Talk:Greggs

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Greggs Foundation

No mention of the Greggs Foundation? Johnalexwood (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Colin Gregg

I undid an edit that added material claiming that the son of the Greggs founder was a child sex abuser. I assumed it was vandalism. However, it is a real story and easy to find sources for.

Does it belong on the article, and why? John (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the material that was added is salacious (WP:NOTNEWS) and, as Colin Gregg is neither a director or major shareholder in the company, has nothing to do with this article. Dormskirk (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk The material is also badly written. On first reading it gives the impression he was already disgraced in 1964, when he and his brother took over. Using "later disgraced" instead of "disgraced" solves this problem, but only shines a light in how irrelevant his later crime was regarding the state of the company in the 1960s. ChrisMalme (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "later disgraced" would be better but, in my opinion, the fact that he was "later disgraced" has nothing to do with the company because he is neither a director or major shareholder in the company. Dormskirk (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor removed 'disgraced' from the article stating that he wasn't disgraced when the company was founded in 1964.. but his assaults started in 1963, so please define 'disgraced', does it mean when he was convicted? or when he started abusing children?, please also explain why the word 'disgraced' shouldn't be used in the article?, to me and many reading the article, to hide this from the top of the article only serves to conseal Greggs' damning image and leaves other editors to conclude that there are other editors who are acting dishonestly to help make Greggs look good. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The matter is covered later on in the history section (the article refers to his conviction in March 2017). As now drafted some 25 words out of the first 52 words in the main text i.e. about 50% are about child about child abuse rather than bakery. There are over 20,000 people working for Greggs the vast majority of whom are involved in bakery. We need to have regard for WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. I am content to consider alternatives which do not conceal the matter but also do not give it such headline treatment. Dormskirk (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm the editor who removed the word 'disgraced' (tagging me would have allowed me to find this earlier). As drafted, it was simply inaccurate.

disgraced adjective. /dɪsˈɡreɪst/ /dɪsˈɡreɪst/ ​having lost the respect of people, usually meaning you have also lost a position of power.

It is inaccurate to say that John Gregg handed over control of Greggs to (among others) his "disgraced" son Colin; the conviction was 50 years later, so he was not disgraced when control was handed over. And simply saying 'disgraced' gives no information on what is meant by that - readers shouldn't have to read the references to find out what a word refers to.

I think the conviction should simply be included in the chronology when it happened; but if it's going to be mentioned earlier, it needs to be with enough context to make sense to a reader without them having to read the reference.

(Also, some comments in this thread are perilously close to personal attacks on other editors; please take care.) TSP (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Did Greggs write this article?

The entire article reads like marketing copy. 90.196.143.220 (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I would support the removal of the sections entitled "products" and "discontinued products" on the basis that we all know the sort of products bakeries produce and therefore that material is not notable. Dormskirk (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Their vegan products, especially the sausage roll, have been covered as legitimate news stories; but other than that, I'd agree. The useful content can be merged into other sections. TSP (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have heavily trimmed the products section. Dormskirk (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good in general - I may add a bit more on the chain's embrace of, and success with, vegan products, as I think these have received significant third party coverage. TSP (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack and discussion of it

I think someone is trying to hide Colin Gregg's past to make the article look clean and presentable Hogyncymru (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC) I am not sure what trimming the products section has got to do with Colin Gregg, but personal attacks on other editors are not acceptable. Dormskirk (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC) It's an observation, not a personal attack, which is why I said 'Seems' (definition of seem: [to] give the impression of being something or having a particular quality. "Dawn seemed annoyed"), to remove that Colin was convicted in the synopsis appears to look like the article is trying to avoid it being known as when the average reader looks at a wiki page, they skim it, only reading the first few paragraphs and ignoring the rest, to assume I am making personal attacks threatens the contributions made by fellow editors by threatening them with a block, like TSP did in my own talk page, assume good faith in future please. Hogyncymru (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Following a discussion and hopefully an agreement on Hogyncymru's and my talk page, I'm collapsing (hiding) this now to allow discussion on the content to resume. TSP (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)