Talk:Dolphin safe label

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Out of date and lacking references[edit]

I read this article [1] which led me to read this Wikipedia article. From what I can see, the information on some of the labels is out of date and lacking information for some. Some of the references are also now dead. Although most of the article is sound, it does need a bit of a cleanup and some more references in parts.--Baina90 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one dead link and added a citation needed remark in its place. Updated a second link. If there's any specific parts you would like a reference for please add a note there, too - otherwise it's not clear what you're unsure about. BabyNuke (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the DOC label, only vessels larger than a certain size require an inspector aboard, I believe this was mentioned in the article I mentioned. Also, John West claims to be monitored by the Earth Island trust but doesn't specify to what extent it is monitored. I believe this is worth a mention. The first paragraph of the "Background" section isn't cited either. I found numerous blogs saying the same thing, but I don't think they meet Wikipedia's sourceing guidelines. In New Zealand there is a state-run scheme, which may deserve a mention [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baina90 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Marine Stewardship Council deserves a mention. They have only certified fisheries which are truly dolphin safe.--Baina90 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial labels[edit]

Since an anonymous editor keeps removing them, to provide reasoning for keeping them. The article aims to provide information on dolphin safe labels and I'd imagine that people coming to read this article end up here after buying a can of tuna and seeing this label and wondering what it means. Thus, it should provide information on the various labels that are currently in use (and most likely, the currently list is far from complete). That a lot of these labels come from the companies that produce the tuna is irrelevant, they're still labels and thus have a certain meaning which people may be curious about - where the information is provided by the company itself I've worded it such that this is clear to the reader. For Greenseas, John West, Princes (listed as Princes Tuna Mauritius) and Sealord I've provided the EII approval list as a reference - EII is an outside source and thus can be seen as a reliable reference.BabyNuke (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, you're confused about the purpose of the article: it's to provide encyclopaedia readers with accurate, verifiable information that is based on reliable secondary sources. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which it does? It provides information on what the labels stand for. I consider the Earth Island Institute - and independant third party - to be a reliable source of information. It sets clear guidelines on what fisheries should comply with for them to consider it "dolphin safe". I am most dissapointed with your attitude - it seems that when you spot something you consider wrong, all you can do is say "it's wrong" then delete it (or propose to delete it in this case). Why not actually make an effort to improve things instead?
In the proposed deletion now all of a sudden it states this article is not notable enough. Using the suggested figures: 674.000 hits on google is not notable? 1.180 news articles is not notable? 287 pieces of professional research on dolphin safe labels is not notable? And this doesn't include variations such as "dolphin safe tuna" etc. Also this article was found to be within the scope of two wikipedia projects (with mid-importance on the fisheries one), so again that conflicts with your idea.
As said, if you disagree with things, fine - but then make an effort to improve it. At the very least point out SPECIFIC statements you disagree with, SPECIFIC statements that could use a better references, or if there's references that should not be used. Or actually go and do the improvements you seek yourself.
I'm deleting the label because it's clearly nonsense regarding the lack of notability. As per wikipedia policy, do not put the template back. Discuss things here first, don't just go delete everything you disagree with.BabyNuke (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion per WP:AfD. Google hit counts don't establish notability. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say I disagree, but will put my reasoning in the deletion proposal.BabyNuke (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD rationale[edit]

  • This article is, essentially, a stand-alone list of labels. As such, the notability requirement is to show that the list itself is notable, per WP:NOTESAL.
  • I have attempted to find a reliable source establishing the notability of this particular list, and have failed to do so.
  • Many claims in article are cited to claimants. That fails WP:RS.
  • As claimants are product vendors, article gives the appearance of being WP:ARTSPAM.

24.177.123.74 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on criticism[edit]

The size of the criticism section and its prominent location in the article (even before the description of the labels) seems to reduce the neutral point of view of this article. Also the Earth Island Institute opposes the AIDCP label that the Campaign for Eco-Safe Tuna wants to promote. I feel this section needs to be reworded.BabyNuke (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dolphin safe label. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dolphin_safe_label&oldid=1207002811"