Talk:McLibel case

message: I discuss the problem with Wikipedia's presentation of the McLibel case on the
McDonald's talk page.  I dispute that
"McDonald's greatest mistake in filing the case was to assert that all of the claims in the pamphlet were false".  I can accept that it was a mistake, but that does not mean that it was the greatest mistake.  It may be the McDonald's greatest mistake was not to realize that no matter how good its case was in a court of law, Greenpeace and its fellow travellers had more leverage in the court of public opinion.  It happens all the time that one side wins before the law and the other wins before the public.  Moreover, winning in either venue does not prove you right.
It is also not true that McDonald's "suddenly found itself on trial before the British people and the world".  McDonald's has long faced withering, politicized accusations in the court of public opinion.  Some of these accusations are fair enough, but there is certainly nothing "sudden" about it.  Steel and Morris cannot claim credit for this.
Moreover, even if the trial was a Pyrrhic victory, many Britons (like Americans and people everywhere else) still like McDonald's.  No family is ever dragged to McDonald's involuntarily; there is always at least one member who wants to go.
Similar to what I said on the other page, I read Bell's decision and I do not
see where he found that the defendants had "proven many of their points".  He found that  a few points were true in a grab bag of mendacious claims.  The claims were not only "false" and "shaky", because mere falsehood or shakiness do not constitute libel.  They were mendacious.
Finally I note the passage about McDonald's "intimidating critics".  This is also a loaded phrase, of course, but it also speaks against the "Pyrrhic victory" thesis.
The fact is that many libel cases are intended more to intimidate other potential libelers than to collect damages.  Intimidation is what libelers deserve, whether the plaintiff is as villainous as McDonald's or as virtuous as Greenpeace.
--Greg Kuperberg 03:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree Greg. What you have to bear in mind with the McLibel case, and any other UK libel case, is that the defence must present primary evidence to support their case. This is by any reasonable means an almost impossible task. More so when you consider the balance of resources between the defence and prosecution. How can two low wage Londoners present primary evidence that McDonalds destroys rainforest to make way for cattle rearing? Any NPOV article on McLibel has to include information on how UK libel works. It's worth noting here too that many large corporations take out libel cases in the UK, precisely because the way the law works means the odds are in their favour start to finish. If this article shows McDonalds in a poor light then you have to ask why? It's not because of bias or a lack of NPOV. McDonalds won a technical victory in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the press (whose reports are valid inclusions if cited clearly), and not in the eyes of the most of the public (although that one is obviously impossible to substantiate!).
NickW 09:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Maybe this should be modified to "places a higher value on the protection against being exposed to public falsehoods than on the protection of making them". I cannot see how being exposed to outright lies (which in this case they are) should be acceptable for corporations any more than for individuals. To make your view consistent you must either declare that individuals should have no protection against fabricated lies intent to damage their reputation either, or, that individuals should have this protection but companies not. 92.40.49.146 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A partisan celebration, not a neutral account 

message: This paragraph still needs NPOV attention, anyone else fancy giving it a crack? quercus robur 13:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps McDonalds' greatest mistake in filing the case was to assert that all of the claims in the pamphlet were false.  Although this was a safe accusation with respect to a number of the shakier claims — those involving the rain forests, for instance — some of the claims were much less controversial.  The corporation suddenly found itself on trial before the British people and the world, particularly with regard to those claims involving the health of McDonald's food and labour practices.  The case became a media circus, especially when top McDonald's executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the two self-taught lawyers.
I've added the NPOV Template to the top of this page. At least some of the following points need addressing:
# here is not the place for current opinion on fast-food diets
# "However, it is an outrage..." is clearly not neutral!
# "Despite strong arguments by the Defendants..." likewise
# "pitted a poor, powerless pair of individuals"
# "oppressive nature of UK libel law"
# the article should not include PR from Steel and Morris but not from McDonalds
# in general the article reads as a lionizing of Steel and Morris - it would be much better to let the facts speak for themselves.
MatthewVernon (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article was heavily biased in favor of the defendants.  I've just made significant rewrites to address this, but further work may be needed.  I have also moved the page to McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, because the McLibel name is POV. Superm401 - Talk 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you not see fit to discuss the article name before unilaterally declaring it to be "POV"? The previous name is that by which the case is widley known in the UK, as well as being the title of a documentary about the case. It is grossly presumptive of you to have made this move in the way you have. Furthermore, it would seem that most of your edits have been POV in favour of the plaintiffs in this case. Why, for example, would you chose to remove the properly-cited estimate of their £10 million legal costs? Your minimising of it elsewhere to "several" (I would suggest you look up the dictionary definition of that word) reeks of bias.Nick Cooper (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs NPOV

message: When I was reading the article, especially under the "History" section, I was struck by several phrases that sounded oddly familiar.  I then compared these sentences to ones in a book I had previously read (Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser), which gives an account of the McLibel case.  For example, from the article:
For a number of years, McDonald's were thus perceived to have been able to use the English libel laws to prevent public criticism being made against them. During the 1980s, the company threatened to sue more than fifty organizations, including Channel 4 television and several major publications.
And from Fast Food Nation (page 246):
The McDonald's Corporation had for years taken advantage of British libel laws to silence its critics.  During the 1980s alone, McDonald's threatened to sue at least fifty British publications and organizations, including Channel 4, the Sunday Times, the Guardian,....
Another exerpt from the article:
A major mistake by McDonalds' lawyers when filing the case was asserting that all claims in the pamphlet were false. Although some of the claims were somewhat weak — those involving the rain forests, for instance — other claims were less controversial. The corporation found itself on trial before the British people and the world, particularly with regard to those claims involving the health of McDonald's food and labour practices. The case became a media circus, especially when top McDonald's executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the two self-taught lawyers.
From the book (pages 246-47):
McDonald's had made a huge tactical error by asserting that everything in the leaflet was libelous -- not only the more extreme claims ("McDonald's and Burger King are...using lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of Central American rainforest"), but also the more innocuous ones....  The blunder allowed Steel and Morris to turn the tables, putting McDonald's on trial and forcing a public examination of the chain's labor, marketing, environmental, nutrition, food safety, and animal welfare policies.  Some of the chain's top executives were forced to appear on the stand and endure days of cross-examination by the pair of self-taught attorneys.
Now, I will concede that the other references may use the book as a reference, but the similarities stuck out to me.
--Golladayp 01:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Unacknowledged Source? 

message: I believe this article does not conform to Wikipedia's policy of presenting a neutral point of view. This complaint has been made above, so I will not rehash it in great detail. But I will point out that in the conclusions of the final judgement Justice Bell stated "I do not doubt that both Plaintiffs brought the proceedings in good faith to defend their trading reputations and goodwill from defamatory statements which they, through their officers, genuinely believed to be untrue, and not to stifle criticisms which they knew to be well-founded." And, "the Defendants criticised the Plaintiffs for bringing proceedings at all...but I am not persuaded that the bringing of these proceedings should be regarded as disreputable."  Without coverage of the point-of-view from McDonald's side of the case this article cannot become a good article. Cedars 00:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for not promoting 

message: I have three things to say. About NPOV, I think the trial was a big disaster for McDonald on all accounts and should be presented as such. Second, I would like to have a reference to the documentary McLibel – two people who wouldn't say sorry in the article, possibly in the introduction. Third, I didn't understand the out-of-context  statements about seven years of legal battle and twenty years of battle against McDonald (I thought the longest trial in British history, two and a half years in court?). --Ben  T/C  09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.: Somebody was asking the name of the documentary here on the talk page. I have given the name above, the imdb page is this. --Ben  T/C  09:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary 

message: ie. the name of the article should be McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel. This is much more accurate, and a Redirect will be created from the move. I would quote WP:Naming, but there doesn't seem to be a policy.--Macca7174 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming conventions suggest using the most popular or well known name for an article. For example, we use AIDS rather than Acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Court cases may be a bit different, where perhaps using the actual court case would be more proper. I m neutral as to whether it is moved or not. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this article be moved to the case name? 

message: Somebody needs to review this page as there are far too many weasel words - (in)famous being an example that sticks in my mind. Shinigami27 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I struggle to find the "many scholars" that describes this as a SLAPP case. The first link contains the statement "McDonald's case was not meritless, but otherwise would meet the standard definition of a SLAPP". I cannot see this as supporting the assertion, because whether a case has merit or not is clearly a highly material element of whether it should be considered SLAPP or not. It's similar to an individual suing for harassment, where the simple issue of merit places the full guilt on either party. If the formally recognised definition of SLAPP does not include merit as an issue, then please correct me. The second link costs money to access, but it appears it does not deal with McDonalds specifically and is simply the poster's interpretation that the case fits into a formal framework, which it may or may not do. As a result I have changed it to "some scholars", and unless a few examples could be found of noteworthy academics (rather than editorials, who are not scholars) stating that it was clearly a SLAPP case, it should be removed. 92.40.49.146 (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLAPP views 

message: Hi everyone
I'm new to this so bear with me if I get the protocol wrong. I have added the McLibel application to the ECHR as a ref document, preceded by a phrase more accurately explaining the scope of the euro case. This doc is probably the most extensive single doc analysing the McLibel legal case, strength of the evidence relied on, verdicts on the various issues, UK libel laws as applied in this case, and defendants' general objections to the processes employed in the courts. It should be noted that the ECHR judges found 100% for the applicants, but sidestepped almost all of the key issues outlined in the application, preferring instead to rule over the 'overarching' issue of lack of Legal Aid. 
DTottenhamDTottenham (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECHR 

message: I complained about this page some years ago.  Revisiting it now (in 2010), it is much improved.  It is now an objective summary of the case and its history, and not a smug partisan celebration.  Greg Kuperberg (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much better 

message: for the following reasons: 
1. This article is about the high court case to which the title refers, but also about the wider situation, the 3 procedural appeals to the CA, the substantive appeal following the decision and the subsequent ECHR application (which is a completely different case), to refer to the original case alone is inaccurate and fails to correctly label the article's content.
2. The original case isn't legally significant, 1st and 4th appeals and the ECHR direction generally come up in relevant texts but the original decision isnt. The mclibel case is best known for the sheer length of time it took and the whole 'david and goliath' thing, neither of which makes the case legally noteworthy. I'd argue that since it isnt noteworthy as a legal case but it is as a 'phenomenon' of sorts it should be refered to by its non-legal name.
3. The current name is wrong anyway, it should be McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris or just McDonald's Corp. v Steel. The corporation was the first plaintiff and Steel was the first defendant. The use of 'v.' basically only happens on court documents (where it is also common practice to refer to parties exclusively in CAPITAL LETTERS) and shouldnt be used in other situations. The main reason being that 'V' doesnt stand for anything, it means 'and' or 'against' and is mainly used to stop case names being a confusing mess (e.g. McDonalds Corporation & McDonalds Restaurant & Steel & Morris) - see OSCOLA Bob House 884 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, except that it should be "McLibel Case", without the definite article (see WP:DEFINITE). --NSH001 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could somebody change it or at least tell me how haha? Bob House 884 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should, by now, be able to "move" it yourself - see HELP:MOVE and WP:MOVE. However, in cases like this where the article has had its name changed in the past from a name very similar to that proposed, it is best to wait a while to allow other people to comment and consensus to emerge. --NSH001 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that the page was originally at McLibel case until it was unilaterally moved by Superm401 under the claim that it was POV. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed so, I'm just making the point that it is better for this type of proposal to be fully discussed, as it makes for a better result in the long term. --NSH001 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "McLibel case" is a better title. However, since the move is potentially controversial and move wars are quite disruptive, the WP:RM process should be followed. Hans Adler 10:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The McLibel Case' is a much better name 

message: Many (most?) of the citations in this article are bunk, not linking to what they are actually said to cite, or being so POV as to be useless.
An example, the citation demonstrating that "mcdonalds hired people who broke into offices and stole documents" when sourced, leads to an interview by filmmakers with one of the principals, where the ACTUAL statement is "you heard testimony someone broke in" which was followed by "i knew nothing about that" from one of the principals.  This doesn't cite a break in, it cites testimony that a break in occurred, and isn't even clear on that aspect.  MANY of the citations for the more egregious allegations fall into this category. 68.202.111.138 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations are still awful, most leading back to either primary sources or sources that are likely directly connected to some of the participants in this case.  This whole article could stand a rewrite with an eye to better sourcing and neutrality. Bonewah (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think there is any way in which www.mcspotlight.org is a reliable source.  I would argue that the book 'No Logo' is also not a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations are awful 

message: I removed Template:POV from the article, as there appears to be no ongoing discussion of the issues on this talk page, as the template's instructions require. Editors still concerned about POV issues should feel free to edit to attempt to resolve them. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The BBC reports; "A book by two Guardian journalists claims one of the authors of the so-called McLibel leaflet was former police officer Bob Lambert." , however the source cited in the article is the Guardian  which is where this story came from, as this isn't really a neutral source (the books authors being Guardian hacks) and yet to be proven or admited to etc. I have changed the wording of the guff added to the article to make it clear this is only an "allegation", after all books claim things all the time for all sorts of reasons some of which have the effect of raising the authors and books profiles - intentionally or not. --wintonian talk 22:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Lambert 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on McLibel case. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/071997/biz_mclibel.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Leaflet summary may not accurately reflect contents of leaflet, see factsheet.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaflet summary

message: The article could be enhanced by adding the official opinions of the UK courts on the correctness and libelousness of the specific points of the fact-sheet; backed by official court opinion documents (the existing links are rotten). 213.149.62.120 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement suggestion: add court conclusions about distinct factsheep points to the Introduction or a following section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McLibel case. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605062408/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j379/mcdonalds_190697.htm to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j379/mcdonalds_190697.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified