Talk:Zomato/Archives/2019

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2019

• The actual controversy was when a customer cancelled order as the delivery executive was not from his own religion to which Zomato responded. This actual information is totally missing from the article. So, please replace the following sentence at the end of the Controversy section:

In July 2019, Zomato faced severe criticism on social media for using halal tag on food items despite claiming on Twitter that "food has no religion".

with this:

In July 2019, Zomato refused to resolve a Hindu customer's complaint about being assigned a non-Hindu delivery executive for his food order by saying "Food doesn't have a religion. It is a religion," as a twitter response. It faced praises on social media including support from Uber Eats. However, some criticized it on social media for using Jain food and halal tags on food items to which the company issued a clarification. Soon after this incident, the customer who complained against Zomato, deleted his tweet. He has been issued a notice for his hate tweets from Superintendent of Police of Jabalpur. 12.189.124.50 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done with some copy edits. Thanks for giving formatted refs for everything. DBigXrayᗙ 13:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems I have inadvertently replied to a request of adding content that was the subject of edit war. User:Dlohcierekim has locked the page. I would like to state that I am familiar with this event and This content seems more balanced than the one sided POV one liner that was in the article before. If anyone has any objections to this content, they should come up with a better version to be added to the article. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Thanks for trying. This page is a hot mess. I have no preference, of course. I only protected to stop the edit war so thing could find consensus. Hopefully . . . .-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

subsection heading Food has no religion Tweet

Tamravidhir, Here is the quote that shows the header is neither vague nor Original research.

Quote: Protesters admitting that the strike is part of the retaliation against Zomato’s “food has no religion” tweet https://www.thequint.com/news/politics/bjp-links-zomato-delivery-executives-protest-against-beef-pork-west-bengal --DBigXrayᗙ 06:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Thank you, DBig for bringing it to my notice. I have noted multiple issues with the page and hence tagged it right now. A clarification I am in need is that, the Log Out Campaign is in response to the "food has no religion" tweet? --Tamravidhir (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tamravidhir, the logout campaign may or may not be a part of tweet fracas. I have not seen any source claiming the same. I think the section is chronological and hence it is creating this confusion. perhaps it needs a section header to diffrentiate it. Do you have a better plan to solve it ? --DBigXrayᗙ 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Responding at User_talk:Harshil169#August_2019_2. --Tamravidhir (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Just take some time to read articles related to log out campaign. They are happening due to successive discounts and Zomato gold.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added a subsection Logout campaign to diffrentiate from tweet fracas. hope it helps regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems good. Lastly, I have tagged the page with certain issues that need to be looked into. If you wish to develop the page please look into the same. It requires rewriting at some points of the main headers, a rewriting of the lead to summarise all issues covered in the article per WP:LEAD, and addition of references and explanations at some point: @User:DBigXray and @User:Harshil169. --Tamravidhir (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversy section

The following content needs to be properly written with reliable source. And following WP:NPOV. I think these are minor issues and dont deserve to be added into the article, but I am open for thoughts. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In November 2017, Zomato apologised after an “MC BC” ad went viral. There were mixed reactions regarding this ad on social media and some found it very offensive due to which Zomato had to take the advertisement down immediately. It is said that it was one of their marketing strategies and though they pulled down the hoarding, it created a buzz that the brand needed.

In January 2019, more than 500 small to medium-sized restaurants filed an online petition to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Prime Minister's Office, alleging that online food delivery companies such as Swiggy, Zomato, Uber Eats and FoodPanda were misusing their dominant market position. The consortium of restaurants cited that the use of deep discounting, in-house kitchens and internal sourcing of orders were wiping out small restaurants. Unlike in Indian retail, FDI norms do not apply to the restaurant or food service aggregators.

References

@DBigXray: I wouldn't say that the CCI petition is a minor issue. It should ideally be covered. However, with a copy-edit. The "MC BC" para is vague. As a reader I don't even know what the MC BC ad is about or why people found it offensive. For these to be there in article there need to be proper citations and proper elucidation, justifying their inclusion in the article and their relevance to the topic. They should ideally not be deleted but re-written. "Deserving of being in article" is again quite subjective. --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Tamravidhir, Yes, In first glance CCI issue looks notable. Lets find out more sources covering it and conclusion if any. I dont really trust TimesNow, much, they are known to run noise and propaganda. My plan is to restore them back after discussion and improvement on the talk page. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I would suggest the Hindu, the Wire, Hindustan Times, and News18 for notable sources. I may not be able to be involved actively but can certainly keep checks and review. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph has nothing to do with Zomato. It discusses legal proceedings against a customer. As it stands, this controversy section seems to be bigger than the History section. I only tried to help by placing those tags. Peace. 2409:4071:2185:BBEA:DB3:2362:9E62:BCE9 (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant. The man did something illlegal and mischieveously created a controversy. It is important to give complete information on the legal action taken on him. Lets take an analogy of murder. If the subject of an article gets murdered, the article does include information on the punishment given to the murderer. People would like to know what happened after the incident, if no police action was taken we should have mentioned that as well. Luckily the police too suo moto action and hence it is updated. I am removing your tag accordingly. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It is important to be concise without going overboard with unnecessary details. I absolutely loved how you invoked WP:CSECTION at Talk:Chowkidar Chor Hai before contradicting it here by saying that is only an essay. Whatever man. I don't want to waste my time arguing with you anymore. 2405:204:5229:7338:9B76:F13A:763A:28BD (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Why some controversies are removed from the page?

Hi! @DBigXray: @Tamravidhir:, I can notice that some controversies are removed from the controversy section such as their delivery boy eating food from customer’s order, their abusive advertisements which was taken down in the article? They were present in the article till Sunday and suddenly, they’re not appearing in the article as of now. Can they be added in article? Here are references for first one: 1, 2, 3

For second one, here is the coverage in RS: 1, 2. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I haven't kept a check on the edits for past few days, and I am not sure if there was a consensus to remove those entries. Regarding the MC-BC ad, we discussed it somewhere above on this talk page. Concerning if it is abusive or not is again seemingly POV. But I have personally not been aware of a consensus to remove them. --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That trivial incident on boy eating food, was rightly removed from the article by another editor. And I completely support its removal. Please join the discussion above for others. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray and Tamravidhir: Last time, I had cited only two sources for the claim and editors thought it was just trivial mention. But no, it received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and thus, it deserves mention here. It was major controversy that people became aware that delivery boys eat their food and later sealed it in packet too. Company issued apology letter and later changed strategy to delivery too for this act. Here are sources:- [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Kindly, explain why you think that it has just trivial mentions? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn’t any type of WP:COI working in this article? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it is trivial WP:NOTNEWS incident. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Just clarifying that it’s not trivial and not news. Here’re points, refute them:

1. Zomato faced backlash on Twitter after incident and they’ve to fire the person.
2. Zomato has changed their whole strategy to deliver foods so that these type of incidents don’t happen.
3. The chapter lasted for more than 1 month and even after month, some people trolled Zomato over their tweets. See this

If consensus is not reached then it may be better to raise issue at Noticeboard and seek third opinion. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, pinging @DBigXray and Tamravidhir: to know what exactly problem they have. This is not trivial mention but major issue.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

One man stole food, video of the act leaked, he was fired. No Twitter dramas dont count. This is as trivial as it can be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which covers WP:LASTING incidents and not a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. There is a reason why we still dont have an article on Taimur Ali Khan. It is common to see new editors stressing more on WP:RECENTISM but over time you will be able to differentiate the wheat from the chaff. A thumb rule that you can appliy to gauge the importance of the incident is will someone want to read about it in a para or an article of its own 10-20 years down the line. This should help you. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

But this is not recentism. Zomato has to introduce tamper proof tap to avoid this type of incidents means their whole strategy after it. See it here.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It is you who believes that it was "a whole strategy chnaged". IMHO they simply added a minor safeguard measure to avoid such incidents. A major strategy change would have been to hire a Zomato Police to follow and catch the delivery agents who were eating the food. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Let’s seek third opinion on this issue. Useless to argue here. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Nizil Shah for dispute resolution. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The boy eating food incident is indeed trivial and does not have any lasting encyclopedic value. Everything covered in media does not count as important even if there is a wide coverage. Such small incidents (small in context of incident, not in context of twitter noise or media coverage) happen all the time. I support removal of the incident from the article. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)