Talk:Stella Awards
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stella Awards redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Copyright
[edit]i wrote that myself. i just looked at the page and i was that you are correct and it does appear to be a copy. i will re-write it. Yakatz 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia free from copyright violations! -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is all better now. Yakatz 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Speedy delete should be removed if the copyvio has been corrected, since there are numerous versions of Stella Awards with published reliable and independent sources, in addition to the sources presently linked. Apparently Randy Cassingham is the creator of the "True Stella " awards. Edison 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is all better now. Yakatz 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"Related" cases
[edit]According to whom is the Pearson case an example of such a Stella Award? Has this case actually been featured by the originator of this "award"? Or is this someone's opinion? If this inclusion can be cited, so be it, otherwise it is original research and should be reverted as such. Ryanjunk 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute
[edit]I think the article does not (yet) provide a balanced view of the subject. Provided the subject of the article is notable enough, why are there not enough citations? Is the Award not criticized in the media? Kushal 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably it's mostly obscure and fairly stupid award.- Sara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.150.47 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the neutrality could be helped substantially if some quotes were added around certain passages (the last sentence of the first paragraph "The Stella Award is given to people who file outrageous and frivolous lawsuits.[1]" for instance) to show that these are direct quotes from the website and not the opinion of the page author. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
What should go into quotes are the words "outrageous and frivolous lawsuits." The case in question was neither outrageous nor frivolous, which is why the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It is inarguably true that some internet users perpetuate the "Stella Awards." Their opinions about specific cases do not rise to the status of fact.
Exaggerated stories about personal injury lawsuits have for years now been spun and spread by a long-running professional PR campaign, which is funded by various corporate entities. This campaign promotes the idea that the courts are inundated with greedy and groundless lawsuits, and that such lawsuits frequently result in substantial awards. This simply isn't true. It doesn't take much research to discover that this spin campaign has been debunked in detail, both in print and on reliable websites. The aim of this PR campaign, which uses the neutral-sounding term tort reform to refer to its proposed changes to basic and long-established common law, is to change the liability laws under which corporations are justly held responsible for their actions and decisions.
For instance, in the Stella case, it was known that McDonalds had repeatedly refused to reduce the excessively high holding temperature of their coffee, even though it had resulted in a number of serious injuries. This was a purely economic decision on Macdonalds' part. Coffee held at that unnaturally and undrinkably high temperature didn't turn stale-tasting quite as fast as coffee held at a normal temperatures, which meant they had to brew a new batch slightly less often. The damages awarded in the Stella case amounted to the profit (not the gross sales) McDonalds made from coffee alone in the course of one day of operation. More to the point, the court's decision finally got McDonalds to lower the holding temperature of their coffee. The fact that McDonalds' coffee had repeatedly injured their customers hadn't motivated them to change their procedures, but being fined one day's net profits on coffee did. --Teresa Nielsen Hayden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.148.86 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3rd degree burns?
[edit]Even if it was just a simple cup of coffee, the fact that it caused third degree burns kinda implies that lawsuit wasn't particularly "frivolous". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.197.80 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Lacks Notability, sources
[edit]Article lacks notability and reliable sources, vote for delete. --0pen$0urce (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article is well cited in multiple locations and is notable due to the reason for the award, vote to retain.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)