Talk:Procter & Gamble/Archive 1

?
They've definitely got a lot of money to throw around. When I was in high-school I participated in the F.I.R.S.T. robotics competition. Basically a high-school is teamed up with a company and they make a robot to play some sort of a game in six weeks. Then all the teams go to EPCOT to battle it out. Procter and Gamble spent over a million dollars in extra labor for their employees to work overtime in the last week before the competition. Curiously enough our team finished better than theirs did.

Satanic Rumors
Regarding P&G's problem with satanic rumors, the company has sued many people over the years for millions of dollars. A notable exception has been P&G's reluctance to take any action whatsoever against the Church of Ouzo for distributing its paper entitled "That Infamous Logo". This paper actually caused P&G to attempt the rewriting of history by eliminating from its pamphlet on the moon-and-stars logo the fact that its trademark evolved from a "crude cross." There is evidence that P&G entered into a conspiracy with the FBI to conduct an illegal investigation of the Church of Ouzo, and the business reporter who covered P&G for the Cincinnati Enquirer wanted to do an investigative story,but was turned down by her editor. Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo bobevenson@yahoo.com


 * Is that logo the former logo? I still see it used often to represent Procter and Gamble... --24.147.128.141 01:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The moon-and-stars logo was P&G's trademark on all its products until the logo controversy. P&G's new twin towers in Cincinnati were designed to have the logo inscribed on all four sides, but P&G decided to put meaningless artwork in the circles at the top of each tower (click picture of the twin towers in the article, and then photo enhancement), and deny they were originally designed for the logo.  The architect for the buildings, however, admitted that this disclaimer was untrue. RME


 * The Moon-And-Stars logo is still used internally for certain items. However, the later 'P&G' logo is now used externally for everything to do with the company. Andy C 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody really take this guy seriously? I ask, Mr. Evenson, are you recognized by the IRS as a tax-free entity? How many members are there in your church? Please tell. One person does not make a church. Why is Wikipedia to be used as a place to spread your fringe views? Wikipedia is not a soap box. Yet you keep insisting on posting this Church of Ouzo stuff. Soviet Collector


 * Listen, pal, Mr. anonymous Soviet Collector, who do you think you are? You don't know anything about this subject.  Even Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Cincinnati Public Library admit I know more than they do (see the Ouzo papers). RME


 * Mr. Evenson,
 * They agree with the dates, not your religious views. In the matter of Cincinnati being called the Queen of the West, they agree with you. On the book of Revelation stuff, they do not agree with you. Fine, you know more about the history of Cincinnati than Britannica and the Cincinnati Public Library. That is why they update the encyclopedia. But that does not mean they endorse your beliefs. sovietcollect/Samuel Jones


 * Britannica changed its identification of the beast with the name/number 666 to conform to the requirements of Ouzo Prophecy". They refused to do it until I convinced the author of the article, who at the time was the Bishop of Stockholm and the head of the Church of Sweden, and formerly was the dean of the Harvard Divinity School, that he was wrong and I was right, and he demanded that Britannica make the change. As you can see from Britannica's letter to me, they were none too happy with this turn of events, and pointedly refused to thank me for forcing them to make this correction.  It was neither a factual error nor a typographical error, but rather an error of interpretation. And it was not Billy Graham or the Pope who set the record straight. RME

RME, I now see how you are saying the Straight Dope link is a blog and needed to be removed. All I have to say is that the logo section needs a rewrite as it is based on the two sources that were removed. sovietcollector


 * Actually, the logo section is fairly accurate except for the controversy being termed an "Urban Legend." As "That Infamous Logo" shows, the logo is the allegorical confirmation that the manifestation of evil is institutional. RME

RME, On the Ouzo papers, there may be a way to actually insert a link on the page for Cincinnati. Mention Queen of the West, cite pages 8-9 (your letter to the Cincinnati Public Library and their response to you). This is a legitimate reference as it is from the public library, the keeper of the microfilm newspapers for the city. And darned, if the rest of your work is contained when you were citing a legit reference, so what? I may not agree with your views, but Bible prophecy is open to interpretation, especially with the book of Revelation. I admit it is one subject I do not know much about and one that can cause a lot of argument. You may be right, Hal Lindsey may be right, or everyone may be wrong. Personally, I believe the Soviet Union will rise again. For any messages to me on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sovietcollector Sovietcollector

P&G Sponsoring Anime?
I'm just curious if anyone knows. I've seen "P&G" shown on many animes as a sponsor, along with Sony. Is this the same P&G as Proctor & Gamble? Jdstroy 04:43, 2005 August 5 (UTC)


 * Yes, P&G sponsors anime that airs on various TV stations in Japan. P&G has a strong presence in Japan and, presumably, this is one of the ways that they chose to market the company. Xaliqen 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Does P&G Produce Guiding Light?
I've been wondering about that. Do Proctor & Gamble PRODUCE Guiding Light or do they just sponsor it? Maybe CBS produces the show. I don't know.
 * Is anybody there? Does anybody care?
 * They aren't the produce Guiding Light, but following on from their introduction of the soap opera, they use product placement to award-winning effect as an advertisement medium. Andy C 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They do produce the Guiding light and AS the World Turns, that what the PGP logo represents.

Are Those Numbers Real?
I was wandering if the numbers in the financials chapter were right, so I grabbed a calculator and streched my fingers. The total income for 2001 gives me 3,814 M$, which even considering lack of decimal places bellow millions is quite a difference from 2,922! The 2002 total income gives me 3,621 against 4,352. The sales totals are right though.

Family Groups Pressure
I do not feel that certain controversial family groups' POV belong here. Their radical beliefs do not merit inclusion in such a short profile of a big company. Gilliamjf 07:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC) ri7r67ir

Merge from Global Gillette
75% of Global Gillette is a list of "current products", all of which are now presumably P&G's current products. The remainder of that page is now just a part of P&G history. Ewlyahoocom 09:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Gillette entry might better be kept as history. For example, the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad is still an entry, though the RR was merged into Southern Pacific and later Union Pacific. Carrionluggage 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Gillette entry may be a main article from a stub in P&G, avoinding this other article to become too extent. Tonyjeff 15:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Against the merge. The Gilette article should have the history of the company up to its merge with P&G, including past products, etc.; that information does not belong in the P&G article. The history after the merge and the list of current products may be in P&G or (if the division still maintains a sufficiently separate identity) in Gillette. Jorge Stolfi 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Gillette will remain a somewhat distinct entity. You don't see Chevrolet merged with Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Gillette should remain a separate entry, as it is a distinct brand and subsidiary of P&G.

Branding or Owner
Gillette is handled here as a brand and not as a company because it is a famous brand whoever the brandowner is. Therefore, why should Gillette be transferred under the heading of P&G who is merely the brand owner?
 * Gillette's legacy is pure greatness. Seeing as horrid the merger was, it shouldn't be put under P&G in encyclopedia listings as well.

Oprah and Satan
I heard a rumor that the company directors admitted to Oprah in one episode that they do finance satanic organizations. I myself am unsure as I never saw them appear on the show. Can anyone confirm if it's true?


 * Rumors of this type are not true. RME

Environmental
The current citation for the Fenholloway River points to some rinky-dink Yahoo newsgroup. If you are going to post allegations that ugly, please cite a credible published source -- if there is truth in what is alleged in this paragraph you should have no problem finding one. I have deleted the section for now.81.243.67.189 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo Controversy
In the section Logo controversy, it says: a mirror image of 666 can be seen which is what I see too, but the axis of reflection is roughly horizontal, which is not what most would expect of a mirror image. Is there a better way of describing this? You could say it's a mirror image of 999 - then the axis is nicely vertical, but the connection to satanism becomes even more far fetched. Any ideas on how to describe this succinctly? Niels Ø 16:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be described as a mirror image of 999 when viewed from outside the logo, but within the context of a satanic interpretation, it is properly described as a mirror image of 666 when viewed from inside the logo.  The three elements of the Unholy Trinity are contained in the logo: the thirteen stars are a satanic mockery of Revelation 12:1; the two horns like a lamb are those of the false prophet; and the reversed 666 is a reflection of the beast (see "That Infamous Logo".) RME

No mention of India?
There's no mention of Procter and Gamble and its entry into the Indian market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.57.49 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Procter & Gamble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120410104012/http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/10/brand-advisory.aspx to http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/10/brand-advisory.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120622005938/http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv:80/2008/06/06/dr-tantillos-30second-how-to.aspx to http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/06/06/dr-tantillos-30second-how-to.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120410104012/http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/10/brand-advisory.aspx to http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/10/brand-advisory.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121108005947/http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/07/37788 to http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/07/37788

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Procter & Gamble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204102210/http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=13&compID=38 to http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=13&compID=38

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Procter & Gamble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150223220959/http://openjurist.org/242/f3d/539/the-procter-and-gamble-company-v-amway-corporationl to http://openjurist.org/242/f3d/539/the-procter-and-gamble-company-v-amway-corporationl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

SOAP Operas
P&G WAS the causal element in radio serials becoming known as Soap Operas. They were a major producer of soap and a sponsor of the shows, hence the name. That is quite logical and is what was stated in the source. Furthermore, the lead is a summary of the article and the "Production" section has the same statement. Why would you remove it from the lead as incorrect but leave it elsewhere. You seem to be thinking the text says P&G was responsible for the genre. It does not say that, it merely (correctly) says it is the source of the name "Soaps" that came to be used after their sponsorship. You need to gain consensus to remove this. MB 15:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC) , Notification of discussion. MB 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I stand corrected. Yes, there is a difference between the advent of such shows and the point at which they came to be known as "soap operas". So, out of curiosity/ for my own edification, what were the shows known as before? As for the inconsitency in removing from the lead but not from the main body, I was sidetracked hopping to related articles and eventually caught up in work. I would eventually have got back to it, but as I said, I stand corrected, so doing so is now no longer required. Thanks, regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , I believe that before the label "soap opera" came into usage, they would just have been called radio shows, dramas, serials, etc. MB 02:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your commercial
I find offensive and inflammatory. I will no longer purchase your products. Pretty tacky to try and promote yourself on the back of such a subject. What are you doing to help the situation other than make money. Shame on you. Drjohnson58 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WTF are you even talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.210 (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

First International location
It was Hamilton Ontario, not the UK. Here is a WIki reference and another as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Street_(Hamilton,_Ontario)

http://workerscity.ca/20th-century-industry/procter-gamble/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.232.130 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)