Talk:Tescopoly

POV
I think this article is entirely one sided. It is about this organisation and what they believe about Tesco, but it should in some way (at least attempt to) dispute the claims. It needs to do this to balance it out (the way its phrased makes it sound like they're facts). And in case someone is thinking of saying it: Yes, I realise there's a request to expand the article, but this was mainly to encourage reaching a balance, then expanding it further. - RHe  odt  16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I created this, and I agree with you. The list of bullets was cut & pasted from their website, and does need editing for POV. Please feel free to do whatever you think needs doing SP-KP 16:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm mainly an idea person, and wouldn't be the best for this sort of thing. Just to draw attention to it, I'm gonna put a note on the actual Tesco article. - RHe  odt  23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Article looks fairly NPOV - references to news articles are now cited, suggest we remove the POV tag, unless anyone can highlight particular parts of the article which are POV. -- Oscar The Cat talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px]] 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think it still sounds like their what they're calling for is absolutely neccessary. I think it would help if it had some comparisons to other situations (of companies who do not receive criticism for the exact same/similar thing) and maybe Tesco's responses (if there are any). BUT, that said if the majority want to take it off, go ahead. - RHe  odt  16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can learn something from the Stop_Esso_campaign article? It adds details of Esso's response to such criticism.  We ought to include Tesco's response to accusations of monopoly here then, to make it less POV. -- Oscar The Cat talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px]] 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Advert?
I've added the advert tag as I think this reads like a promotional piece for this organisation. I have no problem with a thorough analysis of the dominance and possible ill-effects of Tesco, however this must be objective and balanced. The title is also totally unencylopedic. This discussion should be either in the Tesco article or under a more suitable title. Mark83 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagreee fundamentally with you Mark. I think it should be linked to tesco certainly. This piece is surely about the organisation, it is not about the rights and wromgs of the case though they are to an extent included (Dieseltaylor 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Removed NPOV and {advert} tags
I have removed the NPOV and the advert tags and re worded the article so its less anti tesco but still gets its point accross. FireBadger 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireBadger (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Tescopoly - Andrew Simms


Need for disambig?