Talk:H. Forman and Son

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H. Forman and Son. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723163658/http://hackneywick.org/about/ to http://hackneywick.org/about/

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) 03:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed "oldest" claim

Hi.

I removed "oldest" claim.

To be honest, I suspect the article is an WP:ADVERT violation (see summary). Two clicks on Google and these guys, for example claim 1500s.

https://www.ugiesalmon.co.uk

Thanks. --82.132.217.202 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I am intending to nominate for deletion

This article is quite clearly an advertisement for the business.

As far as I can tell, the business does not meet criteria to be notable as per WP:COMPANY

Most of the sources:

a) are interviews with the owner - sources 1, 18;

b) are from non-reputable/non-independent sources, like personal blogs or corporate promotional material - sources 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23;

c) don't mention the business at all - sources 6, 8, 22;

d) mention the business only incidentally - sources 9, 20;

e) are from a spurious "news" site - source 4; or

f) are broken links - sources 7, 17;

Or a combination of the above.

What you are left with is a few mentions in local news which does not seem sufficient to pass WP:COMPANY criteria to me.

Clearly a lot of effort has gone into making this page seem well cited and researched, however ultimately it looks a lot like WP:SPIP. Even with the inclusion of the bad sources, the only marginally notable thing about the business is a legal dispute with the city of London over the 2012 olympics - not the business itself.

TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't agree and so have terminated the proposed deletion as that process must only be used for uncontroversial cases. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you for getting involved. Was there a specific reason why you disagree? Do you disagree with any particular point I raised above? My main concern is that this looks just like WP:BROCHURE to me. Would you disagree with that? I know it's not blatant but how would you say that this article passes the WP:COMPANY tests? As far as I can tell the only thing which could potentially qualify as WP:SIGCOV is the 2012 dispute over the London Olympics, in which case the article should be moved or merged. I welcome your input. Thanks again, TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree but deletion wasn't the right response. Your subsequent edits however are absolutely the correct way to deal this kind of puffery. Mcewan (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting recent change

I have reverted revision 937172816 by Zmkaye (talk). As the article history shows, a previous editor, User:TheSLEEVEmonkey pruned this article to remove excessive brochure material and promotion, cut sections with unreliable sources, and remove non-notable content. This latest change also overwrites recently added material, and overlooks previous discussion of this article's content above. I have also left a note on Zmkaye's user talk page. Paul W (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Paul for your concern in this matter. However, I believe that the current information that is on the H. Forman & Son Wikipedia page is far less relevant to the company than the 100+ years of history that have made the company what it is today. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and factual, yet the current article is politically motivated and biased, and bears no relevance to the company itself. The history of the Forman family is not simply promotional or brochure material. It is the oldest surviving salmon smokehouse in London, an important part of the East End's rich history, and its recent P.G.I. status reflects that its history deserves to be told. Companies of a similar stature list their history on Wikipedia - unsure why H Forman & Son's history should not be told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmkaye (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Zmkaye. There is certainly no reason why the company's history can't be described - so long as it can be reliably sourced (see WP:RS). Yes, company histories are given in numerous articles, but the details are often drawn from a wide range of independent sources - it is not companies "listing their history". The suggestion that the current article is "politically motivated and biased" is a serious one; perhaps you could elaborate on why, and/or suggest additions (with citations) that can rebalance the article? Reverting to a previous version was a particularly destructive way of trying to change the article. (By the way, convention on Talk pages is to indent replies to threads of conversations, and to sign off with four tildes (~).) Paul W (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paul, thanks for this and for explaining everything. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, which probably shows! Sincerest apologies for handling it in the way I did - I can see now how this can be seen as destructive. My suggestions of bias in the article refer to the fact that the majority of the article relates to 'Public Relations'. It only seems to highlight areas where the company has come under criticism during the last couple of years, presumably as a response to the owner's links to the Brexit party. When I read about a business on Wikipedia, information about how it was set up and developed over time seems both more interesting and more relevant to me. Personally, I think that the 'clean up' which took place last year was quite clearly performed by someone who has a strong dislike for the company, which has left the page very imbalanced. They removed all of the company history, and the sources for all of these citations were, as far as I am aware, from newspapers - yet they deemed them unreliable as they are based on interviews. I agree that the article should be rebalanced - perhaps looking at the bulk of information that was deleted all in one go (deemed promotional/ brochure material when it is really just 100+ years of history) and adding some of that back would be a good place to start? Zmkaye (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I performed the clean up because the article was a blatant case of WP:PROMOTION. If you have a specific issue with any of my judgement calls, please let me know. But before deciding to blanket remove other editors' work, you should familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works, in particular: WP:NOT, WP:PUFFERY and WP:RELIABLE. Puffery pieces and transcripts of promotional interviews with the owner of the business shouldn't be considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. Finally, be sure to thoroughly review WP:GOODFAITH before you make accusations and assume the motives of other editors. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zmkaye and TheSLEEVEmonkey. Zmkaye, please be cautious about inferring motivations behind other people's edits. While the impacts of those edits may appear to adversely affect the complexion of an article, this may simply reflect how that subject is covered in reliable sources rather than in PR and puff pieces. Wikipedia's core content policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV is also clear: editors should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We should be incrementally seeking to improve the article, trying to build a consensus WP:CON on what is significant and where it has been reliably described. Paul W (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paul, apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I wanted to find some sources that I hoped you would agree are appropriate before making any further edits. I have been reading a book called "'Thank you for your business' - The Jewish Contribution to the British Economy" by Taylor, Derek (2013). In it there is some fascinating insight into the origins of H. Forman & Son, describing how Aaron Forman came from Odessa and set it up in the East End; how Marcel Forman survived a PoW camp in Siberia before coming to London on the Kindertransport; how other curers were forced out of business due to lowering of prices and standards and the introduction of supermarket smoked salmon, yet Forman's remained by continuing to use traditional methods. It also notes that Forman's is now the oldest standing, original "curer" of smoked salmon - quite different to the oldest "smoker" claim, as it explains the difference between the London Cure, and the Scottish style of smoking, which leaves a much more powerful smokey flavour. I hope you will agree that this is not puffery, but rather history, as the company was a key part of the East End's once vibrant Jewish community, and one of the last remaining early 20th century businesses in the East End (the company is also referenced in "Jewish Eastenders" by Shapiro, Aumie & Michael (1992)). Would you be happy for me to add a history section on the page, on the basis of the above? Thanks. Zmkaye (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Books are normally OK to cite (so long as they are not self-published - WP:SELFPUB). Keep it factual, avoid using long extracts, and cite your sources (maybe use the template {{cite book}}). Paul W (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)