Talk:Procter & Gamble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Procter & Gamble article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Ohio Portal Procter & Gamble is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

	Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cincinnati, which aims to improve all articles related to Cincinnati and the Greater Cincinnati area.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within Cincinnati articles.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Neutrality in question 2 AFA boycott? 3 Bold 4 Logo 5 Too Long? Who Sez? 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Procterandgamble.svg 7 New Page for Brands 8 Pampers baby fresh link 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Procterandgamble.svg 9.1 Fair-use rationale 10 Hidden Comment 11 Mr. Clean Scenes Competition 12 Fair use rationale for Image:Procterandgamble.svg 13 Employees 14 Fair use rationale for Image:P&GLogo.gif

[edit] 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)

If P&G has such a proud history, why did the business reporter who covered P&G for the Cincinnati Enquirer want to do an investigative story on the possible illegal conspiracy between P&G and the FBI against the Church of Ouzo (see letter from her in the Ouzo papers, the link to which is in the archives under Satanic Rumors)?

Robert Merlin Evenson/bobevenson@yahoo.com

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:P&GLogo.gif

Image:P&GLogo.gif 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)