future. Jeremy correctly noted that the notability guidelines do not apply to article content per se; however, they are linked twice from within the aforementioned News reports section in WP:ISNOT, which suggests that their general tenor has some applicability to what defines notability within an article. Both my reading of those guidelines and (imo) common sense and reason suggest that an occurrence which has generated hundreds of news articles (some with critical analysis) and is bringing curious WP users to the article is notable for our purposes here. Therefore, I think a brief, well-sourced mention is entirely in order. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Taco Bell certainly finds it notable enough to put the issue on its front page. (It's the red "REAL BEEF"/"GET THE FACTS" graphic that links to this page:.) 98.246.191.164 (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Patiently ... (insert decision here) I was the first person to add the current lawsuit information, and Jeremy was diligent and removed it and then went on over time to fully explain his rationale for leaving it out. I probably would have it in the article, but his rationale makes decent sense to me also, so I am willing to stand by and watch for further developments to ensure it is not only factual, but also Wiki-worthy.  As many people point out, Wikipedia is not Wikinews.  We have nothing to lose by not having something up instantly (although it sure is nice compared to old fashioned encyclopedias), but really Wikipedia is more of a historical record, not a live feed of events.  I'm content to wait and pounce when the mouse has fully matured. -- Avanu (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What you say is perfectly true—there's no hurry, and I'm no fan of sundry trivialities being rushed into articles—but what constitutes "fully matured"? When more reliable sources have examined the matter in depth? When the suit is adjudicated? When any appeals are exhausted? When a further decade has passed, and time in all its fullness has provided scholarly perspective? The more I think about it, the stranger it seems to omit any mention, given the amount of publicity involved in the case. Anyway, this isn't a triviality; by most measures, it's a significant event in the history of the company. Rivertorch (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Read my reasoning above, just because something is in the news does not automatically confer notability. Also, since the initial burst of coverage, has anyone heard anything else about the suit in the press? Again, my guess that the answer is no...


 * According to Google, the story broke on Jan 21 and the last major story was on Jan 28 covering the company's response (AP). If this is such a major thing why isn't it still being covered, dissected and debated by the press? I can bet you real money that the next we will be hearing of this will be when a federal judge dismisses it for lack of merit. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say the Beasley Allen lawsuit is notable. Yes, lawsuits get filed against companies all the time, but I never hear about them. But I heard about this one - it was mentioned on the national 6 o'clock news. It's true there is no criteria WP:YEAH_I'VE_HEARD_OF_IT, and my personal experience is statistically insignificant. However, it may be indicative. I heard about because it was on the national news. That makes it a lot more notable than most lawsuits. Why it made the news I don't know, maybe just random bad luck for Taco Bell, but it did. I would tend to say, keep in a brief description (one sentence should do, I would think) of the event. Herostratus (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would urge you to reconsider your position based on new facts. Here's the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and TIME talking about the controversy in the past two days, noting the new development that Taco Bell is now giving away its food in the form of ten million free tacos. This isn't to get attention for a new product launch, like other chains have done in before, this is trying to get people to eat a basic Taco Bell taco, something it wouldn't normally have trouble doing. It does not matter if the lawsuit is a completely made up claim, it is a significant controversy that has made continuing headlines and has the real potential to affect Taco Bell's income and profitability. That is why Taco Bell is continuing to respond to the story in a big way. People have a legitimate interest in knowing about stories that could significantly affect Taco Bell's bottom line. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have provided bad examples- Again you need to read the policies and understand the difference between breadth of coverage versus depth of coverage (quantity versus quality). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WSJ is a blog, not an article, and blogs do not meet the criteria for reliable sources regardles of where they're published;
 * Bloomberg is a simple story covering the second stage of the company's response, no depth of coverage as required;
 * Time is a simple story covering the second stage of the company's the response, no depth of coverage as required.


 * Exclude - Including it would smack of WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Include; it's had substantial coverage and is highly relevant to the article subject. It might need careful wording (to avoid concerns about making unproven claims, they should be framed appropriately &c) but that's a separate question. I respect NickCT, but WP:RECENTISM requires a balanced approach rather than the omission of anything that's happened in the last year bobrayner (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * re "WP:RECENTISM requires a balanced approach rather than the omission" - Sure, but do you really think a couple years down this road this story is going to seem important in relation to importance of Taco Bell itself? These kinds of stories have come and gone, and no one tends to care after a few years..... NickCT (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone added the Beasley Allen lawsuit section back, titling it as "30% Beef". I found the content to be lacking in professional polish, so I added back in the stuff that I put in originally, rather than leave that.  I don't really feel there is consensus for adding the section back into the article yet, so if someone wants to remove it *completely* for now, I have no objections.  But I didn't want to leave what was added in right before my edit. -- Avanu (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a source on that:
 * Karp, Gregory and Ellen Gabler. "New clues on 'mystery meat' in Taco Bell's tacos." Chicago Tribune at the Arizona Daily Star. Wednesday February 16, 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am conflicted on that one. It is obviously an analysis of the case, but I am not sure what it is analyzing exactly. It looks like the authors wanted to see if they could find out what, if any, merits the case may have. I am not sure if it qualifies as a proper depth of analysis required for inclusion because it is a simple comparison of the two sides of the litigants assertions but it draws no independent conclusions. To me the article is just stating this what we think these two parties are saying and what they are basing those assertions on. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Include briefly - it seems that the composition of their dishes would be a good subject to cover under #Menu and to the extent that the ingredients are in question, that question should be mentioned. --B (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be biased but i think it should be included at least briefly. it even says on the taco bell website tat only 88% of their taco meat is beef, the other 12% is "special ingredients" including silicon dioxide more commonly known as sand winch makes up .0005%, other "secret ingredients" include isolated oat product, soybean oil,  soy lecithin, MALTODEXTRIN, AUTOLYZED YEAST EXTRACT, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, SODIUM PHOSPHATES, CITRIC ACID, CARAMEL COLOR AND COCOA POWDER. The point is i was adding this section as lawsuits are frequently noted in a criticizim section here on Wikipedia along with a paragraph describing what the suit was about.--Charles E. Keisler (talk), Network+  18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that only lawsuits that have had some sort of impact get mention, not ones that are the basic pretrial publicity. Again, since the initial public announcement, what else is going on? Has there been any further development in the case that has given it any notability? No, and to mention it would be akin to a news posting board: On this date a lawsuit was filed, on this date it was given a pretrial hearing, ad infinitum... Until the case is resolved, we need to hold off. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well actually, Taco Bell is selling its Beef Crunchwrap for 88 cents and has produced *another* ad with 'real employees' to defend its beef. Its odd to me that they didn't just let things lie, but possibly they are worried what people think. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem this is still the company's press response, it is not a long term result. This could be put in the advertising section because of its nature being larger than the standard respons, but not in the legal section because the suit is still not notable. A proper source would be required to state that the advertising is a result of the suit. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And done... and all sourced. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding it there. Its a great place for it to live at this point. Eventually, I would like to do more research and add information about their K-minus kitchen prep system, and TACO system.  It seems like it has a lot of interesting potential. -- Avanu (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For example: http://rww2coursecontent.wikispaces.com/file/view/taco+bell+cs.pdf -- Avanu (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Taco Bell's response has been a bit over the top, these commercials mean the suit touched a raw nerve down at the company HQ. Go ahead and look up the info on their kitchen system, you'll have too look at some esoteric trade journals I'll bet. I had to with my research into Burger King's Phase 1-3 kitchen upgrades I put into the Burger King products article. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the systems may have some of the same manufacturers behind them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude following WP:RECENTISM, NickCT. Also Nlu, pointing out that companies are subjected to a huge number of lawsuits. A failed lawsuit says that in the eyes of the law, no wrong has happened (broadly). Then Wikipedia documenting these failed lawsuits is representing contrary to what is eventually found to be the truth. It's not Wikipedia's place to be a kangaroo court. Finally, for a local forum, I looked up the official Taco Bell sources, and those, at least, seemed to confirm that Taco Bell was representing meat content in detail, and accurately. So. Many reasons to exclude. Wikipedia doesn't need to be on top of all the lastest gossip. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.255.120.26, 6 September 2011
Please change the line "The spots featured employees and franchisees stating that the filling has always been a mixture of 88% beef and various spices and binders and nothing else (though many wonder what the other 12% contains)." to "The spots featured employees and franchisees stating that the filling has always been a mixture of 88% beef and 12% various spices and binders and nothing else.

source: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/02/28/taco-bell-meat-88-percent-beef-12-percent-signature-recipe/ http://www.tacobell.com/BeefIngredientFAQs

71.255.120.26 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I removed the (though many wonder what the other 12% contains) part but left the rest as it was. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know this is old, but it would be nice, for the sake of accuracy, to have counter-claims to this statement above. For instance, something indicative of (during the pre-1987) that they were actually shipped 100% beef, and seasoned & cooked it. There are often two sides and for neutrality, I suspect if we can find the information, the other side to this should be mentioned. I'll see if I can dig up anything. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  23:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)