Talk:Procter & Gamble/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality in question

The controversies should be placed further down in the article, probably close to the end. Procter and Gamble is a company with a proud history. Furthermore, they are one of the world's top consumer product companies. This corporation receives international awards on an annual basis for being such a admired company. Furthermore, much "logo" controversy has not fact to back it up. This "controversy" from the 1980's was simply the talk of a group of people. Finally, the sources are not credible. "Urban legend" is just that. It is not fact and does not belong on Wikipedia. D. James 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing it a subheading under History since some of the claims (by a simple search) are valid. However, the article needs many more cites, including this section. I'll apply a cleanup tag, which is more broad, then NPOV -- since it needs cites and a possible rewrite. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that many other articles on businesses have sections of Critisism or Controversies closer to the end of articles. The controversies of P&G are definitely noteworthy, but things like current brands and operations are more important than the logo controversy that happened in the 1980s. See Walmart, for example. Even the article for Enron has the section about products before it mentions the controversy. Mispeled 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is still rather ridiculously biased. The animal testing section is just a matter of "these organizations criticized the company, but these organizations support it." That should be reduced to two sentences. The whole lawsuit section should go; this is a huge corporation; every consumer-product corporation is involved in lawsuits all the time. Totally non-notable. The logo "controversy" should be reduced to one small paragraph focused on how it is an urban legend; it should not rehash the legend itself. That serves no one but the nuts. --Tysto 22:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence sounds POV to me. RME

Ok, I think we have established that it needs some work. Do we redo the entire page? Entire section? Let's make a plan for what to do with it so that we can make good changes and make them quickly. --D. James 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Point out the animal testing. 64.180.173.214 01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Controversy Section: Contrary to the existing copy, P&G successfully sued four [1]Amway distributors for spreading the satanist rumor. P&G was awarded over $19 million. In addition, if you insist on printing what the rumor was about, it needs to be constructed in a more neutral way. In particular, the sections where there are stated assumptions that certain symbols are visible and that they are satanist symbols - this sounds like it's an established fact. I think a more neutral statement might be 'some claim a horn image is visible' or 'some claim a mirror image of a 666 is visible,' and that these images are seen by certain individuals as symbols of the occult. 76.248.233.192 00:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA boycott?

Perhaps some mention of the boycott led by the American Family Association should be placed in the controversy section of the article. I believe they were successful in getting P&G to change some of its training protocols and marketing practices. --NEMT 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold

Bold laundry detergent is still very much an available brand owned by P&G. It is a market leader in the UK.--Brideshead 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Logo

Why did the logo get changed from the .png image to the .svg image? The .svg image does not look like the P&G logo located on their main webpage [2]. I will revert it back if no one has any qualms. Bjs1234 11:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Long? Who Sez?

Why is this being abridged? Can a new article be made?

Considering the company has been around for 170 years, I personally didn't think the introduction was too long. Remember, we're not talking about a typical internet company here that boasts "xxxx Inc. Since 1997". It's actually a very interesting history and if this is going to be shortened significantly, I am glad I had a chance to read it before it was. If we are looking for suggestions of how to shorten it, the following sentence in the 3rd paragraph could be taken out "In addition to the increased profits experienced during the war, the military contracts introduced soldiers from all over the country to Procter & Gamble's products.". That said, I think that sentence adds value to the article. So considering the company's been around for 170 years, I think we need to remember that we are talking about a Wikipedia guidline here, not a law that's set in stone. While I do think the introduction shouldn't be any longer than it is now, we would be remiss if we allowed the focus on the quantity of words to take precedence over the quality of the written history. Jjquin 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Procterandgamble.svg

Image:Procterandgamble.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New Page for Brands

Considering the lengthyness and bulk of the brand names, shall we consider creating a whole separate article for them?Xilla 12:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Go for it!Obina 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pampers baby fresh link

I'm moving this link to pampers page this is not a bit about P&G (nor is it criticism for that matter).Obina 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use rationale

1. no non-copyright version available, by definition
2. the logo is only being used for informational purposes
3. the image is used to visualise the main subject of the article.

Since this is the only article this image is used on, the general rationale applies.Obina 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Comment

There was a comment on the page that said "MY DAD WRKS HERE OK OK GET IT GOT IT GOOD" in the first section discussing the company's history. I am assuming that this comment was not meant to be seen, or if it was meant to be seen then it is unnecessary so I hid it myself. If that is a problems feel free to change my edit. Kpapadopoulos 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it... looks like simple vandalism to me. Thanks for pointing it out!--Isotope23 ^talk 16:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Clean Scenes Competition

Moving this to the Mr. Clean brand page - this is not about the corporation it is about a brand event.Obina 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Employees

Somebody needs to check the infobox. For employees it say: "138,000 products = Consumer goods" BuzzWoof (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Buzz, I boldly took out the excess.Obina (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it normal that Joseph Gorman (one of the members of the board of directors) links to "Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.224.57 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct Company logo

I don't understand it. Whenever I put the true company logo up (believe me mine was right, go to [www.pg.com] if you don't believe me) I get reverted and told I'm wrong. Strangely the a wrong logo is uploaded under the same file like the one up now. Scroll down to file history of the picture up now and you will find many different logos. Anyway, I know this doesn't matter to much but still. A good thing the one up now, while still wrong, is closer than other attempts. I just think the real logo would work better.--Cincydude55 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New billion dollar brand

Fusion is the latest billion-dollar brand, which brings the count up to 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscrew (talk • contribs) 11:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

List updated Seansheep (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

TV Guide Network Screen Shot in Procter & Gamble Article

There is a screen shot of TV Guide Network between the Procter & Gamble Co. tamplate and the DJIA tamplate. Can anyone please fix this? I tried to edit it out of the article, but I don't see that line for the image anywhere. Thanks in advance.--megamanfan3 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Animal Testing

I'm thinking about adding to the animal testing section. Anyone have any suggestions/concerns? --Stephypoo18 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea - I've just read on a website that there's another slogan for P&G. "Procter & Gamble don't test on animals, they torture them." Thanks 82.14.58.254 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea too. As a Vegan, I and most Vegan's I know (and some Vegetarians) boycott all P&G products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.62.11 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added reference to the peta/uncagged boycott. Ravensfire has said that my citation was biased which I don't understand. Why would either groups lie about calling for a boycott? I haven't mentioned anything about the reason for the boycott only that it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.178.131 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question is this which added text to the effect that certain groups have called for a boycott due to claims regarding testing on animals. I have again reverted that edit because Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy (see WP:NOTADVOCATE). Imagine what articles would look like if they included every announcement from every group concerning some topic—material should be included based on reliable secondary sources, namely an independent organization which has done some work on providing an overview of the company. Until an issue is important to such a secondary source, it is not important in the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I sited Peta and Uncagged thinking they were both notable enough to warrent wikipedia pages so they would be good sources but I see your point. What I've done is to use the same organizations that were sited in the similar Colgate-Palmolive section to stay consistent and make sure this was all done fairly. Colgate-Palmolive#Environmental_record — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhampgonsalves (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• The text is advocacy and should not be restored unless a consensus is established that it satisfies policies such as WP:DUE. Wikipedia is not the place to record every assertion regarding a company. See NPOVN report. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous, you have citations from personal blogs(blog.marketingdoctor.tv) to back entire paragraphs and even site procter and gamble itself and your saying third party organizations aren't a valid source? This isn't a trivial event like a Logo Controversy. This is a Boycott by organizations that represent millions of people world wide. Both organizations are also notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia pages. The sources are used on other wiki pages, are notable themselves and are secondary. There are many mentions in this page of people wanting to add this or similar material and still the page doesn't reflect any indication of that.

This also isn't an area where the entry I'm adding is doubtful. P&G openly states they test on animals. Animal rights groups oppose such actions and thus call for a boycott. Peta's boycotts are wikipedia worthy since and there is an entire section on them, as well as plenty of media representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.199.132 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IP, you've got multiple editors pointing out problems in your changes and you're edit-warring the material in rather than try to address the concerns. First, your sources are advocacy sites. That's not going to cut it. Second, you need something to show this notable. While I totally agree with you about the logo stuff (far, far too much there, see WP:UNDUE), it's got something that you don't - reliable, indpendant secondary sources. Third, the section heading is misleading.

What may be helpful is to do some research on this and find enough for a full section on testing, including lab testing and animal testing. Cover what is being done, why does P&G still do it and notable criticism of their actions. The tilting at windwills approach doesn't cut it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Ravensfire. I've create/added the section, if anyone has any issues I'd be happy to make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhampgonsalves (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is not achieved by choosing two sides and presenting them. Find some independent sources please. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

p&g is already cited 7 times on this page so you can't be referring to that citation. My second is from a news paper so again no problem there? if you have a problem with my third then only touch that section. If I can site P&G about P&G it seems that I should be able to site PETA about PETA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhampgonsalves (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to press releases and self-published sources of all types.

Newspaper? Where? --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Davidhampgonsalves (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC) What is the matter with a press release from P&G about P&G? anyway I've changed it to the NYTimes if thats better. I thought I used that the first time but I thought the press release was better since it was more direct and changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhampgonsalves (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not achieved by choosing two sides and presenting them. Find an independent, reliable sources first. Then, with care, other sources can be used to fill in details as long as we still follow WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:PSTS. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now we have a warmed-over press release courtesy of the NY Times published in '99, and a link to a public relations page from P&G. It's a slight improvement, but not by much. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Davidhampgonsalves (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Based on the page on independent sources all material based on citations from P&G's corporate site should be removed with the same vigor that my additions have faced. This page seems to me to be quite bias, even in the language used to describe P&G's mistakes is listed as controversies, which reading the section seems plainly incorrect.

Definitely a possibility. I've not looked. What does it have to do with Animal Testing? --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

After reading the section on the P&G logo I could detect no POV problems and reverted the edit of 06:43, 22 June 2009 made by User:Kkraemer. There was no reason given for tagging the section. This has been brought up several times in the past by others and there is nothing new to add or subtract from the content. What exists in the section is, to me, a fair representation of the contriversy that doesn't have a NPOV problem. I therefore have reverted. Please, in the future, if you see something that violates NPOV, at least have the courtesy of letting others know what the problem is on the discussion page before making rash edits. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

revenue

I changed revenue and net income to gren arrows since P&G's money is doing better with the economy beginning to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.161.219 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

staining and taste deprivation

What reference is there that P&G claims 3% of users suffer tooth staining and deprivation of their sense of taste? That would seem a significant percentage. I found a source quoting P&G as claiming that in regards to these issues 99.9% of users have no problem with the product (thus alleging that only .1 percent have problems) but I'm not sure I consider it reliable (thebostonchannel.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfraze (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)