Talk:Sophie the Giraffe

Oeko-Test allegations

Copied from the article:

The November 2011 issue of German consumer magazine "Oeko-Test" reported that Sophie the Giraffe was not marketable and should not be commercialized in Germany due to an alleged violation of statutory limit values for nitrosatable substances. This report proved to be wrong, and as a consequence the District Court in Berlin issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the report. As a result, the report was removed from Oeko-Test’s online edition. In a press release, the manufacturer Vulli referred to test results of other institutes that proved compliance with all limit values.

Oeko-Test is a controversial source within Germany, and has been frequently accused of sensationalism in order to scoop their competition. The claim that the magazine makes has not been supported by any other source, and on it's surface the accusation is not particularly credible. Why all of a sudden, after all these years, has this supposed toxic threat been discovered? Why has nobody else noticed? Without better independent sources, it should be removed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this part should not be removed, it is properly sourced and very significant. I do not know where you get your information regarding Öko-Tests reputation, it is one of Germany's most respected consumer report (second only to Stiftung Warentest). I am not aware of any cases the the lab results of their tests turned out to be incorrect. Please do not remove other people's contributions (wasn't me, btw) on such shaky arguments. 84.114.231.126 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There are three sufficient reasons to remove this. First, it is not well sourced. The link http://www.oekotest.de/cgi/index.cgi?artnr=11129;gartnr=90;bernr=07;co= goes nowhere because the magazine withdrew their claim. There is no web archive of the story. So there is nothing to verify the accusation. A judge ruled the claim to be false and it was withdrawn. That alone is a good enough reason to delete the paragraph. Second, even if Öko-Test had stood by their original theory, it would still be a fringe theory: a single sourced story that flies in the face of commons sense, and is rejected by the vast majority of authorities. As per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, we summarize significant opinions, not fringe theories. If others agreed with Öko-Test, it might be worth mentioning, but that is not in this case. That, again, would be sufficient reason to delete. Third, if there is a significant story here, the story is about Öko-Test, not about Sophie the Giraffe. The story is how Öko-Test once again made an outrageous claim and got called out and slapped down. So if en.Wikipedia were to create an article Öko-Test, then it would make sense to mention this. Of course, there would need to be third party coverage to show this is significant. As far as Sophie the Giraffe is concerned, there is nothing of any importance to tell the readers. And that third reason is also sufficient to delete. If you can turn up a reliable sources saying sales of Sophie the Giraffe were affected by this episode, then it might be worth mentioning. I recommend you write Öko-Test for English Wikipedia, or just translate de:Öko-Test

Surely you in Austria familiar with de:Öko-Test, which has several well-cited examples of the controversy surrounding that magazine and their reckless attempts to steal the spotlight from Stiftung Warentest. This sad episode is yet another example. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All three points are nonsense: First The claim is NOT removed, the article has been modified to mention the ongoing lawsuit and moved to the URL http://www.oekotest.de/cgi/index.cgi?artnr=11137;gartnr=90;bernr=07;co=;suche=sophie . It still contains the claim "Aber leider lösten sich im Labor erhebliche Mengen nitrosierbarer Stoffe aus dem Gummi. Aus nitrosierbaren Stoffen können sich im Körper krebserregende Nitrosamine bilden. Sie können bei der Herstellung von Kautschukprodukten entstehen, sind aber technisch vermeidbar. Ein weiteres Problem: Das Gummi enthält erhöhte Gehalte der krebsverdächtigen Verbindung Naphthalin.". Second WTF ist the opinon of 'vast majority of authorities' and 'common sense'? Which 'authority' stated that Sophie does not contain nitrosamines or naphtalin? Do you have any sources (apart, of course, the producing company?) Third did you even read the articel de:Öko-Test? As I said, it is the second most important consumer report, has published thousends of tests, and of course some will be controversial. It is about as ridiculous as to forbid Consumer Reports as source because its wikipedia entry has a 'Controversy' section. (Btw, I personally have no idea whether the claims are true or not; I have no idea whether there is any real threat if true etc etc; but it seems clear to me that the claim are relevant and should be included; together of course with the response of the company) 84.114.231.126 (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion would be for you to take a look at your options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Or create an English Wikipedia version of de:Öko-Test, and discuss the topic at length in that article. The second option is uncontroversial and so would let you get closer to your goal immediately, while you are waiting for other editors to reach a consensus regarding the dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The German Distric Court followed ÖKO-TESTS interpretation of the applicable limits (the amount of nitrosamine found was actually not disputed by the producer) and removed the preliminary injunction. So I restored (an updated version of) the claim. Brontosaurus (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Brontosaurus (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sophie the Giraffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121017073422/http://www.oekotest.de/cgi/index.cgi?artnr=11331;gartnr=90;bernr=07;co= to http://oekotest.de/cgi/index.cgi?artnr=11331;gartnr=90;bernr=07;co=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)