This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Best Men Can Be article. 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This article attempts to minimize and marginalize criticism. The video received overwhelmingly-negative feedback. Attempting to say that "some" criticized it is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 ( talk) 03:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
You do not need a source to say this campaign advertisement is about promoting positive ethical
values among men. That is the basis of the campaign's existence.
MOS:LINKS does not outright bar links in quotes, they just have to accurately reflect what the author meant. In addition, the constant removal of a statement from the lead that rebuts criticism of the ad, in my opinion, contradicts
WP:LEAD and NPOV; a lead has to summarize the article's entire contents, and we most reflect all viewpoints prominent in reliable sources.
ViperSnake151
Talk
19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The wording of this article greatly disturbs and worries me.
"Having faced wide criticism, mainly from conservatives" - seriously? This is objective writing?
If Wikipedia is starting to be a political forum rather than a source for objective information we are moving in a very bad direction. Wikipedia should NOT be a forum for liberal (or conservative) viewpoints. (And before anyone goes off on me, I'm a Libertarian that voted for Gary Johnson, the least crazy of the three candidates, which I never thought would be possible......).
If you want to include liberal and conservative responses to the ad in the body of the article, fine, that is appropriate- but to include this leading statement in the introduction to the topic is absolutely disingenuous.
We have: "The "We Believe" advertisement was the subject of minor controversy". Minor controversy? I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK it's a major controversy, with all the main media outlets covering it, some in length. I propose 'minor' be changed to 'major', or at the very least, 'minor' be omitted. Silas Stoat ( talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps going off on a bit of a tangent, but here goes: in the lead there are a couple of references to Time Magazine (ref 2). When accessing these references, at least from within the European Union, you are taken to an intermediate page which forces you to accept cookie deployment and data transfer conditions that some, maybe many, users would find unacceptable. I, for one, rejected this condition, so I was unable to access the reference. Is there a Wikipedia policy on the use of this type of source? For me, if the source is not immediately accessible without conditions then it should not be used as a source. Silas Stoat ( talk) 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What is Cinema of Change, and is it a reliable source? The author is Tobias Deml, so who is he? (Maybe de:Tobias Deml?) The site's about page doesn't fill me with confidence. The currently cited article itself cites Wikipedia a couple of times, making it a WP:CIRC risk. Regardless of how in-depth or interesting a source is, it still needs to be reliable as a baseline. We need a reliable source to demonstrate both that these statistics are correct, and also that they are significant enough to mention at all. Grayfell ( talk) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Samantha and I'd like to propose an addition to this Wikipedia article. I have a conflict of interest, so I'll let other editors review this request and update the article for me, instead of editing the article myself. I understand this is preferred protocol.
I recognize this campaign has received a mixed reception, and different reactions should be covered in the "Reception" section. I propose adding mention of Ace Metrix's survey results for this campaign. This Forbes article says, "Ace Metrix found that two-thirds of respondents rated the ad's message as the "single best thing about the ad," and 65% said the ad made them more or much more likely to purchase Gillette." Therefore, I propose adding the following:
References
I believe this statement is both fair and accurate, and verified by a reliable source. Thank you. SPolicanoKetchum ( talk) 12:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Gillette is now the 20th most-disliked YouTube video. -- LABcrabs ( talk) 23:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Can some mention be made of how since starting this campaign P&G have lost over $1bn in sales with grooming showing a major down turn. Real evidence of a boycott, not just an online backlash... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.109.248 ( talk) 02:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This comes across ash NPOV and higly defensive. The "supposedly" is already implied by the fact it's an accusation rather than proof. The practicing in just the cherry on top, 78.30.17.12 ( talk) 17:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I also noticed this and attempted to fix. Accused of supposedly is not only a violation of neutral point of view, but also it's stupid person talk. 70.127.17.241 ( talk) 05:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently they took an 8billion (dollars I'm assuming) write down after sales collapsed after that advert. scope_creep Talk 16:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
SPolicanoKetchum ( talk) 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Hello again! I've returned to request removal of a specific claim from the article's introduction on behalf of Gillette: "and the company reported a $5.24 billion loss later in 2019". User:Veikk0.ma removed the claim "Gillette reported a $5.24 billion loss following the ad" on the Gillette article because The Daily Wire is not considered a reliable source. @ Veikk0.ma: Are you willing to remove the claim here for the same reason? Thanks, SPolicanoKetchum ( talk) 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
References are from the Washington Times newspaper this time. Gillette will undoubtedly send more people to request removal of the link, like above.
But this time the Washington Times happens to be a reliable source. And as per reliable source:
“Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.”
Deleting the information again will be an obvious infringement of Wikipedia neutrality. 86.93.208.34 ( talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Best Men Can Be article. 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This article attempts to minimize and marginalize criticism. The video received overwhelmingly-negative feedback. Attempting to say that "some" criticized it is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 ( talk) 03:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
You do not need a source to say this campaign advertisement is about promoting positive ethical
values among men. That is the basis of the campaign's existence.
MOS:LINKS does not outright bar links in quotes, they just have to accurately reflect what the author meant. In addition, the constant removal of a statement from the lead that rebuts criticism of the ad, in my opinion, contradicts
WP:LEAD and NPOV; a lead has to summarize the article's entire contents, and we most reflect all viewpoints prominent in reliable sources.
ViperSnake151
Talk
19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The wording of this article greatly disturbs and worries me.
"Having faced wide criticism, mainly from conservatives" - seriously? This is objective writing?
If Wikipedia is starting to be a political forum rather than a source for objective information we are moving in a very bad direction. Wikipedia should NOT be a forum for liberal (or conservative) viewpoints. (And before anyone goes off on me, I'm a Libertarian that voted for Gary Johnson, the least crazy of the three candidates, which I never thought would be possible......).
If you want to include liberal and conservative responses to the ad in the body of the article, fine, that is appropriate- but to include this leading statement in the introduction to the topic is absolutely disingenuous.
We have: "The "We Believe" advertisement was the subject of minor controversy". Minor controversy? I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK it's a major controversy, with all the main media outlets covering it, some in length. I propose 'minor' be changed to 'major', or at the very least, 'minor' be omitted. Silas Stoat ( talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps going off on a bit of a tangent, but here goes: in the lead there are a couple of references to Time Magazine (ref 2). When accessing these references, at least from within the European Union, you are taken to an intermediate page which forces you to accept cookie deployment and data transfer conditions that some, maybe many, users would find unacceptable. I, for one, rejected this condition, so I was unable to access the reference. Is there a Wikipedia policy on the use of this type of source? For me, if the source is not immediately accessible without conditions then it should not be used as a source. Silas Stoat ( talk) 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What is Cinema of Change, and is it a reliable source? The author is Tobias Deml, so who is he? (Maybe de:Tobias Deml?) The site's about page doesn't fill me with confidence. The currently cited article itself cites Wikipedia a couple of times, making it a WP:CIRC risk. Regardless of how in-depth or interesting a source is, it still needs to be reliable as a baseline. We need a reliable source to demonstrate both that these statistics are correct, and also that they are significant enough to mention at all. Grayfell ( talk) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Samantha and I'd like to propose an addition to this Wikipedia article. I have a conflict of interest, so I'll let other editors review this request and update the article for me, instead of editing the article myself. I understand this is preferred protocol.
I recognize this campaign has received a mixed reception, and different reactions should be covered in the "Reception" section. I propose adding mention of Ace Metrix's survey results for this campaign. This Forbes article says, "Ace Metrix found that two-thirds of respondents rated the ad's message as the "single best thing about the ad," and 65% said the ad made them more or much more likely to purchase Gillette." Therefore, I propose adding the following:
References
I believe this statement is both fair and accurate, and verified by a reliable source. Thank you. SPolicanoKetchum ( talk) 12:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Gillette is now the 20th most-disliked YouTube video. -- LABcrabs ( talk) 23:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Can some mention be made of how since starting this campaign P&G have lost over $1bn in sales with grooming showing a major down turn. Real evidence of a boycott, not just an online backlash... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.109.248 ( talk) 02:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This comes across ash NPOV and higly defensive. The "supposedly" is already implied by the fact it's an accusation rather than proof. The practicing in just the cherry on top, 78.30.17.12 ( talk) 17:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I also noticed this and attempted to fix. Accused of supposedly is not only a violation of neutral point of view, but also it's stupid person talk. 70.127.17.241 ( talk) 05:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently they took an 8billion (dollars I'm assuming) write down after sales collapsed after that advert. scope_creep Talk 16:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
SPolicanoKetchum ( talk) 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Hello again! I've returned to request removal of a specific claim from the article's introduction on behalf of Gillette: "and the company reported a $5.24 billion loss later in 2019". User:Veikk0.ma removed the claim "Gillette reported a $5.24 billion loss following the ad" on the Gillette article because The Daily Wire is not considered a reliable source. @ Veikk0.ma: Are you willing to remove the claim here for the same reason? Thanks, SPolicanoKetchum ( talk) 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
References are from the Washington Times newspaper this time. Gillette will undoubtedly send more people to request removal of the link, like above.
But this time the Washington Times happens to be a reliable source. And as per reliable source:
“Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.”
Deleting the information again will be an obvious infringement of Wikipedia neutrality. 86.93.208.34 ( talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)