Talk:Reckitt/Archives/2011

Fair use rationale for Image:ReckittBenckiser.png
Image:ReckittBenckiser.png 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 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) 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Brands table
The brands table is so incomplete that I do believe it adds anything. In any case wikipedia should present material in prose rather than list form. I suggest it is deleted and replaced by a short section which simply gives the names of the brands Dormskirk (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaviscon Controversy
I've reinstated this section. The edit summary for its removal was "This merits one sentence at most, anything more is POV for disproportionality". There's nothing in the WP:NPOV about disproportionality. WP:NPOV discusses undue weight, but that discussion relates to giving undue weight to a minority opinion in the face of more widely held opinions. The Gaviscon Controversy section makes no mention of any minority opinions. It gives equal weight to commentary from the BBC's flagship news program, several national newspapers and Reckitt Benckiser.

Nor can this can be categorised as an issue not meriting in-depth coverage. Reckitt Benckiser is accused by the BBC of actions which cost the NHS £40 million. It clearly is an important, high profile controversy and should be fully covered in the article. Indeed, WP:LEAD states that controversies like this should be included in the lead.

Perhaps "disproportionlity" was used in reference to the fact that the Gaviscon Controversy section is larger than the other sections. I don't believe that is a valid reason to remove it. This article is growing from a stub. The goal for Reckitt Benckiser article, as for all articles, is that it reach Featured Article standard; that it evolves into a comprehensive, neutral essay on its subject. If a section is disproportionate in size to the rest of the article, then the correct course of action is to work on building up the rest of the article; not to remove important sections that are neutral, relevant, cited and conform to the WP guidelines.--MoreThings (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Carbon 20
I've reversed the recent changes to the carbon 20 section. The changes had replaced commentary from the Independent, which is a RS, with commentary from a web-based newsletter, which is not. Additionally, the inserted material was a clear copyright violation.MoreThings (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your feedback - we'll relook at the way we draft the changes and the sources for citation. It is all valid fact and results from RB's sustainability report, the 'commentary' shows that an industry publication has also reported on it. I would think that an industry publication reporting on results would hold more weight and be of more use than one journalist's 'opinion' on motivation? Where's the fact in that? Should Jan Moir also be quoted as a RS? look forward to your thoughts. AthpappasAthpappas (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)