Talk:The Co-operative Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeThe Co-operative Group was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 6, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Somerfield + The co-operative Merge =[edit]

since somerfield was took over by the co-operative i think we should merge the 2 together this is happening to all somerfield shops they are being rebranded co-operative food and i think this sould happen on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.50.216 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page renamed, merge suggestion[edit]

Wrt proposed merge [of Co-op (supermarket)][edit]

The "Co-Op" brand is used all over Europe, while the "Co-operative Group" is UK only. I do not support a merge. Instead, "Co-Op" should be developed, or possibly merged with other articles about cooperative businesses. -- Egil 17:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree above comments; furthermore within the UK, the Co-operative Group is just one of several societies who use the brand and share products and marketing. Don't merge Mtiedemann 09:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the distinction between the Co-operative Group as an individual society and the wider Co-operative movement is an important one. It is often mistakenly thought of as a single "Co-op" company when it is in fact made up of many constituent societies. Don't merge --R.carroll 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Op is not just one brand but many individual brands, in UK, Europe, Japan, etc., each of which has its own distinct take on the cooperative model. The Co-op (supermarket) article in its current form describes the UK brand, and largely duplicates the content here. Note that the Co-op disambiguation for it reads: A supermarket chain in the United Kingdom. In fact it was written to describe that group, until recently some contributors added information about other chains using the same name. The term co-op is also used generically to refer to food stores that do not use it as a brand, which is not mentioned in the article at all. If the UK Co-op deserves its own article apart from this one, it should have a less ambiguous title, perhaps Co-op (UK supermarket).

Perhaps an argument could be made for developing an article on Co-op (brand). Given that they represent many distinct groups operating independent of international corporate oversight, it is evident their common point is their cooperative principles. But in my opinion, that information would seem to fit better in Cooperative. Dforest 17:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Co-operative Travel Logo.gif[edit]

Image:Co-operative Travel Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Co-operative Pharmacy Logo.gif[edit]

Image:Co-operative Pharmacy Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Co-operative Funeralcare Logo.gif[edit]

Image:Co-operative Funeralcare Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo coop corporate.png[edit]

Image:Logo coop corporate.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo coop corporate.png[edit]

Image:Logo coop corporate.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Membership.jpg[edit]

Image:Membership.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-op Template / Nav box[edit]

Looking at this and the fact that there are several Co-op groups in the UK would a Template / Navbox like the supermarket's be an idea to tie them all together, and better highlight the numerous separate entities and subsidiaries/trading groups that there are ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.
  1. What should we call the template?
  2. Should we include new consumer co-operatives, like The Phone Co-op?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of proposals:

Firstly, just the group, its businesses and corporate members,

Proposal A

Alternatively, a list all consumer co-operatives that have articles, but no subsidiaries, brands or trading groups, along the lines of {{UK Building Societies}}:

Proposal B

I suggest that adding other parts and spin-offs of the consumer co-operative movement, like the Party, the Woodcraft Folk, and the Nationwide Building Society, though potentially useful, would cause clutter and confusion.

I haven't thought about colours yet.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first one more. The organisation of it and wider scope makes it, in my opinion, more useful. However, to place this first option on the pages of other independent consumer Co-ops' articles would appear as if they are part of the Co-operative Group. As if a 'Corporate member' were in some form a constituent of the group. While I and the majority of people reading this talk page are quite aware that this is not at all the case, there's an undeniable cause for confusion. For this reason, I feel it would be unfair to use this box.
One work-around could be to place the second option on all consumer co-op articles (including TCG) and have the first option on TCG-orientated articles with perhaps only this article showing both boxes. However, when it comes to articles like The Co-operative (brand), which would take precedent?
Richard ( T | C ) 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick work Hrothulf. Yes as Richard says the first is suited to the Co-operative group articles exclusively, and then the 2nd one on all consumer co-ops (probably with just the Co-operative group listed in it, not the members of the co-op group as they are in the 1st one (Co-operative Group list) other wise as said confusing. (as lists going to be quite big for each) splitting them into groupings helps give a hierarchy as well. As for colour is there a WP policy on template stylle ? as there is some horrible ones about were the text becomes un readable, but differing shades would help differentiate the two, as some article will have a UK retail companies or supermarkets one already, or maybe uniformities a better idea. --BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You both have convinced me that 2 templates are better than one. Richard is right: it is not reasonable to communicate the movement's concept of a "independent corporate customer member" in a template, so I think we should duck that issue, and list the corporate members in the second template.

(The Phone Co-op is the only independent consumer co-op I can think of that has a Wikipedia article, and is not a corporate member of the Group. New food co-ops, village shops and student unions shop may not be Group members, but only 1 or 2 of those will have Wikipedia articles any time soon. When they do, they too could go in the 2nd template.)

So:

Proposal C

I admit that this is not terribly helpful for independent co-operatives that use the group's brands, the trading groups or the membership scheme, who won't get the Group navbox. Perhaps the best thing there is to link those articles clearly in the body of the article, and not concern ourselves with overcomplicating navigation boxes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of other consumers' co-ops, the Wine Society definitely is and I'd suggest the Co-operative Press, the People's Press and Baywind all spring to mind (there are admittedly problems with defining them as such though).
Shared Interest is probably not a CC - it's a financial mutual set up as a co-op, which is unusual, plus the members are lenders, rather than consumers, unless members 'consume' the personal satisfaction of assisting microcredit and Fairtrade. Wortley Hall has both individual and organisational members, probably also too nitpicky to include it.
I'd suggest a link to the article Supporters' trust, as an allied IPS category, rather than list those which have articles. Not sure about credit unions though. And maybe a redlink to Benenden Healthcare which deserves an article. Great work by the way. Martín (saying/doing) 17:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I don't fully understand the classification of all of Martin's suggestions. However I have posted first drafts of Proposal C templates to this article:
Please go ahead and add finishing touches, and add them to the listed articles.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the templates on their listed articles. I have no talent for visual design, so if you could tweak the colours or layouts, that would be great. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that there is a distinction between societies which co-operate with the Group and those that are part of the Group. For example, Midcounties is a completely independent company from the Group, but participates in a unified brand and membership reward scheme. So do we list them as part of the Group (when they're not) or leave them out of any discussions about the Group as a brand (which would be terribly misleading)? 82.69.37.32 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of corporate members[edit]

Does anyone have a list of all the independent societies that are corporate members of the Group? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some more research I added Grosmont and Hawkshead (see the refs I added to the article.) I received a message expressing doubts about their continued existence as independent societies. Here are my thoughts:

  • Grosmont - there is lots of information on the web that says that Grosmont Co-op has (had?) a grocery store. At least one semi-official database misspelt it as Grosmount. Try 'Grosmont Co-operative Society Ltd' at yell.com :

[1] Also, http://www.uk.coop/OrganisationDisplayDetails.aspx?OrgID=C0C2F61A-6F2A-4ACF-AD6F-2628838BE94C

  • Hawkshead - Lets do some more research.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for more information, initially on Grosmont. I've had tremendous difficulty in finding any reliable information on it at all! That trusty of sources, The Co-operative News, has no articles containing 'Grosmont'. Given this fact, it leads me to believe that the Society is still in existence as I'm sure its demise or merger would have been reported.
With this further information, and that given by User:Hroðulf in the first place, I can see no reason why it should not be seen as a current co-operative.
Richard ( T | C ) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former Group companies[edit]

The Co-op used to have a Shop fitting business / works in Nottingham that they sold off IIRC. But I dont know which part of the Co-op they used to belonged to. BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might be the Greater Nottingham Co-operative Society. No Wikipedia article yet.
  • Some info at this forum: http://nottstalgia.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6733
  • It merged with the Group some years ago.
  • Your best bet might be local reference libraries and local archives.
  • The National Co-operative Archive [2] might be able to help, but my online search only revealed seven records, all from 1957:
http://archiveshub.ac.uk/search/search.html?rsid=1109536942&filter=vdb.identifier%20exact+%22http%3A%2F%2F130.88.26.171%3A8081%2Fservices%2Fvspokes%2Fcoop%22
  • The National Archives in Kew might also help [3].
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

I think it is incorrect to say that loyalty card applicants were not required to obtain society membership, but I don't have any documentary evidence either way. It is possible that the details of regional pilot programmes differed from the final implementation. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dividend Card application form had a box stating "If you wish to become a member, tick here" at the very bottom of the form (and written quite small). Customers could have a card without being a member. I'll have a look for an old form but it's doubtful there's any about.
Richard ( T | C ) 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot. Thanks. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old Community Dividend leaflet (I don't know why it's still on the website):
If you like the way we do things, why not become a member to show your support? It’s easy to join: Log on to www.co-op.co.uk and download a membership application form or pick up a Dividend Card leaflet or the ‘Make the Most of It’ leaflet from your food store. Alternatively,call 0845 601 0160. If you’ve already got a food Dividend card but aren’t a member, call 0845 090 1456 and have your Dividend card to hand. It only costs £1 to join!
http://www.pdf.co-operative.co.uk/pdfs/communitydividend.pdf
Richard ( T | C ) 23:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ho, ho. Clearly, I misread the small print (might not be the first time) and thought you were required to tick the 'join' box if you weren't already a CWS member. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Known as "Co-op"[edit]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this group being confused with the supermarkets, the group and the supermarkets are known throughout the UK as "The Co-op", with no distinction being made (that's what "confused" means). Noted in the article summary, because that's where we declare names.--Rfsmit (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beer[edit]

I remember that, up until the 1980s, they used to produce their own packaged beers and lagers for the supermarkets, with a dedicated brewery in Manchester. Anyone have information about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelGG (talk • contribs) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1980s, the CWS manufacturing business was named F.E. Barber Ltd, and then (in 1994) sold to Hobson plc. It sounds like the brewery was included in the sale. These links might be a good place to kick off some research in libraries - one has 'The Winery' in its address!
I look forward to reading what you discover.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"New Century House" picture[edit]

New Century House, Manchester, head office of the Co-operative Group.

This picture, which currently is placed on The Co-operative Group article is not New Century House. In reality this building is the Hanover Building, one of the various buildings owned by the Co-operative.[4] New Century House is a building not unlike CIS Tower, and was built in 1962.[5] Furthermore, I assumed CIS Tower is head offices, as it has 54,000 sq/m of space,[6] compared to New Century House's 15,000 sq/m.

NCH is the Group HQ. CIS Tower is the Banking Group (formerly Financial Services) HQ.

But you're right, that picture isn't of NCH!

194.75.171.106 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest expansion and new sections[edit]

I suggest expanding this article and its child pages:

- new child page 'history of the co-operative group' with more detailed historical information of organisation. This should also include details of the Co-op's new Head Office, currently being built in Manchester. - new child page 'marketing and branding' with examples of how the group has represented itself through media over time (different brands, slogans etc.) - All business areas (food, travel, pharmacy etc.) have a link to a child page with more statistics (e.g. number of stores/ branches, distribution networks, product ranges, services provided etc) as well as some images of stores/branches. - co-operative practices section should detail membership structure - explain how the business is governed - Awards section should be expanded to include more awards: organised by year.

Please feel free to contribute to this idea - if you think of anything else that should be added let me know. Aliciawalker33 (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, let's keep expanding, and we can break sections out into child articles when they get too large. (There is an guideline at WP:SUMMARY)
All your suggestions for expansions are good (in my opinion), except perhaps for awards. Few awards are genuinely encyclopedic, with exception perhaps for the Queen's Awards.
Regarding branding, have you seen the article at The Co-operative brand? I think that the encyclopedia has a story yet to tell about 99 Tea, and about CWS brands prior to 1968. Since the first cloverleaf, the movement has adopted common branding and some shared slogans etc, so I don't think an encyclopedia readership would find relevance in a dissection of particular marketing efforts of CWS/Group after 1968.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect[edit]

So why direct Somerfield to the co-operative? If I want to find out about the Co-Op I will look for them, If I want the history of somerfield it now doesn't exist. If Tescos takes over M&S you will overwrite the history of M&S will you? The co-op page still contains a link to Somerfield which is now a circular reference back to the co-op. Whover did this is an editorial menace.

I fixed Somerfield . --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Co-operative Group. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with VG (shop)[edit]

No references and notability here - easily a reason to proceed with the merger. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on The Co-operative Group. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Co-operative Group. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name changes?[edit]

Now the Co-op has gone back to its old public name, should we rename all the articles except the bank to "Co-op ..."? Arguably, the common names for all have been Co-op anyway. Cloudbound (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on The Co-operative Group. 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, 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: 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) 23:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Co-operative Group. 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, 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: 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) 21:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi,

I note the banner about paid editing. Besides a disagreement about the foundation date, I cannot see any edits Brandteam made that imply they may have had a conflict of interest. More to the point, there last edit was in late 2011, since when the article has been completely rewritten.

I find the idea that Malcomburetta is a paid editor equally implausible. For instance this edit removes the statement that co-op is "producing environmentally friendly household products" - unlikely behaviour for a supposed paid editor.

His other edits also cast doubt on this. While they largely focus on the co-operative group and tax evasion by other supermarkets they also include seemingly unrelated charities and organisations such as this one to an arts venue.

He certainly has a passion for the co-operative movement, but that does not provide evidence for him being a paid editor (by that metric, I too would be under suspicion of being a paid editor).

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 08:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first link above is wrong. It should link to here. Besides that the point stands. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. But I still think it's obvious that there are people within Co-op that are editing the article with bias. Example:Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:2EBF:C701:CBB:DE8C:77D7:4FD9, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:9445:F001:CD83:3406:F185:40AE Mistyhands (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Co-operative_Group&oldid=1217630468"