Talk:Counterfeit consumer good

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Proposed split

Proposing a split into two articles - counterfeit consumer goods and knockoff. Currently, knockoff redirects to this page even though it has a distinctly different definition from counterfeit, counterfeit being products that infringe on names and trademarks and are sold in unregulated/grey/black markets, versus knockoff which is a product that has strong similarities to another but doesn't copy names and trademarks and can be purchased at mainstream retailers. The two concepts have very different histories (the concept of knockoff clothing, for example, was invented by department stores) and impact different markets. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I'm surprised this hasn't already happened.

Huntertheediter (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

+1 Also in favor and also surprised this hasn't been done yet. Replacem3ntParts (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shivertimbers433, Huntertheediter, and Replacem3ntParts: Which parts of the content of this page would you consider splitting off though?

It seems to me that after the lead paragraph, which clearly differentiates the two terms, knock-off is then used more or less as a synonym of counterfeit throughout.

P. S. There is also Generic brand, which Off brand redirects to, which may be related. Felix QW (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of term knockoff also needs to be addressed in this article. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Support split. Distinct concepts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Food fraud split

The food section should be split out into a separate generic Food fraud article and country/region to refelct notable cases and regulation and food-specific fraud to reflect the types and history, e.g. Food fraud in the United States, Food fraud in Canada, Food fraud in Mexico, Food fraud in China, Meat fraud, Honey fraud, Shrimp fraud, Milk fraud, etc where there is sufficient content for standalone articles. GobsPint (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@GobsPint I understand a split suggestion, but I'm not sure if there's enough in that section to sustain its own article right now. If someone wants to write more that's fine PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)