McDonald's Corporation

It has been repeatedly pointed out to me that Ray Kroc was not ever in the business of making hamburgers, he was in the business at the start to sell as many hamburgers as possible, and that later he was in the business of training others to use the same system in return for a share of their profits. Should this information be in it's own entry for Ray?

The words "notoriety" and "inflated" appear without justification in this article. If they are true, could somebody please justify them? Mosquito ringtone user:heron/Heron


I moved this out of the article until somebody can flesh it out:

:Mc Donalds was also recently (2002-2003) sued by this man that "blames Mc Donalds because he's obese" because "nobody" has told him McDonald's food gets you fat. Which the court said that he has no real case into this because "Nobody obligates him to eat at McDonalds.
:More info on this soon.

Sabrina Martins Dachshund/Dachshund 16:11 Apr 1, 2003



Removed the parenthetical insertion from the following sentence, because it's not accurate:

:The first restaurant named McDonald's '''(unrelated to the current McDonald's chain until Ray Kroc entered the scene later)'''

By any definition of "related" that I can think of, the first McDonald's has a very strong relation to the current McDonald's chain. It was the prototype. Nextel ringtones Dachshund/Dachshund 23:55 25 May 2003




Removed "'''MacDonald's'''" spelling from intro. Is this a non-english spelling, or a typo? Abbey Diaz Dachshund/Dachshund 12:48 17 Jun 2003

I see it occasionally on various websites, don't know why. Free ringtones User:Pizza Puzzle/Pizza Puzzle

"In addition, the Company operates other restaurant brands, such as ........... '''Pret A Manger'''. "

:AFAIAA McDonalds doesn't have a controlling interest in Pret A Manger, they have a 33% stake which was sold to McDonalds so that Macdonalds could help Pret break into the US market through their first New york store. I'm not sure it's really justifiable to say that McDonalds operates Pret stores. Majo Mills Mintguy/Mintguy 02:29 23 Jul 2003


Why the apostrophe?Mosquito ringtone 2toise/2toise 17:18, 8 Nov 2003
:McDonald's (with the apostrophe) seems to be the correct spelling. It's used everywhere, including the company's website. Sabrina Martins User:Dachshund/Dachshund



The discussion of restaurant types seems to overlook outlets within shopping malls and larger stores (unless this is what it meant by "select urban locations"?). Before I fix the article I want to see if there are any additional store types we're overlooking. Nextel ringtones Stewacide/stewacide 21:40, 23 Dec 2003
:Yes, yes, good. Walmart should be singled out somewhere in that. Frankly I don't know what the original section was saying, it was so jumbled. I think that's all, stewacide. Theme restaurants might also fit in, but I doubt it. - Abbey Diaz user:zanimum


"Tastes like shit"??? Is this really necessary? I vote to rewrite this line more professionally. - Cingular Ringtones user:Pacific1982

:I've decided to run round Be bold in updating pages/be bold and revert that anonymous edit. 1970s because Anthony DiPierro/Anthony DiPierro 01:20, 7 Mar 2004


Is it useful to list slang terms for McDonald's in languages like Filipino, Japanese, and German, given that this is the English Wikipedia? I don't doubt that these terms are popular but I don't think we give slang in other languages for other articles. The names may be relevant to the article but I'm not sure that they should be in listed in bold along with other common names. and discounts Wmahan/Wmahanborn two User talk:Wmahan/. 22:51, 2004 Apr 14



Does McD's really sell COCA-cola? I thought they sold their own brand of cola. But I'll leave that to a McD's lover to investigate.

Unsupported Info

I removed the following line which was tacked on to the "External links" section of the article:
:A deadly shooting spree happend at Mc Donald's when James Huberty gunned down 21 people at the San Ysidro McDonald's on Matao Herrera's last day on earth.

I removed it because (1) it was in the wrong place and (2) it was irrelevant and (3) it wasn't clear:
# It should be in the proper section of the article. Don't just tack information onto the very end of an article.
# A shooting that took place in a McDonald's doesn't really relate to McDonalds as a corporation, but just as a gathering place and is really more about eccentric elliott shooting sprees than the restaurant itself.
# Who is Matao Herrera and what does s/he have to do with James Huberty? For that matter, who's James Huberty? This statement needs a lot more information to be useful at all.

If someone cares to, they can put it in the correct article, but only do so if you add a lot more supporting information. —renders the Frecklefoot/Frecklefoot 13:48, Apr 15, 2004

Leading Fast Food Franchise?

Actually can appeal Subway (sandwich) has the most fast food sites in the United States. for swordfish Goodralph/Goodralph 08:31, 11 Jun 2004

:I am not sure which part of text you think is wrong. We only ever says it's the ''world's'' largest fast food chain (which is true, I believe) and do not restrict attention to just the US. are contemplating Pcb21/Pcb21/ level over User_talk:Pcb21/Pete 10:04, 11 Jun 2004


-
I'm afraid I'm not convinced about the coffee scandal in the article. Yes, the situation was misrepresented (both as far as the cause and the damages). And yes, it was a thoroughly unfortunate situation. But despite a pretty slanted writeup, I still get the basic message: McDonalds was somehow wrong for serving coffee which was too hot to spill on one's crotch. Yes, maybe it was too hot for one's mouth, but the bottom line is that this nice old lady poured hot coffee on herself and then blamed the vendor. This is the moral equivalent of hitting one's thumb with a hammer and suing the hammer company because the hammer wasn't properly designed for hitting thumbs with. I think the reason there was such outrage about the case is because it forced Americans to realize that there's no such thing as personal responsibility anymore. Yes, McDonalds may make $1.3 million from coffee per day (though I expect that's gross, not net, which would be a nice little misrepresentation in itself), but that doesn't mean that everyone else is somehow entitled to that money. So, I remain unconvinced that this was somehow a triumph of justice, and not a gross miscarriage (is there any other kind?) -b

Mc Pizzas

Does anyone know about the personal pizzas Mc Donald's used to serve?
barely anyone online (wich leads me to belive it might have just been a canadian thing) knows about them, I used to love them before they stopped serving...

They still sell them in Ohio by the Port Columbus Airport.
little humpback User:24.95.67.193/24.95.67.193

Mc Job ref

I added the reference to McJob here simply because of the knee-jerk styled reaction the corp took to the word's addition to the M-W's dictionary. That is fleshed out in McWords, yes, but surely any event that causes a corporation to threaten legal action should at least have a "see also" mention in their article.
:sorry... forgot to sign that realism was Arcuras/Arcuras 03:10, Oct 14, 2004

Does McD's really sell COCA-cola, as the article suggests? I thought it sold its own brand of cola. I'll leave this to a McD's lover to investigate.main roads Publunch/Publunch 14:41, 5 Nov 2004

:While not being a "McD's Lover" (having not eaten there in 5+ years), I can tell you that McD's does indeed sell coca-cola, and all it's other pop-style beverages are made/owned by the Coke company titled recollection Arcuras/Arcuras 22:02, Nov 5, 2004

'McF*ck' and 'F*ckDonalds' are Polish slang for McDonalds?

I'm not Polish, but that doesn't sound like Polish to me... few stealth User:NamfFohyr/rmbh

...I'm going to go ahead and remove them. binghampton or NamfFohyr/rmbh 22:27, Nov 20, 2004


Criticism section

I read in the criticism section the unsupported statement that many of the claims in the controversial Greenpeace leaflet turned out to be true. Which claims, and who decided that they were true? My impression of the trial verdict is that the judge concluded that most of the leaflet was libelous, and that only a few of its claims were true.
He didn't make the defendants seem honest at all. So I struck this clause from the article. I would like to see credible references in support of it. camera staff Greg Kuperberg/Greg Kuperberg 19:33, 23 Nov 2004

:The information you're seeking is found on farewell season McLibel case. plants clues Arcuras/Arcuras 22:49, Nov 23, 2004

Now wait just a minute here! The other Wikipedia page is no better than this one. This claim that "many of the criticisms were found to be fair" is not remotely fair pool. I'm looking at the pamphlet right now [http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html]. It's a grab bag of irresponsible, politically radical accusations. It is plainly mendacious, and I can see why McDonald's won its case. I don't even like McDonalds restaurants or their parent company, but still the case is plain as day. The fact that deep in the middle of this grab bag there actually are a few damaging truths about McDonald's doesn't change it. The first point that the judge acknowledged, that McDonald's gets children to beg their parents to take them there, is halfway down the pamphlet. That does not mean that "many of the criticisms were found to be fair".

As written, this section is partisan flak. Sure, it may have been a Pyrrhic victory for McDonald's, but not because the pamphlet had merit. The side with truth behind it, especially if it is as unsympathetic as the McDonald's corporation, loses in the court of public opinion all the time.
Again, I have nothing against criticism of McDonald's I could write a few myself but this stab at it is dishonest.

supporting every Greg Kuperberg/Greg Kuperberg 02:41, 24 Nov 2004

:Alright... if you look at the media page http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/index_mclibel.shtml, you can see what appears to be archives of every media article about the event. Quite a few of the ones dated around June of 1997 (the time of the verdict) all make mention of the fact that the findings of the court were damaging to MikkieDs. Many of them also note that the reason why the pair lost the case was because the judge found that while three of their points on the pamphlet had merit and were true (low wages, cruelty to animals, and exploitation of children), the rest were false... and thus they were found guilty of Libel. That is what the phrase ''many of the criticisms were found to be fair'' is trying to say. Granted, the wording isn't the best, but it does carry the right intention. Switching it about to say ''many of the original claims were found to be accurate by the judge'' might be better and cut down on the confusion.

:Unfortunitly, these articles are all quite old, and don't appear upon the original media websites. However, through the wonders of google, I have found duplicates and references to these original articles on other websites. Besides which, if these articles (attributed to fairly well known news-sources) were comepletely fabricated, the supposed authors and papers would be up in arms over the misrepresentation of their business.

:*Victory for McDonald's after Dave and Goliath libel fight - http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/times_20jun97.html and http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/last_news.html#Victory
:*McVictory may be hollow - http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/chictrib_20jun97.html and http://www.kyungnam.ac.kr/jdk/ss13.htm (bottom of the page, look for author's last name)
:*Little relish in McLibel victory - http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/telegraph_20jun97.html and http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/aug97/media_watcher.html
:*DAVID AND GOLIATH 315-DAY LIBEL CASE LEAVES BURGER GIANT TAINTED - http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/guardian_20jun97.html and http://www.littoralis.info/iom/secure/assets/20020901_29.pdf

:These prove that the articles exist, at the very least. What's important is that the judge found the pair guilty of libel, but also ruled that the three above mentioned claims directed at MikkieD's had some basis in fact. Honestly, I could have told the judge that... I watched a friend of mine work there for two years. He never made more then 50 cents over minimum wage, and all he gained was about 150 lbs from eating lunch there every time he worked. But I digress... anyway, I'm more interested in getting this right then anything else.

:(''EDIT'') I found another, much more recent, article about the McLibel case, which mentions the previous verdict. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifeandstyle/articles/12846270?source=Evening%20Standard. Reference is specifically in paragraphs 13/14.

:Arcuras/Arcuras 03:54, Nov 24, 2004

No, you still aren't getting my point. First, at a technical level ''many'' is wrong, and ''accurate'' is also an overstatement. What the judge actually meant is that a small portion of the pamphlet was true. I can see that the popular press said that the case was David vs. Goliath, that many articles said that much of what was in the pamphlet was proven true, and that the press self-referentially declared the case a Pyrrhic victory. But Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard than the popular press.

Which brings me to the real point. The judge not only concluded that the defendants and the authors of the pamphlet were partly wrong, but that they were ''liars''. That is what it means to be convicted of libel. Again, the popular press - in every country, not just Britain - is more interested in the reputation of famous people and large corporations than in the reputations of their accusers. The Wikipedia article, as written, associates public victory with intellectual and moral victory. It says that Morris and Steel may have been overpowered in court, but their pamphlet is still morally valuable. That is not how the judge saw it, and not how I see it either.

Greg Kuperberg/Greg Kuperberg 14:13, 24 Nov 2004

What about a ''Arguments in defense of McDonald's'' section to balance the criticism section?

:No, I think that the problem is that a number of comments in this article, especially in the criticism section, jump to conclusions. Some of it also has a sophomoric tone. It should be cut back to something more neutral, not answered with rebuttals. Greg Kuperberg/Greg Kuperberg 15:56, 10 Dec 2004

Clearly the article as it stands is factually incorrect. What is wrong with just stating that out of such-and-such many claims, three were found correct and the others were found libelous? We can even write what the correct claims were and give examples of the libelous ones. But as the article currently stands, saying "many" claims were found "fair" or whatever is clearly wrong as Arcuras has demonstrated by his/her comments, despite finding that wording accurate for some reason. Chan-Ho Suh/Chan-Ho Suh 02:50, Dec 16, 2004

McDonald's and its founding

Contrary to what the article states, the first McDonald's store opening under Ray Kroc and his "Speedee" system occurred on April 15th, 1955 in Des Plaines, IL. Not March 2.