Talk:The Burger King/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scratch pad

This is a list of possible citeable works that can be used to expand this article

General -
  • Sagert, Kelly Boyer (2007). The 1970s. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. p. 117. ISBN 0313339198. Retrieved 17 March 2012., name=Sagert
Magical Burger King -
Kingons/Star Trek -
Flame cologne -
Simpsons movie -
Whopperettes -
Whopper freakout -
The King deposed -

Old discussion

He deserves his own page. Please refrain from deleting this page while we're trying to expand it.Cmedley 02:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've marked it as a stub for now though. FrozenPurpleCube 16:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this?

removed my question. Google is my friend Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

huh? not sure I follow... Warren (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Other

Changed "Victorean Era" to "Tudor-Era" when describing the style of the costume of the late 1970s Burger King. A "Victorian-Era" king would ahve worn a suit and a tie. A Tudor or Elizabethean-era king would have worn the costume of the 1970s Burger King. I selected Tudor as it describes the family Elizabeth belonged to (including Henry VIII). (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs)

Recent changes

There has been a spate of changes by Cadillacula that is exclusively unsourced, original research, which he admits to in is last edit here. His justification is based on a flawed assumption that the article was sourced from this site which is actually a mirror of an earlier version of the article. Further when he does source the information, it is taken from IMDB which is simply another open wiki-format site that has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable.

I am asking for a second opinion about these edits and my decision to revert the additions to an earlier form that does not contain his changes in order to avoid an edit war. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if I am doing this correctly, but I want to chime in here. This page has a special place in my heart due to the fact that at one time my uncle was the actor that played the burger king on TV. Now I see the edits between both the Cadillac guy and Jeremy. Jeremy and I went around a couple times as I wanted to add my uncle as the actor that played him. I understand that I couldn't site it at the time. So I dropped it. Now, seeing these edits put this on my radar again. I would like to help but I also want to do it correctly. So, Jeremy, can you work with me and Cadillacula to make changes? I'm not sure how it works since some of the stuff on the original page isn't sourced either. Now, I have access to contracts between Burger King and Dick Gjonola that shows he was in fact the actor. I have pictures of him in and out of costume... if i scan them in, and upload the pictures, can i source that? Also, I have the original commercials on tape. If they were on the web (not youtube.com) can they be used as a source? Just checking! Thanks! Jgjonola (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I honestly cannot say if the contracts are allowable. You would have to bring that up at places such as the Village Pump or other notice boards so that people with much more knowledge than I have can answer your questions. As for the images, you will have to show that you actually own the rights to them or can authorize their use. Otherwise, I believe that they would be challenged. The commercials are the property of Burger King Corporation, so their use here probably wouldn't be allowed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Per your request...
The Burger King
I am a long standing contributor who is only here to improve and expand in my key specific areas of expertise.
To begin with I believe you may have mistakenly suggested that I added a link to or cited a blog when it was in fact me who pointed out the original article seems to have been pieced together from lifted unsourced material. I would never use a reference like http://www.retroplanet.com/blog/retro-archives/character-of-the-week/the-burger-king/ or http://www.chancebliss.com/2011/03/16/the-marvelous-magical-burger-king/ as I agree these are unreliable outsourced blogs that additionally have inaccurate information. However I am discovering that the main bulk of most of the Burger King related wiki articles have been built upon outdated and unsourced blog articles just like these, and I'm finding more everyday.
While I am trying to improve upon, make sense and work with what was already there I am starting to think lots of old content may have to be removed (if we choose to go this route of nothing vs something) until all content is properly cited. You'll note on the earliest versions of the article there are dozens of sentences making claims about ad campaign dates, voice over actors, and timelines that are unsourced, incorrect and provide no cite, since inception.
Also, while I do have an intimate knowledge of the television advertising campaigns from 1970 to 1983 (pre "creepy king") I do not believe that is a reason to harbor any ill will towards my detailed expansion of those specific sections of the burger king article. In fact I would rather see this as an invite for other contributors to match my eagerness and prolificacy in the other areas of the burger king mascots history where I am not as knowledgeable. I am a bit of a historian on this specific era of the ad campaigns and have amassed a large collection of memorabilia and documents. Among these items is my private video collection of every Magic Burger King commercial - I have painstakingly analyzed these to identify key events in each and would like to provide these to the wiki community as I have. This is in much the same way a Trekkie would talk about all the things Spock has done over the course of his tv episodes or Spider-man has done over the course of his comic book appearances - however the television commercials don't provide an episode title or an issue number like the a fore mentioned analogies. The best I can do is provide the most accurate information I have researched and documented in these uncharted waters. If someone else has a collection of the commercials and disputes the tricks and items that have been used I'd be glad to hear their case or meet them for a coffee with my collection showing my reference.
I had considered starting a Magic Burger King specific article - but I feel the entire burger king topic is considerably redundant and disorganized across far too many entries on Wikipedia and in desperate need of some streamlining so i didn't want to add to the clutter at this time. But perhaps I should start that specific page and maintain it with my passion and determination to provide accurate information and expand upon it as my collection and research on the subject at hand grows? Thoughts?
While I of course have no way of knowing if the actor Gjonola was added in the past (if this was more than a few history pages ago) or whatever that remark was about or how it applied to my contributions - I will say I am not surprised. It's fairly common knowledge among burger king fans, collectors and historians but more so I strongly feel my current cites of a printed and circulated regional newspaper article is well within Wiki guidelines for this application made even stronger by my "secondary" IMDB cite that "does not" contain any potentially contentious material about living persons, it is not from the IMDb message boards, user comments for each title, or a sections written in wiki-style with minimal editorial control. The IMDB entry is also not from a Newsgroup review or from trivia and goofs sections or the recommendations and therefore a better cite than "none" which the majority of the articles content reflects.
I have a great deal of love and accurate knowledge on this specific era of the Magic Burger King - I'd hate to not be able to share that with everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadillacula (talk • contribs) 10:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no ill will here, I am assuming good faith in regards to the reasons behind your contributions; however, in respect to your additions, they all constitute original research. Using your own personal knowledge without any substantiating documentation from a reliable, secondary source is not allowed because your claims and data cannot be verified. Further, in regards to your claims ([1] & [2]) that your edits to these articles are correcting information that is cited from unreliable sources is patently false and goes against the same assumption of good faith which I have shown towards you. In regards to the half dozen or so Burger King advertising articles here on Wikipedia, I, and others, have taken a great deal of time to insure that the citations used to create these are from reliable sources such as AdWeek, Advertising Age, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the New York Times. I have seen the old advertisements on YouTube, and am frustrated that the rules of Wikipedia preclude their use, but those are the rules of the community and we have to follow them.
Understand I used to work for a Burger King franchisee from 1983 until the owners retirement in 2002; as a result I also have a great deal of knowledge of the company, its products and advertising. The difference between what I have done in these articles and what you have done is that when I work on these articles and come across a piece of information that I know to be true but I cannot verify in these types of sources, I do not include it - despite my personal insights. What I am asking here is that you do the same. The changes you have made to this article and the others, most of which have been undergoing/undergone peer reviews or good article reviews, fly in the face of the work of other editors who have taken their time to check the factual accuracy of the sources and claims in the articles. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand... breathe. Ok? Right, unfortunately Cadillacula, Jeremy is broadly in the right here. You may well be an extremely learned historian of Burger King advertising, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your research for the world to see. There is an absolute bar on original research here, so any information you add must be supported by reliable, independent, third party sources. In other words, it must be information that is already in the public sphere. This may seem frustrating but the policy exists to prevent arguments just like this one, where the only proof one side has that their information is correct boils down to "this is my field". Unverifiable, unsubstantiated, and unreliable. That the article was already poorly sourced is not an excuse for adding yet more unsourced material. If you want to improve this article then by all means go ahead, there seems to be plenty of scope, but you do need to find appropriate sources. If you really do want to get your own research out there then I'm afraid you'll have to start your own website or write a book. Pyrope 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Response by a burger prince ;)

OK, thanks Jeremy... Now, most of the pictures I am talking about, I own myself. Others were taken by his wife and would be uploaded by her. As for the videos, we would not be trying to use them in the page, but only using them as a source. If the videos are hosted on a separate site dedicated to the burger king I would think you could site the video as a reference. I mean you can just look at them and see, right? I mean, let's be a bit reasonable here. I see that you have done so much work on the page and that is really great stuff but if we followed the rules, the entire first paragraph (save the last sentence) and the entire first paragraph of the history section should be removed. If I remove that, would you revert it and if so, on what grounds? I am not going to do that, but I don't see why you wouldn't do it yourself! Some of the information has to come from consensus, right? If that is the case, then simply going back and forth isn't going to work... Someone has to make a case, so what's your case? Mine is i have supporting documents in my hand. The info that I see on the website has nothing. Please make your case for me as to why those paragraphs and the rest of the unsourced info should stay and when reverting you threaten Cadillacula with reporting him for changing already unsourced info. I'm not trying to be a jerk at all, I am just still curious on your stance on this. Also, Pyrope... same thing, should the unsourced info on the page be removed? Jgjonola (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem we're dealing with is one of the primary notability requirements, verifiability. The documents are not a matter of public record as they stand now and they cannot be verified. It could be said that the stuff you have was shopped or created by you to make your case, not that I am going to do so, but others potentially could. You would need to have them published by a reliable, secondary source or retrieve them from some sort of independent source such as a public records bank.
With the pictures, if you want to use them, would probably be better used if you were to add them to Commons. If you put them on Commons, you would have to release them with a creative commons attribution of some sort. You can add them to Wikipedia, but that would open them up to possible deletion if some one were to remove them from the article under the deletion criteria.
Video hosting sites, because of their structure, are not reliable. Again, I have seen multiple videos of commercials, including a set that was uploaded by a tech from original master tapes going back to the 1970s; I would love to use them, but have run into the same set of standards you will run into. It is not me that has a problem with YouTube and Vimeo, it is a consensus derived policy that you would be wrestling with. If you look at the top of this page, you will see a list of sources I have been gathering to bolster the article. These are not my ideas but the policies of Wikipedia that we have to work with.
One more small thing, I want to add that in my research I have found two other gentlemen that claim they played the roll of the Burger King in commercials and appearances, one of which was confirmed in several other publications.
With regards to Cadillacula, my issue is the stuff he added was original research. He did this across multiple articles, and kept re-adding the information after it was challenged. This is covered in the policy bold, revert & discuss; it was his repeated re-addition of challenged materials without discussing the information and original research that I was going to report if he didn't stop. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
In the words of WP:V: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article". For potentially libelous information on a living person this should be instantaneous; for trivial details of the ins and out of a fast food chain's promotional materials time ought to be allowed for sources to be found. It also depends on whether any source information is given at all. Many older articles were written before the MoS became so strict on inline citation, and all you needed to do was give a bibliography-style section at the bottom. These, too, are normally accorded a little more leeway. Basically, it comes down to working out how damaging and misleading the information is, and how much you trust that the original writer was actually working from real sources. These are tricky judgements, and will vary from editor to editor, but the broad principle is that if something doesn't have an inline citation to a reliable, published source, it's gone. Pyrope 21:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain why "Where is your god now?" redirects here?

I was expecting nothing to come back or possibly a history of the phrase but aparently it directs here? Seems inappropriate to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.101.216 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Google it - that is the best answer I can give. It is an internet meme. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from this article:

On the Internet, The King is something of a internet meme (fad) with jokes about his huge head, and frequently portrayed as a fiend with monstrous intents, often accompanied with the catchphrase "Where is your God now?".

If a reliable source can be found to provide a citation for this, it can be restored to the article; otherwise not. If a citation is not found in the near future I will probably nominate the redirect mentioned above for deletion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cited --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Burger_King/Archives/2012&oldid=692924342"