Talk:Pink Taco

message: Turned down? How could the daily show have been turned down? I just saw the clip. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what the news report said. But I guess you found out that they later granted an interview since you added information about the clip to the article. Copysan 17:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to say that they were "initially" turned down. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily show

message: All I found online are the 6 listed below, all of which are from the Manhattan Mercury's archives.  I couldn't find any others floating around in other archives from around the country. 
Something strange: i have links to an AP story about me in 2000 (concerning a school funding program I started) that has been stored in the archives of multiple papers, but when I check the AP's own archive for it, it's not there.  That was really frustrating, because it deflated my hopes of finding the other AP stories about me stored neatly in the AP's archive.  I was hoping that the AP archived all their stories, but obviously not.  Oh well.
So I suggest we remove the word "national" from "national news" when making the Pink Taco (Manhattan) page, since the national nature of the news is not verifiable anymore.  We'll probably also need to delete the (true) statement that "AP stories were sent out and picked up nationwide."  Finally, I'm not hopeful about the verifiability of the CBS TV story (much less their request that we do their 30-minute morning show with them).  Heck, I'm not even sure how to go about verifying such a thing from "The Land Before TiVo and YouTube."  lol.
Anyway, here are the citations (listed in chronological order):
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jameswsperman 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink Taco (Manhattan) newspaper citations 

message: The Pink Taco (Manhattan), currently called "James W. Sperman", mentions a slogan that is not verifiable in any of the articles (slogan: "I got drunk and ate a pink taco").  I would suggest replacing that with another slogan ("unwrap it...spread it...sauce it...munch it") that is mentioned in one of the linked letters to the editor. 
FWIW, somebody (don't know the person) even has that phrase (credited to the Manhattan PT) on his 'quotes' page: http://www.freewebs.com/loberto/quotes.html
I know it's not a reputable source, I just think it's interesting that this person considers the tail end of one of our radio commercials to be worthy of inclusion in his short list of mostly 'deep' quotes from extremely famous people. 
Jameswsperman 05:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slogan problem 

message: Morton's first Pink Taco was in the Hard Rock Hotel/Casino in Las Vegas, so I went to the online archives of the Las Vegas Sun newspaper to look for the earliest Pink Taco story.  Here's what I found:
May 30, 1999 -- "The Hard Rock Hotel recently expanded to 670 rooms and has added four new restaurants. Just days ago it opened a characteristically trendy Mexican food place [...] The Pink Taco." http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/1999/may/30/508860108.html?"pink%20taco"
So it opened a few days before May 30, 1999.  IMO, that's good enough support to just say that Morton's first Pink Taco opened in "May 1999" (one year after I opened the original Pink Taco in Manhattan on May 15, 1998).Jameswsperman 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morton's opening date 

message: :Image:PinkTaco.png 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Copysan (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PinkTaco.png

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here  -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD]] Tagging

message: I don't doubt the owner made the pledge not to use live animals, we need to find what wikipedia calls a reliable source stating that. That would be like a newspaper or magazine article. Blogs like those found on the PETA website generally aren't sufficient. You could search the archives of some local newspaper websites, or perhaps the people at PETA have a file of press coverage. 
If PETA makes an official statement (e.g. press release), we could reference that too. We'd just have to say "According to PETA..." Gerardw 12:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt PETA is or ever will be considered reliable. By definition, they're a biased source. Even if they make an official statement, that would still apply.HalfShadow 02:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Our WP:NPOV policy is that titles should be neutral. Titles such as "Animal abuse controversy" or "Overwrought hysteria over publicity stunt" are not appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: "Animal abuse controversy" describes the content much better the "Live animal controversy," and it does not violate the WP:NPOV policy. The controversy at hand is about whether or not an animal was abused, and the fact that the word "controversy" appears in the heading shows neutrality. If the subheading was simply "animal abuse," then you could argue that it's not neutral. As it is, Animal abuse controversy is a much better subheading. 76.91.176.234 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that using the word 'abuse' is to visceral and emotive and theres no discernable advantage to it's use. Both "live animal controversy" and "animal abuse controversy" mean essentially the same thing but one clearly draws the eye in a way which might give undue weight to the accusations. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your comment on the emotive nature of the word. However, I must point out that there are many article in Wikipedia that use the term "abuse" in their title. Should articles on Elderly Abuse or Church Abuse change their titles because the word draws on emotions? Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on Animal Abuse actually has the title of Animal Cruelty, which is a much more emotive word. Finally, the Wikipedia article on animal abuse holds that "Cruelty to animals or animal abuse is the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals, other than humans, for purposes other than self-defense." As such, Animal abuse controversy is a much better subheading in this case. In any case, the word "controversy" clearly indicates a neutral point of view about the argument at hand. Pangurban1 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any objection to the use of the word 'abuse' per se, it's just that there is no advantage to its use over the current title. For an example which I think is fair - suppose a politician was accused of ballot stuffing to win an election and we can choose between two titles for the subheading - either "Electoral fraud controversy" or "Election results controversy", both are relatively accurate and neither is horribly non-neutral, but theres no tangible advantage (in terms of reader understanding or readability) to using 'fraud' rather than 'results' which I'm sure you'd agree is a more emotive term. Therefore I don't think its really right to make the change. Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I like your analogy, but I respectfully disagree because the example you use doesn't illustrate the situation at hand. In your example, the two titles do indeed carry the same meaning, but in the Pink Taco situation, Live Animal Controversy is meaningless. I could, for example, give you another analogy. Let's say the establishment had abused an elderly person as part of their promotion. Would we call the topic Live Elderly Controversy? I don't have any doubt that we'd call it Elderly Abuse Controversy. In any case, I have no particular attachment to the word "abuse" either, but I would like to see a more descriptive title than what we have. All of our debate seems pointless anyway because the article has been locked down and changes can't be made. An abuse of power by someone to clamp down like that, but that's just my opinion. Maybe the page was getting vandalized, I don't know. Anyway, I hope you have a great day! Pangurban1 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Source says "We take exceptional care of our animals," the company said in a statement to KTLA. "The paint was a non toxic breathable paint and the donkey was shaved. The donkey was to be given many breaks and two trainers were there to ensure [its] safety. She had ample water at all times. We love our animals." Gerardw (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this statement available publicly? Would you please add a citation make your source verifiable? Pangurban1 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, nevermind, I see that it is there now.Pangurban1 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  century city donkey incident 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pink Taco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060916032052/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/stories/2006/05/16/ap/strange/mainD8HKJQH81.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/16/ap/strange/mainD8HKJQH81.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615140604/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com:80/index.php?sty=65818 to http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=65818
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120812224750/http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-pink-taco-donkey-outrage,0,7749811.story to http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-pink-taco-donkey-outrage,0,7749811.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified