Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 60 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: New Mexico Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Mexico portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (assessed as Low-importance).

Temperature vandalism

"Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 10–11 °F (−12 – −12 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. "

That can't be right. Somebody fix that, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it wrong? 195.252.223.83 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously very old vandalism long-ago corrected. You're responding to a comment from six years ago having nothing to do with the current article content. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture

Kramer sues Starbucks on Seinfeld for a Hot Coffe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearofthedragon (talk • contribs) 04:16, September 16, 2006

New case, 2023. Very similar.

Maybe too early an event to add in, WP:Notnews. But, check it out A woman is suing McDonald's after being burned by hot coffee. It's not the first time. The burn victim claims the lid wasn't on all the way, however, which does seem a significant difference.

76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selective archiving of Talk page - looks like someone removing stuff they disagree with

I see the warning at top of page that repeat comments will be archived. I have checked, and the relatively short archive in several points is not "repetitive." The repetitive parts are about NPOV, which was an ongoing issue and should remain visible to new editors. I've seen active Talk pages a hundred miles long, and this archive isn't. In my perception, the Talk page is being censored. The editor name "looks like" a bot: Lowercase sigmabot III, but the Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%A3 looks live. Maybe it IS a bot. Regardless, it is not being used properly on a Talk page this short.

idgaf if talk page comments are repeats. it is entirely possible that as time progresses, the VALUE or worthiness of the Talk comment may have changed. Especially when NPOV has been an ongoing problem. Archived comments began in 2005 - before it became "common" public knowledge that the woman was horribly burned. (It was still being included on lists of "frivolous lawsuits" on the internet in 2015.) Most importantly, new editors have the right to see the discussion, rather than it being censored. Talk pages are not intended to be censored!!

My comment about the picture of burns was dated 29 Feb 2016. It was a REPLY to a comment asking for pictures dated 17 June 2014. BOTH were "archived" on 20 April 2016, two months after I posted. I read every word of the quite small archive, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants/Archive_1 and there was NO PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF BURN IMAGES. I'm sorry for yelling, but I'm quite vexed about this. I'm not using any of the swear words I *want* to use here.

Most of the archived Talk is arguing about NPOV, wording things heavily to look like a "frivolous lawsuit" versus the court finding that McDonald's was 80% responsible (labelled as "bootlicking.") Lawsuit articles are supposed to NPOV represent what went on in court. However, comparing it with other lawsuit articles, this article does not have organized, marked sections that do that. I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to find the proceedings and "Be Bold" about fixing this. The "flash point" remark definitely does not belong where it is.

I'm frustrated by people who cling to "ownership" of an article. An editor once refused to allow me to put Ritalin (with citations) in the ADHD article. I wish I was joking. I was a working mother of an ADHD child and did not have the time or energy to fight with this *expletive deleted.* I gave up. They wonder why women don't contribute. (It's there now, somebody managed.)

MY POINT IS - Talk pages should not be censored. Archives are for excess, not to be rid of things someone doesn't like. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]