Jump to content

Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

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

Temperature vandalism

[edit]

"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]


[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other reasons for temperature

[edit]

Not sure, but I thought I've read that McDonald's was also serving coffee hot so that those dining in couldn't drink it fast enough to be ready for a free refill, and to mask the quality of cheaper, inferior beans. Jason McHuff (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmchuff:, if you can link a reliable source, I'd be happy to add that into the article. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 05:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New case, 2023. Very similar.

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants&oldid=1248322029"