Jump to content

Talk:1977 Nestlé boycott

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

Tags

[edit]

I have removed the "outdated" tag since this article now references events less than one year ago. --216.58.90.192 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page has now been separated from the main Nestle article, I see that one of the most important aspects of the boycott has been left out, which I had suggested as an edit to the other article: WHY are these products dangerous in third world countries? Apparently, it's because they have to be mixed with water, which in many of these places, is contaminated (although this makes me wonder what adults drink then, if they can't drink the water).

Here's the text from the original article:

In Nestlé's case, this has centered on its apparent recommendations for nursing mothers to switch to its infant formula milk products, leading to the alleged deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year as a result of formula being mixed with contaminated water.

If this is indeed accurate, I think it needs to be placed in this article. Otherwise, it leaves it up to the reader to guess why people are boycotting. Thanks. --Birdhombre 13:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just fyi: a microbe that an adult's immune system can withstand may kill a newborn; that's why one must sterilize water before mixing formula. Besides being relatively free of such microbes, breastmilk passes the mother's antibodies to the child. 69.114.164.41 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thought and a comment

[edit]

First the thought: if the boycott is still current, state this at the very beginning with a jump link to the relevant bit of the article. Saying that it started in 1973 suggests that it cannot still be going on. It looks like it is, and it looks like it should be, so make this clear.

Second the comment, on the comment below this. Blaming anyone else for Nestle's obvious bad behaviour is disgusting. Giving free samples and lies (either paid for by giving money to nurses to encourage giving out the samples etc or by insinuation) to uneducated and poor mothers in hospital is taking advantage; it is purely money making and immoral. And they hardly need the money.

It might as well be crack - because once they mothers have been using it, by the time they leave the hospital they are unable to provide the milk themselves and have to rely on this product. They are in effect addicted, but even more tied in. Unless Nestle are going to provide the means (for free or in the existing price) to make the formula safely they are or were breaking international law. There is no defence. Their behaviour is just the same as a drug dealer giving free samples to get people hooked.

I find this article, and the boycott itself [offensive language removed]

[edit]

2 of the 3 flaws with this aren't Nestle's fault. 1 is the fault of the country, 1 is the fault of the mothers. And no company should be held accountable for a user not following their directions. And the 3rd flaw appears to be false

A Response to your [offensive language removed]: This company is not dealing with some rich Americans who sit around watching TV or going on wikipedia all day, these mothers are people who have had no education. On the other hand, the Nestle corporation only does this in countries where they are more powerful than the governments in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.20.15 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you give the directions in a foreign language... PuercoPop (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i changed the title of this section to remove ableist language 99.233.152.171 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not to be filitered you {personal attack}. Matt unsigned and undated edit by Matt re-edited by SmithBlue (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Offensive language removed? What is this a children's play area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6393:B201:454E:1ACD:3999:37E5 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rewrite

[edit]

I have attempted to improve the format of the article as well as to provide background information on what the central issue of the boycott is. I realize the article is somewhat one-sided and does not provide Nestlé and it's supporters side of the issue. If someone does either have that info to add or would like to locate it then please insert into the article. --Cab88 09:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the additional info! As it turns out, I just happened to be reading about this issue yesterday in the book Why Decisions Fail by Paul C. Nutt, and it basically said all the things you did. Thanks. --Birdhombre 13:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, there's still a pretty big mistake in the second section. "Nursing mothers would accept the free samples, which in tern caused their breasts to cease producing breast-milk due to insufficient and thus forcing them to continue using formula despite the sanitary and cost issues. " Said section has redundant material, and this line doesn't even make sense.. or i'd rewrite it. also has a typo (tern is a bird)

POV Check removed

[edit]

I've removed the POV Check marker, as I do not believe that this article is biased; it seems to contain an accurate summary of the claims made by campaigners in regard to Nestle, and the fact that it does not contain Nestle's side of the story does not in itself warrant a POV marker.

Actually, the article IS biased in that it does not provide Nestlé's responses. ~ A reader

Yep - totally one sided

I agree ~ another reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.165.105 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not neutral at all, but as the users of wikipedia are by and large green scum, and its them who campaign for free speech, us sensible conservatives get silenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.202.235 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infant deaths

[edit]

The article says "This is alleged to have led to the deaths of about 1.5 million babies." Two things need clarification:

  • Who alleges this, what's the source?
  • It used to say (and still does, in Nestlé) 1.5 million each year, while as it stands here, it means 1.5 millions accumulated. I don't know which is correct (and if either of them are, it is pretty horrible), but the difference is significant and we should clarify this.

Haakon 2 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

Ok, I did some research and rewrote the paragraph. I made some points clearer (IMO), and added that the 1.5 million figure is indeed per year. Sources: [1], [2], [3]. Haakon 2 July 2005 17:36 (UTC) This site is null, not working, and does not exist. . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary Note that all these sources given are based on the campaign figures of the people running the nestle boycott and so are not really impartial.

Nestle may indeed be playing a role in pushing their products more than is in the interests of the developing worlds health - In fact despite their published policies they still seem to be a bit of a bad guy. But quite frankly laying this many deaths solely at their door is beyond the bounds of credibility.

I agree with the two comments above. The highly biased source of "Baby Milk Action" erroneously claims figures from UNICEF to back their extremely high claimed death toll of 1.5 million. They say: "It has been estimated that improved breastfeeding practices could save some 1.5 million children a year," which is not the same as saying that Nestle or any other formula manufacturer is responsible for these deaths. 1.5 million children die each year because they don't get access to breast milk for a WIDE range of reasons, which may include the use of formula by mothers, but may ALSO include malnutrition of the mother, poor health of the mother - eg. persistent mastitis and no access to antibiotics, the mother's inability to produce breast milk or afford a substitute, such as formula, poor breast feeding counsellings, development problems in the infant, premature birth (common in developing countries), sickness or fever which causes inability to suck milk from a breast or a feeble draw (common where children are born without a skilled attendant), infant allergies to breast milk or early weening practices.

"Improved breast feeding" practices include a wide variety of tactics, which may include discouraging the use of formula, but will also include measures such as providing midwifes with breast feeding counselor training, ensuring mothers feed on demand, feed 100 percent breast milk (no water, especially in developing countries where supplies may be dubious), are fit and healthy enough to produce breast milk and most importantly ween children to food much later.

In many developing countries, such as the one I work in - the main battle is to convince mothers to continue breast feeding past the third month - and delay feeding infants rice - which is part of the indigenous culture. This has nothing to do with infant formula.

It is also worth remembering that most women in the developing world, especially in rural areas, do not give birth in a hospital. Therefore it would be rather hard for the big baddie Nestle to hand out free formula and "get them hooked" as is alleged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.245.202 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V Good point. I removed the sentence According to UNICEF, if every baby were exclusively breastfed from birth to six months, an estimated 1.3 million additional lives would be saved each year.Fionah (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/THE%20BABY%20KILLER%201974.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.247.177 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cost to the company

[edit]

Does anyone know much the boycott actually hurts the company financially? Is it in any way significant when compared to their overall revenues? Maccoinnich 18:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is my question, too, because it speaks to the point. I joined the boycott back in 1977-78 when as a breastfeeding mom and b.f. coach I was concerned about these issues. I kept boycotting until about a decade ago when I came to feel that there had been some economic and PR impact on Nestle, enough to cause changes in practice/policy. Ecomonic impact is usually the motivator for such change. I would like more info on this, since I am currently in a doctoral economics class and a group of us are looking at the success/failure of such efforts as this boycott and why. (4.255.38.152 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

diarrhea

[edit]

Are you saing that all 1,5 million cases of deadly diarrhea in third world are caused by using some nestle milk? Diarrhea article says that it is a total number of deaths from diarrhea.

nestle statement 6 april 2006

[edit]

In The Independent on 6th April, the Nestle UK Chief Press Officer wrote in and stated what can be found on their website here. Briefly:

  • They follow the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk substitutes 1981
  • They do not advertise or promote milk formula in the developing world
  • They do not have pictures of babies on their packaging
  • They do not give out free samples to hospitals except when requested in very special circumstances

And others.

Endorsements

[edit]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of celebraties who are paid to endorse Nestle products? I know that David Bowie sold his likeness to advertise a Nestle water company. Have there been any others? --Dickmac999 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nestle Products

[edit]

Is it appropriate to provide a link to a list of Nestle products at the Nestle web site? --Dick Mac - Brooklyn, NY 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid

[edit]

Are these allegations still valid?? Nestle is a Global company afterall....Is it just an anti-Nestle campaign being carried out by some vested interests??? --Muby - Bangalore, India 02:58, 02 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the allegations are still valid. If you visit the Baby Milk Action website (they are the british organisation who co-ordinate the Nestle boycott) you will be able to find examples of WHO code violations from as recently as May 2006.

80.6.116.174 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained initialism

[edit]
Resolved
 – —Pengo 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's an LEDC? I don't think this term should be used without a link to explain it. It's just confusing. --Weeble 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it means "less economically developed country." I went ahead and spelled it out and made a wikilink to the initialism. I also changed the two instances of "LEDC countries" to "LEDC" since the former is redundant. --Birdhombre 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a passer-by

[edit]

This article is full of argumentative POV slop and needs to be completely rewritten. A number of alleged "facts" are utter rubbish. This thing is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. •Jim62sch• 10:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15.5 years later this kind of article still shows how Wikipedia is run by a load of nonsensical clowns.

Totally disputed

[edit]

This article contains large blocks of controversial material which lacks a reliable source, is biased and reads like an advertising campaign. It should be totally rewritten and provided with citations.Page Up 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific so that the problems may be resolved? —Pengo 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this article

[edit]

This article is nonsense - get rid of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.252.228 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What specific problems do you have with the article? —Pengo 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know why it's nonsense then you are the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6393:B201:454E:1ACD:3999:37E5 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section Removed

[edit]

"Unethical actions of which Nestlé has been accused

Nestlé has been accused by supporters of the boycott of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast-milk to poor mothers in third world countries.[citation needed] One major issue is passing out free powdered formula samples to mothers in hospitals.[citation needed] After leaving the hospital, these mothers' breasts will have ceased to produce milk due to the substitution of formula feeding for breastfeeding.[citation needed] This forces the continued use of formula, which can contribute to malnutrition,[citation needed] and under worsened sanitary conditions with contaminated water, often leading to diarrhea. UNICEF alleges this situation results in the deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year. The formula, which is no longer free after the mother leaves the hospital, can for some also put a significant strain on the family's budget."

I removed the above section because after every accusation it has 'citation needed'. Until such a time that citations are available this should not be re-added. I am all in favour of showing the media/organisations who condemn some of Nestle's actions but without referencing how are we expected to sort the unverifiable from the verifiable? If wanted I can try find some references but I will leave enough time for the orginal creator/people more involved in the article's field of work to try. ny156uk 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rediculous references

[edit]

I think this kind of referencing makes Wiki look terrible. They have/are repackaging their complimentary foods, and they have stated clearly that they support breastfeeding until at least 6 months which is what WHO and UNICEF recommend why is this so one sided. There should be more accurate information provided and if it is not cited then it should be removed. If 1.5 Million babies die because they were formula feed Nestle, then maybe someone should make the note that they aren't using clean water, not using enought formula and feeding them with other alternatives. Why is this not discussed? The nurse at the hospital I gave birth said that 40% of women are unable to breast feed or choose not to, for various reasons so I am sure that there are 40% in developing countries. With malnutrition there would some women that need to have an alternative and with mortality rates, unfortunately some babies won't make it. Nicole, Mom in Canada ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.142.61.42 (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, WHO and UNICEF both recommend breastfeeding for 2 years, and after that as long as both mother and baby desire to continue. The AAP recommends 1 year, and thereafter continuing as long as desired. There is no health organization that recommends less than a year. 40% of women in developed countries may choose not to breastfeed, but that is because they see formula as a safe alternative. Less than 2% of women actually physically cannot breastfeed. In third world countries where formula is more dangerous than it is here in North America, a 40% formula feeding rate would be even more tragic. Not to mention added cost for no reason at all.

Edit or Remove this article

This article does not even read like the rest of Wiki. It has a lot of sentences that are the points of view of people who support the boycott, and while their opinions should be noted, as it the whole rason the boycott started, it needs to be edited to show this.

Some of the statements made are very scary for mothers that formula feed their babies, and i feel that they need to be backed up with the appropriate links.

It may also be worth noting that in Britain baby formula is also given out for free at hospitals as well - although this is probably funded by the NHS. I breastfed my daughter but i formula fed my sons, and it was provided in the hospital for the entire duration of my stay. When i left after five days, i eas still producing breastmilk and could have continued had i wanted to.

- actually if a UK hospital wants UNICEF Babyfriendly status they cannot give out formula. Many don't, many also ask mothers to sign a statement that the risks of formula have been explained. Sorry if it's scary for mothers who bottlefeed but withholding the facts does nobody any good. Shall we say smoking doesn't cause cancer too? Formula for example puts babies at 7x a greater risk of childhood cancer. Put the facts out, parents can make informed decision. Not one swayed by marketing or blissful ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.64.82 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that this article needs to be edited, more information given with credible sources, but it should not be removed as it is a long standing international boycott of which, I believe, there is no parallel. I will try and edit and add some substantial references if possible. AmyNelson 12:17 BST 21 May 2007

Having made some edits, I have found it very easy to find sources for the claims, I have no idea why this simple task was not done sooner, perhaps there have been people against the boycott that have attempted to undermine the content on the page, this page has merit and it should be an easy task to improve it further.AmyNelson 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free formula

[edit]
The claims include that Nestlé supports or has supported the distribution of free powdered formula samples to mothers in hospitals. After leaving the hospital, these mothers' breasts will have ceased to produce milk due to the substitution of formula feeding for breastfeeding.

Was this claim really made? It seems a bit bizzare to me at least as reported. I would presume most mothers in the developing world are not going to spend very long in hospital unless there were complications. I would guess something like 2-3 days would be something like the norm. While starting to breast feed after 2-3 days would I guess be harder then starting immedietly, would production really have ceased completely by this time? It sounds fairly fast to me... Nil Einne 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to IBFAN, "Supplementing breastfeeding interferes with lactation and makes an early end to breastfeeding more likely." Which is a bit less drastic than "ceasing to produce milk". I'll make a change to the wording. Fionah 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and attribution of sources

[edit]

I’ve made a number of changes to this article, I hope for the better! The main changes are to include references, some rephrasing and reorganizing for clarity, adding Nestlé’s own response to the allegations, plus some extra info about the boycott in the media. I have no connection with either Nestlé or the boycott advocacy organizations, although I did support the boycott in my student days. I think the following guidelines would be useful for keeping this article as NPOV as possible:

  • If a claim is made by a boycott support organization, clearly state where that claim is coming from, e.g. by starting with "IBFAN claims…" or "UNICEF alleges… "
  • Where relevant, include Nestlé’s response, again with appropriate attribution e.g. " Nestlé maintains…"
  • Where possible, use the primary source for a claim rather than a quotation from a secondary source. For example, for "UNICEF claims that breast-fed infants are less likely to die of diarrhea", reference the UNICEF web page, not the Baby Milk Action web site where this is quoted.
  • Where possible, use neutral sources such as news reports or medical journals to support or refute claims.

Also, the following information would enhance the article (if anyone can find it):

  • The economic impact (if any) of the boycott
  • The global spread of the boycott

Looking forward to feedback. Fionah 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breastfeeding does have a feedback component, but a free sample isn't going to do this-dozens would increase the chances, but this seems neither reasonable nor unbiased. 

User:Fiolynlyn 17:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.186.247 (talk) [reply]

small POV correction made in main paragraph

[edit]

hey folks. i changed the words 'UNICEF alleges' to 'according to UNICEF' since the latter sounds more neutral. 99.233.152.171 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - be more specific

[edit]

Please point out specific problems with the text. Which sentences/sections do you see as non-neutral? Refer to [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] for details. Fionah (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the discussion provided by the tagging editor, I am removing the tag as the issues raised by the tagging editor are not within the areas covered by Wikipedia policy. Please be very specific with what is not in line with policy when tagging - list the words or sentences or paragraphs or sections or exactly what is missing. Thanks. SmithBlue (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Many references (links) do not work so there is a certain lack of evidential support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.166.95 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNICEF article stating 1.5 million figure

[edit]

This is a bit out of date now (2006), but no-one else seems to have found an actual UNICEF article stating the 1.5 million figure, which is here: [4]. Joejtait (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling wikipedia page

[edit]

This wikipedia page is a farce, it is clearly one-sided and makes the boycott look like a scam. Please edit accordingly, only for the sake of the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.111.220 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

158.143.111.220, could you be more specific? It's meant to be explanatory, not argue on behalf of either side. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestlé boycott. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 12:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nestlé boycott. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestlé boycott. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestlé boycott. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TIN FOIL HAT TIME!

Isnt it odd how many random, never seen again, never log in, never comment on anything else accounts come here to "completely randomly" argue that none of the charges are real and the article should be taken down. Weird how it doesn't happen anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.130.237 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

[edit]

The fact that this kind of poorly written article is still on here after so many years shows why most people except for the people running this joint don't actually trust Wikipedia. Sad thing is that 90% of editors are actually good but 10% control it and ruin it and make it a laughing stock fort the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6393:B201:454E:1ACD:3999:37E5 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 March 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved on the grounds of precision. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nestlé boycott → 1977 Nestlé boycott – Nestlé has been subject to many boycotts. We need to be more specific here. Note that this name may also not be ideal as the boycott lasted longer (but the article is a mess and I am not sure all the boycotts described here are related to this one event...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support helpful improvement. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support If you can expand it to show that there are other notable and grand scale incidents of boycotts, then I agree. However, it seems that others are already included in the Controversy section of Nestle main page. Some are not notable like just an aftermath of an incident which does not need an article. Plus as a suggestion, if perchance there will be a lot of similar boycotts like this one, it would be prophylactic to name it to "Nestlé boycott (1977)", especially with the controversy of war in Ukraine if one country declares a widespread boycott maybe in the future. --Likhasik (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Discrimination has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Food and drink has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Health and fitness has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Switzerland has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1977_Nestlé_boycott&oldid=1229576200"