Talk:McDonald's urban legends
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-10. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
Copied in from the discussion on Votes for Deletion:
- McDonalds urban legends- Again, another unneccessary and pointless article about an aspect of McDonalds, that could easily be added to the main article on McDonalds.
- Keep. Yet another unneccessary and pointless VfD while an article is incredibly new. -- Finlay McWalter 22:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, there are enough of these to be significant. PMC 23:36, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- We should probably give this article more time to develop, but I have to admit some skepticism. Rossami 04:51, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Is the content of this article truly encyclopedic?
- Is there really enough that it can not fit in the main McDonalds article? (or perhaps the Urban legends article?)
- Can this page be maintained with an NPOV tone? (Current version reads like a press release from McD's.)
- Do we want to open up the precedent for every company on the planet? Does this create a risk that Wikipedia will become a battleground for every corporate rumor and rebuttal?
- This is just the start guys. There's at least a dozen more to be added on. Too many to be in urban legends, too many to be in McDonalds. It is NPOV; there just are so cold hard facts facts overlooked by people who indulge in these legends, believing ever word. This is to not prove McDonalds innocent, just dispell the rumors with logical assumptions and facts. Furthermore, corporate rumors are generally not the stuff of urban legends. Corporate rumors are even published in the main stream media, whereas this admittedly junk goes by word of mouth. As it goes via the grapevine, people seem to trust it more than the media, and don't question the legitimacy. I invite anyone to add on reasons these rumors could be true. - user:zanimum
-
- So... how can there be a 1992 article with "The Times" (is that assumed to be the London Times?) talking to Ray Kroc, when he'd been dead 8 years by then? [[user:taniw
I have a question, i am doing a school project on the ingredients in the mcdonalds food and their rumors. I was wondering if there really are bird feathers in their milkshakes. could u answer that 4 me ?
Contents |
[edit] Fiance section
I removed this section, as it was vague and provided no specific or documentable details. A search for "fiance" and "McDonald's" on Snopes — a site where the content of this article really belongs, rather than on WP — turned up nothing. If it's not there, it's probably not noteworthy. Speaking of noteworthiness, anybody up for an AfD vote? Deadsalmon 11:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rat meat
And what about that rumour?
[edit] Kangaroos
Kangaroo meat - There is another rumor that McDonald's hamburgers are made of kangaroo meat. Origins and details are similar to the above rumor about worm meat. Kangaroos are regularly killed en-masse in Australia, as they are considered a pest, and their carcasses are essentially useless. [2]
The article cited makes no reference to McDonalds whatsoever. Kangaroos are not "regularly killed en-masse", they are occaisionally culled, typically when drought conditions drive them into cultivated areas. Far from being "essentially useless" kangaroo meat is well regarded in Australia as being both tastier & healthier (having less fat) than beef.
In summary, this paragraph is wrong in fact and unsubstantiated by the reference provided.
[edit] IRA
There was a myth in Britain that McDonalds was supporting the IRA. Supposdly due to confusion with the term IRA (Independant Retirement Account/Irish Republican Army). Is it possible someone could include this information in the article. Ydam 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Time" magazine worm meat quote - a myth in itself?
I've deleted the following passage from the 'worm meat' section:
- In an April 30, 1992 issue of Time, Ray Kroc commented that "We couldn't afford to grind worms into our meat. Hamburger costs a dollar and a half a pound, and night crawlers six dollars."
As someone has already pointed out, Ray Kroc died in 1984. However, another problem with this supposed "quote" is that there is no issue of Time dated April 30, 1992 - the closest dates I can find are April 27, 1992 and May 4, 1992, and neither of these issues contain any mention of Kroc as far as I can see.
The quote may not be completely bogus - it could simply have been mis-sourced or mis-dated - but I think it's questionable enough to leave out of the article. 220.157.85.81 10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's mis-sourced, but it's not untrue. It's mentioned in John Love's _Behind the Arches_ and in Kroc's autobiography. --Jkonrath 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] issue with intro
The intro currently reads:
- There are many urban legends about McDonald's, the global United States-based fast food chain. McDonald's has a very high profile in much of the world, and, especially within the anti-globalization movement, is sometimes held as a symbol of the negative impacts of globalization.
The mentioning of anti-globalization doesn't really tie very well to the rest of the article. Anti-globalization objections to McDonald's is far more than a matter of concerns about dodgy filler ingredients, which is currently the only thing this article really covers. Nor does the article shows that the rumors it mentions are promulgated by anti-globalization activists for example. I'm tempted to drop the second sentence; no doubt the anti-globalization aspects are already addressed in better details in other McDonald's articles in WP. 131.107.0.81 19:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "100% Real Beef"
I live in Ontario, Canada, and I've often heard this urban legend that McDonald's buys its beef mixed with filler of some sort from a company called "100% Real Beef". So they can print the words "100% Real Beef" without having to actually contain 100% real beef.
The filler in question is usually one of the other myths about their hamburgers. That it's soy, worms, or some other thing, usually something disagreeable.
Now, this is obviously a myth, and I've heard it repeated numerous times from people locally, but I can't find any references to this online.
[edit] I nominate this for deletion.
Or at least detach this from the "Hamburger" page, as urban legends do not have anything to do with hamburgers. It misleads the Wiki-reading public into thinking this hogwash is true about one of the world's favorite fast-food restaurants. I'd get in trouble if I just cleared the whole article. It'd probably be locked for vandalism, but it should be done, legally of course.
[edit] Doesn't this look too absurd?
I'm not fond of McDonalds and I'm pretty sure it doesn't use either 100% beef on its hamburgers or even beef, but well, that's not what I want to argue.
The McFlurry rumor section ends with this line: "However, this is an unsubstantiated urban legend; bird feathers are not an ingredient in its production." Don't you think that sounds too absurd? I mean... first of all it's like denying there could be a feather in the McFlurry just because it's not an ingredient in its production, so is like saying it's impossible a soup may have a hair in it because it's not an ingredient in its production. I'm not saying the McFlurry did have the feathers but it's ridiculous to deny it arguing feathers are not part of its ingredients...
PLEASE KEEP THAT LINE! It's just awesome you have such a line in this article, maybe too beautiful to be true... 189.141.55.54 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)ZealotKommunizma
[edit] POV statements
It says: McLibel case - A case in which McDonald's fought the distribution of a pamphlet containing multiple rumors about the corporation; while many were proven false, others were proved to be true. This, and the negative publicity given to McDonald's methods of fighting the case, made it a Pyrrhic victory for them.
- It shouldn't say rumours, because as the second sentence rightfully admits, they were no rumors, they were reasonable warnings, supported by evidence in the courtroom. Now the second sentence is not exactly precise, because the accused two campaigners, having to proof all the statements of their leaflets, actually did proof a lot of it. Therefore the second sentence is neither realistic nor a balanced resume of the court's ruling. --Ben T/C 08:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Journalistic Tone
Since AfD is apparently plagued by a team of softies who vote NO to every nominated article they see, can we at least do something about the awful journalistic tone that this article is written in? Could someone also explain to me why the information on this article is worthy of being seperate from the main mcdonalds article? Considering that this article would be so much shorter once all the unverifiables and journalistic POV is removed, I don't see why it couldn't be simply merged with the McDonalds article. Suggestions?82.153.142.162 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Yes, anyone (including you) can revise the language in this article. 2) The content is currently lengthy enough to warrant it being a separate article. 3) Most of the information here appears to be sourced. However, feel free to remove unsourced information and non-neutral POV, and see if the article is significantly shorter. However, I suspect it won't be. Mobilegamer 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
