Talk:Harrods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've edited the following to arrive at a more NPOV [problematic material bolded], also removed some repetition:
BEFORE
Fur Harrods has however recently tarnished its reputation by starting to sell fur. In the late eighties, Harrods stopped selling fur claiming it wanted to make its store greener [this needs a reference - seems to be putting words in mouth of Harrods] , however fur has crept back into its stores, and currently, Harrods is now the only department store selling fur in the UK. Now the Knightsbridge store has regular anti-fur demonstrations against it. It is seeking an injunction against the activists, and as of writing this article, has managed to obtain a temporary injunction allowing only 3 activists within ten metres of the entrances of the store at a time. This explains the yellow chalk line bordering Harrods. The anti - fur activists are urging consumers to boycott Harrods until the store finally stops selling fur.
AFTER
In the late eighties, Harrods stopped selling fur. Recently it has resumed sale of fur, and currently, Harrods is now the only department store selling fur in the UK. The Knightsbridge store is the subject of regular anti-fur demonstrations. It is seeking an injunction against the activists, and as of writing this article, has obtained a temporary injunction allowing only 3 activists within ten metres of the entrances of the store at a time. This explains the yellow chalk line bordering Harrods. The anti - fur activists are urging consumers to boycott Harrods until the store stops selling fur.
Mark Nesbitt 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of confusion about exactly how many were killed by the IRA bomb. Different sources list 5, 6 or 9 dead.
Articles/webpages that say 5 dead
- Terrorist incidents
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/68779.stm
- http://www.britains-smallwars.com/ni/Principal-events.html
Articles/webpages that say 6 dead
- http://members.hometown.aol.com/ftr2k/ftr-041398.html
- http://old.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world11.html
- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4681007,00.html
- http://www.emergency-management.net/bombings.htm
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4340541,00.html
The follow says 9 dead in one part and 6 dead in the "in context box".
The following says 9 in one part and 5 dead in another part
I believe that 5 or 6 is the correct number. The weight of arictles seems to go with 6 so that is what I'm sticking with.
---
Maybe it would be better if we mention that different sources say different things?
Six appears to be the correct number. Three police officers died and many sites give their names and state that the total was six. The BBC [1] page seems to be surprisingly muddled, and it must be wrong because it says four police officers died. Mintguy 08:40 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I've emailed them to get them to correct it.Mintguy 08:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
- Which they've now done. Except there's now a discrepency with the number of injured, so I've emailed them again. Mintguy 14:41 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Reply from the BBC....
Thank you for your email to On This Day.
I have noted your comments and can confirm the final number killed by the Harrods bomb was six. The sixth victim did not die until Christmas Eve of that year which probably explains the discrepancy between the two casualty figures. I will pass on this information to the section which maintains the Northern Ireland timeline.
The reason there is still a discrepancy in the two figures for the numbers of injured in the On This Day report is because the casualty toll given in the story was based on information available at the time of the incident. All our reports are written as if the news had just broken and the context information is meant to provide any follow-up that is required. The final casualty toll will have been gathered possibly a day or two after the incident when all the injured had been officially accounted for.
Thank you once again for your interest in the site.
Regards On This Day BBC News Interactive
- Mintguy 10:31 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Harrods in Buenos Aires
Does anyone know about the former Harrods branch in Buenos Aires that split off on its own some time ago? The physical building still exists with signs, although it is now empty. The guidebooks say it was formerly part of the UK Harrods.
This should be of some help. [2] 80.42.156.208
[edit] Cleanup
Policy WP:CU states that any editor tagging or listing an article for cleanup must:
- Explain what needs to be done in a brief but specific manner in the article's talk page.
Apparantly this article has been so tagged since July, yet there is no sign of an explanation on this talk page. I can see nothing obvious about the article that deserves tagging, so I am removing the cleanup tag. -- Chris j wood 19:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Lol you've got to be kidding. The history section is subdivided into sections, but each section header just appears as a normal sentence. If you actually read the article, this will become clear.
[edit] Copyvio
- The "History" section is actually a total copyvio from Harrods' own website and has been removed rather than placed on cleanup. A new history section will need to be written. --Vamp:Willow 11:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warrants
I added this section on its own, but I am not sure whether it should be included under the Mohammad Al-Fayed title, or in its own right. I'd like to know what the watchers of this page think. Also, I believe the warrants are part of the Harrods "history" but as they no longer exist, should they appear on a wiki page? Again, i'd like to hear some thoughts. --Schgooda 16:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- All part of the history of Harrods so seems good to me. Glad the Imperial Mark has gone as that seems to be more-or-less meaningless.Mark Nesbitt 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Street Fighter
There is no station on the London Underground called "Piccadilly Station". There is Piccadilly Circus, although since that is over a mile from Harrods it seems strange that it would apear in the game. Should it be Knightsbridge station, or is the game designers' London geography not up to much? 81.19.57.146
[edit] Catering
From the "Compact Oxford English Dictionary": cater • verb, chiefly Brit. 1 (cater for) provide food and drink at (a social event). 2 (cater for/to) provide with what is needed or required. 3 (cater for) take into account. 4 (cater to) satisfy (a need or demand). Clearly, the fourth sense is the most appropriate. Therefore, "cater to" rather than "cater for" applies here. Also, "cater for" is almost unknown in American English except in the first sense of the definition, which is inappropriate in the Harrods context. Harrods is not a "caterer", a party-maker; it is a department store. PeterHuntington 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
