Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013

Name

It would be better for the long paragraph beginning "The playful spelling devices in the name" to appear in a footnote. --User:Brenont (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As the name is a complete fabrication, is there really any point in bringing up possible meanings in Dutch or that some letter combination only appears in Hungarian, etc.?

Pronunciation

None of these spelling conventions is used in pronouncing the name of the American product, which has "ah" as the first vowel, hard g, and a final "s" sound.

I am not a native speaker, but it seems to me that there should be a final "z" sound, not a final "s" sound. If someone can confirm that, they should change the original. 65.81.12.178 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone use the IPA instead of arsing around with "ah" sounds? 207.245.124.66 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm Finnish so I've never herd the word spoken aloud, but the article currently seems to suggest a prounciation of [hæɡən dæs] ≈ "haggun dass". Or should the 1st word maybe be [hɑɡən] ≈ "hahg'n" insted? The quote says "ah", article "short a". Pick and choose as you wish. --Tropylium 10:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As an north-eastern American, I have always pronounced it (and only heard it pronounced) as [hɑɡɪn dɑs] or perhaps something like [hɑɡon dɑs]. Definitely not [æ] or [z] in it anywhere that I've heard.--Injoy 23:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never tried to learn IPA, but I'll give the best phonetic spelling of how I pronounce it as a Virginian ha (as in haha) gin (like gin but with a hard g) dah (vowel sound as in haha again) and the final zs sound is the same sound as in the end of lies, which isn't really a hard s sound, or a z sound... so -- hah-gin dahs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.23.138 (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DAZS

The text says that "dazs" might be a Hungarian word, because the letter "zs" exists in that language. I am Hungarian, and I'm absolutely sure, just as any other Hungarian, that although "zs" is a letter of the Hungarian alphabet, there is no such word as "dazs" in Hungarian.

Erika

Rumor "Pizza and Ice Cream"

2008 - I believe there is a possibility that domino's pizza will sell this product in their stores in the near future for $3.99 added on to an order. I herd this recently but cant confirm it? Might this be a test product? Can anyone shed some light on this!!!

No stores in Scandinavia

I think there at least used to be a store in Gothenburg, Sweden. You can also buy the ice-cream in stores, so the current text about no stores in Scandinavia is a little misleading.

Ironically, although Häagen-Dazs operates in 54 countries around the world, none of the company's 700 stores is in any Scandinavian country. About that. Is it really so ironic? I mean, it's the last place an intelligent person would expect a brand operating a "foreign branding" scheme to be marketed. -- mortley crueh

[1] doesn't show any locations in any Scandinavian country, though it's not immediately obvious that the list there is actually complete. — mlc 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was in Sweden last fall and definitely saw large self-standing Häagen Dazs signs in the middle of busy shopping areas. This may not mean they have their own shops there, but the product is definitely sold in Sweden. ~ RedSolstice (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

External link spoofed, corrected

The link to the company's web site resolved to http://www.xn--hagen-dazs-q5a.com instead of http://www.haagen-dazs.com. The link was originally "http://www.häagen-dazs.com/". The official site has no diacritic.

Should the Pomegranate and dark chocolate bar be listed under "flavors"?

There is already pomegranite chip ice cream listed, and the bar varieties in the "non reserve" flavors are not listed. It isn't a flavor, its a novelty. Should I remove it from the list? --CreamOfTheCrop

Nestle brand

Is it really? The brand is nowhere on the pot, and it doesn't mention it on their website... ~~Not050~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not050 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes: Note employment information at http://haagen-dazs.com/company/faq/company.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.161.69 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The brand belongs to General Mills, see www.generalmills.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.249.164 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanilla Honey Bee Flavor

found out that vanilla honey bee is now a permanent flavor starting in March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeMcBob23 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Scandinavian?

Why was the name made to sound Scandinavian? I'm not aware that that region, unlike Italy, even has a reputation for ice cream. I guess it's merely based on the false assumption "lots of ice and snow, so the place must be awash with ice cream". Maikel (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A good question. But Italy is known for gelatto, not ice cream, and isn't an area with lots of cows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Flavors

I'm not sure if the intention of the article is to list all of the flavors, but a good number of the Japanese flavors that don't seem to be available elsewhere are missing, including Bitter Caramel, Kukuto&Kuromitsu, Wild Apple Sorbet, Alphonso Mango Sorbet, Millefeuille, Mont Blanc, Gateau au Chocolat, Cassis & Orange, White Peach, and Noisette Chocolat. Bitter Caramel, at least, is a standard flavor, while many of the rest are seasonal. Not sure if/where they should be on the page. They can be seen here - http://naoshi704.at.webry.info/theme/8377f17512.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.114.23 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Haagen-Dazs chose a Scandinavian name because 1) it sounds exotic (= exclusive) to Americans, where HD comes from and sold their first ice-creams 2) Scandinavia has a good reputation for dairy products, so also for super creamy HD ice-cream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.215.211 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

local management mistake not encyclopedic

Re: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-Indians-allowed-Haagen-Dazs-says-wrong-choice-of-words/articleshow/5346805.cms - This mistake in India by local management is neither encyclopeidic nor notable by Wikipedia standards. Not every newspaper story in the Times of India, the Times of London, the New York Times, etc. make something worthy of mention here in this encyclopedia. See the relevant WP guidelines. Thanks, Lentower (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Their is nothing such as "local managment" in this case, people who came up with the promotion campaign were HD employees, This incident did cause a controversy in India, many print and electronic media groups have reported it, leading to an official apology by the managment of the company, it was not a mere field mistake.115.252.36.175 (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Times of India link is not the only reference to it in media. A simple google search will show you this: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=V4S&q=haagen+dazs+no+indians&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= Wwmargera (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2009 (IST)

By local, I meant HD employees or contractors in India. as opposed to a policy set globally by HD headquarters. People get upset all the time. Managers make small mistakes all the time. Neither is encyclopedic nor notable by WP standards. The number of references doesn't establish notability by WP standards. WP is NOT a newspaper. You would really help WP by doing some real research and get the reliable references the box at the top of the article asks for (I added the box here for easy reference). Lentower (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake by the managment of the company the company managment has apologised itself not the local administration. WP being an encyclopedia must contain all the information pertaining to the company and its operation.115.252.41.51 (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is wrong. WP is an encyclopedia that only includes notable information about a subject, not "all the information". Have you read any of the WP guidelines? For example, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:ENC, etc. Please review them now. This tiny error by a small part of a company is not notable here in this encyclopedia. Lentower (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that the mistake by the management is not notable. From the links you gave, nowhere did I find any reason why this event should not have its place in the article. Your citing WP:N is particularly disingenious, because it explicitly says: 'These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.' Further, I don't know what you find so unreliable about the timesofindia link. Let me point out that it is indeed a third-party source as it does not have any interests for or against the company, and was involved as an observer. If you have an anti-India bias, let me give you a link from digg which is clearly not an Indian newspaper: http://digg.com/food_drink/Haagen_Dazs_Opens_No_Indians_Allowed_Store_in_Delhi

Earlier, you had said that I would really help WP by doing real research. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research tells us that 'Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought'.

If this does not convince you, please explicitly state what wikipedia guideline we are violating and why, instead of making ad-hominem attacks like the ones you made against 115.252.41.51. Unless your next removal includes this clarification, I will just put our contributions back in. Wwmargera (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N#TEMP speaks to exactly why this temporary event is not notable for WP. Under it, I will continue to remove this event. I have never said that the Times of India is not a reliable source (could you please explain to me why you came to this conclusion?). A reliable source by itself is not sufficient for something to be included in WP - other criteria must also be meet. I do not engage in ad-hominem attacks. (Perhaps you misunderstand what they are?) I did not suggest that anyone do original research, but the kind of editing/investigation/research that would improve the article under WP policies, including the one the box @ the top of the article asks for help with. I have no anti-India bias, but I wonder if some of you don't have a pro-India bias? If this happened where I live or anywhere else, I would still oppose it's inclusion in WP. Lentower (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I had not seen this before I reverted the changes this time. I apologize for not addressing this earlier. WP:N#TEMP does not apply here because WP:N clearly states: 'These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.' Wwmargera (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In good faith, I am trying to allow for the possibility that you have no malicious intent and are merely unable to understand why this was such a big deal in India. In contrast to your previously expressed opinion, this is not considered to be a 'tiny error' here in India. Someone like you probably does not know what it is to be a second-class citizen in your own country, but Indians have had this experience in the past, once again see the search results: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=dogs+and+indians+not+allowed&start=0&sa=N. This incident is a throwback to that, as pointed out in the following blog: http://www.alkadwivedi.net/2009/12/17/sorry-indians-not-allowed-in-india/

Haagen-Dasz may not have intended it in the same way, but their usage of language reminiscent of the worst kind of racism we have faced - one we cannot forget even after more than a half-century - is not a 'tiny' error. It is a major mistake. This is the reason why it showed up so prominently all over Indian media - in widely circulated newspapers like the Times of India, as well as all over blogs. This is the reason why the link I gave earlier had so many search results (although you like to pretend that is 'not relevant'), and it is also the reason why someone or the other will keep putting the incident back up on this page until you come up with a better argument regarding why it is not 'notable'. Wwmargera (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a soapbox. If you can't find that policy. I'll dig it out for you tomorrow night. Though I feel for those of you concerned about it, WP is not a forum for this kind of dispute. I have spent much of my life fighting for freedom and against injustice, elsewhere. These kinds of incidents happen millions of times a day, and WP does not handle them. Please respect this encyclopedia and take it elsewhere. Lentower (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that WP is not a soapbox. This is why I wrote that stuff in the discussion, not the article. However, my above posts show why the issue is notable. The current version also shows the response of the management to the incident - in other words, the management itself finds the issue to be notable enough to respond to. As I pointed out earlier, you have failed to show earlier how this event is not notable enough to be a part of the Haagen-Dasz article (as opposed to merely being not notable enough for its own article). I have also described earlier why the sources we quoted are reliable sources. Wwmargera (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me also add that for reasons I have described above, the magnitude of the incident is too great to be trivialized as something that happens 'millions of times a day'. Further, WP is not being asked to 'handle' the issue, we are merely noting the fact that the issue exists. Wwmargera (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I saw this mentioned on a user page and am stopping in to give an opinion. W is correct that WP:N is irrelevant to content disputes. What matters most is the breadth and depth of coverage in secondary sources. Based on the overall length of the article I'd say it's now too long and so receives undue weight, but it should be included at least briefly. Could it be covered in half the space?   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Technicalically, these days, WP:N is for an entire article, but the sprit of notability pervades the content policies. E.g. From: WP:IINFO

4. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) For this reason, this event is not suitable for WP. Lentower (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in editing this article, but I think it's worth remembering that we're talking about ice cream. Is a protest covered by major newspapers really less important than the changing of the carton size, an issue covered by no secondary sources? Is a complete, yet totally unsourced, listing of every flavor they've ever sold really encyclopedic? If you're going to hold all of the material to the same strict standard this article will be only about 500 words long.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that all of the involved editors stop edit warring over this. If you can't agree amongst yourselves, and if you choose to ignore input from neutral 3rd-parties, then more formal dispute resolution steps should be taken, such as a content RFC.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite boxes. It was on my list, but my time editing here is limited. The article does need a lot of work. Lentower (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback's suggestions looked reasonable to me given the length of the article and the coverage that had been given to the incident. Therefore, as a compromise, I have tried to reduce the space devoted to the controversy. Please let me know if more shortening is desirable. If Lentower is not satisfied with this and feels that a consensus has not been reached, I support more formal resolution steps as Will suggested. Wwmargera (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The section as written, contains much copyrighted info from the Times of India. Both verbatim quotes. and, it appears, the image (the image page needs to be very clear about copyright status, see the guidelines, the burden is on the poster). Use of copyrighted material is prohibited by WP policy. The Times of India article is also written in a biased manner, i.e. it is not WP:NPOV, so editing here based on it must take care to be WP:NPOV. That care has not been taken. The section still goes against WP:IINFO 4. News reports. I'm removing it again for these and the above reasons. Lentower (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to remove the verbatim quotes. The author who is the original source for the image has given me the permission to use the image here: http://twitter.com/rajeshkalra/status/6897443651. I don't know if the Times of India article, containing the statement from Haagen Dazs in addition to the original complaints against it, can be regarded as being biased. However, even if you find it to be biased, I have taken care to avoid bias in the section. Additionally, as Will pointed out earlier, regarding this as insignificant based on WP:IINFO would also imply the deletion of most of the rest of the article. Moreover, WP:IINFO does not say 'no news events have any place in WP'. In fact, it freely admits that 'News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics'. Routine news reporting does indeed fall under its purview, but I have already clarified above why this is not merely a routine news item. The fact that this is a recent event also does not preclude its inclusion here, because as WP:IINFO points out, 'including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate'. Throughout, the common thread seems to be that an while an event being a news event does not by itself imply being notable enough to be included in WP, people may find certain news items, even recent ones, to be sufficiently non-routine to be included here, in proportion to its importance. I suppose the extent of non-routine nature of the item can best be decided by consensus. Except for you, everyone else here seems to agree that this event deserves some kind of mention on this article, no matter how minor. I have come halfway to meet you by reducing the size of this section. In spite of this, if you insist that this event does not deserve to be covered on this article, then let me know and I will remove 90% of this article that refers to stuff that is clearly less notable than this. Wwmargera (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing the verbatim quotes isn't enough. You're editing is just a paraphase of the article. That violates copyright too. Deletion is necessary. The Times of India article is written in a biased style, and that makes writing good WP content hard. What's needed are more reliable sources, that are not based on the Times of India article. Including some that present other points of view. Using multiple sources when editing might resolve all kind of problems, including WP:NPOV issues. E.g. link to all press releases Häagen-Dazs issued on this event, and use them in editing the section. E.g. add a link to HD India in external links. Make an effort to find them and other independent sources, perhaps at least equal to the amount of time you have spent on this so far. This might help help resolve the WP:NPOV issues. Blogs are not considered reliable sources on WP. If you let them influence your editing, you have to be very careful to not engage in WP:OR. Your paraphase is biased. E.g. you changed director from the sole perhaps-reliable source, to the director. Finding a source that gave his exact title would be better, and link to it. Your efforts to improve this section are no where near halfway. And only are barely beginning to approach WP policies. But another substantial issue remains: Will did not speak to WP:IINFO 4. News reports. WP:IINFO 4. News reports applies to this event and requires this section be deleted. This requires deletion. There has been no effort to get a consensus of WP editors on this. Except for Will, everyone involved in this section to date has very strong and contrary opinions about this. The Licensing box on the Image file is wrong in this case, and the rest of the image copyright guidelines have yet to be followed. That leaves the copyright of the image in doubt. Deletion. I'm undecided about all the lists of products, and the carton resizing. Matters much less to WP, than the section we are discussing here. Though they are factual and unbiased. Lentower (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy. Perhaps this is another policy, you are not aware of. Consensus is not a vote. It's a process to make decisions on what's best for WP, based on WP's policies. The input of editors who use IP addresses, instead of creating and using an account, are given less weight. Partly, because they are usally new to WP, and haven't understood yet what WP is. That WP is very different than what they think it is. New editors, even with accounts, often make this error as well. Another part of this, is that WP has it's own definitions for words that are different than those in common usage. Including encyclopedia and consensus. The WP policies call for deletion of this section. Lentower (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you suggested that adding more sources, including those with other perspectives and those which aren't based on the timesofindia article is desirable to you, I have added such sources. The number of sources here looks slightly excessive and redundant to me, but at least I hope this will allay your concerns here. The blog was not used as a source for what I had written, it had been used as a source for the image. Like I had pointed out earlier, although the image has been reused at various places without any objection from anyone from the Times of India, I had still made sure to explicitly ask for permission from the author who was the original source for the photo: and he gave it to me at a place where you too can verify it. Although it is fairly clear that the Times of India has no objection to the use of this image, if there are some technicalities you want me to take care of please state their nature explicitly and I will be happy to do so. I do not know on what basis you found my paraphrase to be biased, but using 'the director' where only 'director' had been written was an error so I have corrected it here. As I have pointed out earlier, WP:IINFO does not say that nothing based on news reports have a place on WP, but only that we should avoid putting in news-reports that are of a routine nature. I believe that I have already explained at length why this news is not routine. Additionally, the event has not just one news source but multiple ones as you can check now. What's more, multiple news events are involved here, involving not just the original ad that restricted entry of Indians, but also later attempts by Haagen-Dazs to distance itself from the issue, including its apology and its firing the ad agency which had been involved in this advertisement campaign. While it is true that WP is not a democracy, according to our discussion till now the only basis you have for removing this section depends on the subjective judgement of whether or not this combination of news events is equal to just one routine news event. While it may make sense to give less weight to unsigned and new editors, as you yourself admitted that is only to the extent that they do not understand WP policies. However, you have failed to show how we have violated any WP policy. Your interpretation of this controversy as a routine news event is idiosyncratic, to say the least. What is in question here is not whether a policy should or should not exist, rather whether or not this controversy is a routine news event that occurs millions of times each day. You are apparently the only one who thinks it is that routine. If you are eager to give less weight to the various editors who wanted to put it in on the basis that they are new or unregistered editors, you should also give correspondingly more weight to the view of Will, and he felt that some kind of reference to the controversy makes sense. I believe that Will did in fact speak to WP:IINFO, considering that he posted in reply to the post where you brought up this issue. As I pointed out earlier, the policy itself makes it clear that it is not a blanket ban on taking material from news reports, but to quote Will, 'What matters most is the breadth and depth of coverage in secondary sources' - since this is what makes clear to what extent the sequence of news items is routine - and to what extent it is not. Since you have also shown willingness to delete this section along with most of the rest of the article, let me just say that although it would be the only consistent thing to do if this section is removed, I would much rather have this along with the others. Given that the article is for an ice-cream brand, it is rather harmless to have all this information since even with all this the article does not become unduly large and difficult to navigate, and people who actually use WP to gain information about ice-cream brands would enjoy an article having some relatively harmless material over one where we only give a brief overview about it. Wwmargera (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If this argument isn't the saddest thing I've ever seen on the internet, I don't know what is. Jonny4029 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This from an account who is BLOCKED from more editing, with 3 edits. Lentower (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:IINFO 4. News reports applies. Deleting. With the diminishing hope that I might be able to help Wwmargera become a better WP editor: Sources need to be reliable, quality, and represent many POVs. Yours do not qualify. Breath does not mean number, but covering many POVs and bringing all relevant information in. You have yet to follow the copyright requirements WP has on images. This image can not be in the public domain. A twitter link is not sufficient. And all the other hints and suggestions, I've tried to help you and WP with above. 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's try to find some text that will be acceptable to all. To get the ball rolling, here's a proposal:

• According to the Times of India, an ad campaign that appeared to invite only foreigners to come to a newly opened Häagen-Dazs in New Delhi led to complaints before it was taken down.
  • Dasgupta, Reshmi R (17 December 2009). "No Indians allowed; Haagen Dazs says wrong choice of words". Times of India.

How's that?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Len and Wwmargera requested my input.

This is the right way forward, whether or not this is the exact text. Our coverage of the incident should be written to be part of an excellent quality encyclopedic article on the brand. (I know the current article is not excellent quality, but every article edit should strive to move every article toward that goal.) Here, I recommend reading the essay Wikipedia:Recentism, in particular the section "Suggestions for dealing with recentism" for guidance in framing the question. (It would also usefully frame consideration of parts of the rest of the article.)

The content included must be reliably sourced. News articles are more reliable than blogs, even blogs published by the same publisher. Reliable sourcing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for including article content. The news article Will cites for the one liner is a reliable source. Some of the other content that has appeared in the past 48 hours was not sourced at all, and some was sourced to blogs that should not be used where news articles exist.

Getting to the excellent article on the brand that we should have falls in the category of activity known as "hard work". My suspicion is that this incident wouldn't merit inclusion in that article, but I have not done the hard work to write it so I don't know for sure that there should be no content. I am almost certain that the coverage would be on the order of one to two sentences tops. GRBerry 01:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. My input was also requested (which by the way is completely legitimate; no concerns over canvassing here). I think the incident is worthy of inclusion, but having a L1 header section on the incident, especially given the article's small size, dedicates too much space. In the short term I would suggest a short explanation, one or two sentences, with only sources to major newspapers/magazines, not independently published blogs, etc.

For a long term solution, an article like this should have a public relations, or public image section. That section would cover the breadth of that topic, and might include a reference to this incident. Shadowjams (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so a few things:

Firstly, the sources I gave did give many points of view and bring in all points of view. Specifically, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283876#tab=comments&sc=0&contribute=&local= is sympathetic to Haagen-Dazs while http://www.myfoxwausau.com/dpp/news/dpgo-haagen-dazs-in-india-bans-indians-lwf-200912151260920468564 is entirely neutral. http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/haagen-dazs_ad_in_poor_taste_says_delhi.php is from NDTV which is an entirely different source. That article reports MD of General Mills speaking directly to NDTV not Times of India while apologizing for the ad. These links are also clearly quality links that are reliable. Len has claimed that the image cannot be in the public domain, when the originator of the image has himself stated that it can be freely used.

The blog was not used for content, only for the image. Also, I do not know what GRBerry refers to when he says that 'some content was not sourced at all'.

Removing the header and reducing the size to 2 lines or so looks reasonable to me given that we also understand that similarly strict standards can also be used in the rest of the article eventually.

Will's suggestion looks generally reasonable to me. I would modify it a little bit as follows:

* According to the Times of India, an ad campaign that appeared to invite only foreigners to come to a newly opened Häagen-Dazs in New Delhi led to complaints before it was taken down. The company later issued an apology for the campaign that was also covered by other news sources

** Dasgupta, Reshmi R (17 December 2009). "No Indians allowed; Haagen Dazs says wrong choice of words". Times of India.

** Angre, Ketki (17 December 2009). "Haagen-Dazs ad offends Delhi". NDTV. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I also support the long term solution suggested by Shadowjams Wwmargera (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Shadowjams is right about it needing a L2 header in Section 1, if it's included at all. I would propose Ad Campaign Error as the sub-section title.
• I see no need to add the apology sentence at all. It's implied by what Will proposes, and the request for it reflects the biased POV Wwmargera admits to above. Anyone interested, can easily click through to the source. Or do there own web searching.
• I agree the article needs a lot of hard work. The first box on the article saids the box has been there since September 2007. The article may never see the work needed. Adding slightly less weak content to a weak article does not make it better. I wonder if a Harvard Business School (or like) Case Study has been done, etc. My hard work editing interests are elsewhere, though i do what i can to get rid of bad content when I see it anywhere.
• I don't find the Times of India source reliable. It's written in very biased language, with a very definite POV that is to, say it mildly, anti-HD. It makes no clear distinction what parts of HD made the error: the local store, HD India, or the global company, or ???. It implies that HD motivation is "discriminatory", while even journalists of the caliber of those who work for the N Y Times would have trouble determining. It all but asks for it's readers to punish the company. It mixes news, analysis, and opinion in one piece, without being clear, which is which. The level of journalism here is too low for it to be considered a reliable source. Basing WP content on it is questionable, and using it as a sole source, not a service to our readers, who should get high quality sources. Based on this article, it seems to be at the level of the Star or National Enquirer here in the USA. I don't know if that's a fair assessment, as I don't have time to read enough of it over time, to really know. It might also just be the way this writer wries (I can't call the author, Reshmi R Dasgupta, a reporter or a journalist).
• If content of this type with a source of this low caliber was being added to blp article (oh, for Wwmargera: biography of living person), it would be deleted. WP has not yet seen the need to extend the same level of care to corporate persons, but it's prudent to take the same care with them.
• If a high quality non-biased source could be found, I would regretfully allow Will's proposal. Even them, I suspect GRBerry is right, if/when a full article gets written, the Incident in India wouldn't pass muster. As i stated before: this incident, if it happened a 100 years ago, would not be in an article like this. This management error not be included at all.
• I'm typing in an Apple Store in NYC (midway between my home and my brother's home) and have to go catch the next bus for the Christmas holiday. I'll do the best i can to track this, without slighting my family, until I get home. Apologies for any typos, i don't have more time. Lentower (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fine even with no header at all, let alone a L2 header. I don't agree with your assessment of Times Of India - eg. if an article on a murderer used a source which castigated the murderer for committing a murder, it would hardly make sense to call it a biased source. This is because of the universality with which the murder would be seen as a crime. Similarly, here too the event is seen as a mistake by Haagen-Dazs not just by news sources, but even by the company itself. So to call a newspaper biased for calling it a mistake does not make much sense. However, in spite of this, there are other sources which seek to minimize the responsibility of the company in the matter, specifically http://www.myfoxwausau.com/dpp/news/dpgo-haagen-dazs-in-india-bans-indians-lwf-200912151260920468564 and http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283876#tab=comments&sc=0&contribute=&local=. To allay your POV concerns, I am fine with using one of these instead. IF the management error had happened 100 years ago, Haagen-Dazs itself may have ceased to exist by now, long enough ago to not have enough current relevance even to merit its own article. So it is meaningless to talk of whether this event would have been covered in the absence of the article itself. If we talk of shorter durations like 10 years as suggested by WP:recentism, there is no reason to think this should be removedWwmargera (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to give the example for the Japanese telecom firm Emobile which controversially ran an advert of a monkey parodying Obama's "change" campaign. This was viewed as racist and is currently a part of the article of Emobile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMOBILE_Limited . The cases are similar - perhaps no racism was intended - but it did end up being racist. Since I was the one who added the section - I decided to let people exchange views before giving my personal views. Given that we have a precedence - I do not see why this should not be mentioned. TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced flavors

The long list of flavors has been tagged as unsourced since December. A complete list of current flavors is available on the company's website, so there's no reason to duplicate it here. If we had sources, then some text on discontinued, famous, or controversial flavors might be worthwhile. But if there's no further input I'll go ahead and deleted the existing lists.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Map on label

The original label had a map of Scandinavia, presumably to enhance the foreign branding. Despite a reliable source for this fact, various accounts and IPs have deleted it. Is there some reason for the deletions?   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Are they polish americans or german american?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_and_Rose_Mattus In this article they are mentionend as polish americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.158 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

map

there appears to be various omissions on the map - Canada is not shaded along with a few other countries that I'm sure have it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duellist (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Was Haagen Dazs founded in the Bronx or Brooklyn?

In the article it says the Bronx while on the side bar, it says Brooklyn. These are two different places in the vicinity of New York City. So which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpcui (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The company was founded in the Bronx and opened its first retail store in Brooklyn 15 years later. Those are not inconsistent facts. The article does not go into the nature of the business up until the first retail store was opened but I presume it was selling ice cream in some manner, maybe wholesale, maybe as a brand in supermarkets exactly as it does now, just not out of any dedicated retail outlets.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Vector Logo

I uploaded the vector logo but its a bit different from the raster logo already available on the article. The shadow effect does not seem to part of the official corporate logo when you compare it with the ones found markets outside of the U.S. Note that the vector version is the one that appears on the actual product itself. Thought I'd run it by before changing. --Fizan (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)