Talk:ICA meat repackaging controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name of article[edit]

I reverted User:Aecis move for the reason that: when a leading food retail chain relables out-of-date food items, the name "meat cheat scandal" much better reflects the development than the "meat repacking controvercy". Bondkaka (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Not only is the current title misformatted by being all capsed, the words Cheat and Scandal have a strongly pov connotation. Could you please explain to me why "ICA meat repackaging controversy" doesn't cover the content? You haven't bothered to respond to that point over at WP:ITN/C yet. AecisBrievenbus 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. I think that the current title is probably potentially libelous to say "cheat". Also it violates WP:NC policy on using sentence case for titles. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 13:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. But "controversy" seems like a misnomer to me. Not being a native speaker I looked it up in the American Heritage Dictionary: A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. Where is the opposing view? Are there people defending repackaging or relabelling? As far as I understand it, relabelling violates some law, so what about using the correct law-term here ("violation"?) That's about as neutral as it can get. --194.237.142.7 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Bondkaka that the term "controversy" does not reflect what really seems to have happened - a systematic violation of the most basic food safety regulations by the food giant ICA. 217.21.232.237 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "scandal" was more appropriate? (i.e. ICA meat repackaging scandal) - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about ICA meat repackaging irregularities? AecisBrievenbus 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

ICA Meat Cheat Scandal → ICA meat repackaging controversy — I propose moving this article (back) to "ICA meat repackaging controversy". It covers the content of the article a lot better than the current title. It makes instantly clear what the controversy is about: the repackaging of meat at ICA. The current title otoh doesn't make clear what the cheating was about. Something to do with meat, and something to do with ICA, that's all we get to know from the current title. Another point is that the proposed title doesn't carry any of the pov connotations of Cheat and Scandal. —AecisBrievenbus 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per nom Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Maybe "2007 ICA meat repackaging controversy" would be even better? The problem with this suggestion is that the irregularies seem to have gone on for several years. --Camptown (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Informative name is better than crying cheat.Narayanese (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Odengatan (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy support per nom. Current title seems far too POV to be allowed to continue. I think it probably borders on being libelous. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 13:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although it probably isn't libelous anywhere here in Europe, IMO, it's still a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not. But IMO, it is at least too close for comfort. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Swedish law, even the truth can be considered libel if it's being published with the intent of causing harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.191.212 (talk • contribs)
Wow. Maybe it was libelous, then. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters to Wikipedia what Swedish law says (except in Swedish law ;-) ). — David Remahl (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish law matters to Swedish editors. Besides that it is possible for wikipedia to be sued for violating Swedish law if Swedish law allows it (you might want to read WPT:LIBEL). However there is virtually zero chance that ICA would sue anyone for the name whatever the legal reality may be. But as always our primary concern should be in keeping with our policies not with the law. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Move accepted[edit]

Per the unnecessarily editorial and sensationalistic nature of "ICA Meat Cheat Scandal" (not to mention its non-compliance with WP:NC) and lack of opposition above, I have WP:BOLDly performed the move. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Operation Meat Retreat"[edit]

Googling for this phrase gives exactly one page: this one. Cannot remember hearing anything about any code names in local media, whether in Swedish or in English. Looks like something invented by the article's author. 83.252.191.212 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been misconstrued from this report in The Local. I've removed the statement. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the edit history?[edit]

From the History, it looks like this article was created like this:

(cur) (last) 19:50, 8 December 2007 Odengatan (Talk | contribs | block) (7,768 bytes) (ICA Meat Cheat Scandal)

That seems unlikely. Did edit history get lost in a move or something? It’s important to keep track of these things in order to comply with GFDL requirements. — David Remahl (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I checked several other pages. It may be lost somewhere else. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the page history before I moved the article, and I noticed that there were only two edits in the history at the time, both by Odengatan. So it appears that the edit history is correct. AecisBrievenbus 08:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Thanks for verifying that. — David Remahl (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article[edit]

Congrats to whoever worked on it. Anchoress (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Odengatan is the editor to congratulate. --Camptown (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current event?[edit]

I don't think this article qualifies under the guidelines for the current event tag. Anchoress (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ICA meat repackaging controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ICA meat repackaging controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on ICA meat repackaging controversy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ICA_meat_repackaging_controversy&oldid=1207688765"