Talk:Nike, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
[edit] I Moved
I moved the human rights / ethical criticisms at the top, above the history, I think Wikipedia users will find no objection to human rights issues being displayed at the forefront of the article, particularly when considering it does not hinder it's following history section, the criticism is short and concise. --VirianFlux 9:13, 7 April 2005 (GMT) (logged on anonymously)
Apparently the consensus in here is that ethical criticisms should NOT go at the top of the article, I'm okay with that if that IS the consensus, now for the other issues that need resolving. We have a Nike employee editing the wikipedia? Oh dear! As I understand it, this goes against Wikipedia's rules. Recently in the news was Jimmy Wales, editing his entry, perhaps news sources would like to also know that a Nike employee has edited the Nike entry? Perhaps people would like to know that the 'Corporate Equality Index rating' had been put in above the sweatshop / factory worker conditions section, probably with intent to detract from it?
From the BBC's article, dated 13 April, 2005, on Nike's factories: "Although 60% of factories monitored achieved an A or B rating in terms of compliance with agreed standards, a quarter of factories were found to present more serious problems. These ranged from a lack of basic terms of employment and excessive hours of work to unauthorised sub-contracting, confirmed physical or sexual abuse and the existence of conditions which could lead to death or serious injury." Please excuse me, but "death" and "serious injury" are both pretty bad last time I checked! According to "jrot888@lasierra.edu", the Wikipedia isn't meant to contain opinion, well, thats a very nice opinion you have there "jrot888@lasierra.edu". If even the most recent facts quoted above would be deemed by Wikipedia's audience as usefull or relevent, and NEUTRAL it should be there. Please read the Neutral Point of View guidelines! WP:NPOV We are meant to include relevent facts AND relevent opinions, but also to portray them as such!
People who buy Nike or are otherwise interested in infomation on Nike would find it relevent that "a quarter of factories were found to" have workers at risk from "sexual abuse", "death" and "serious injury", this is from Nike's own research.
The reason why I have to point this out, is because of the apparent igorance displayed in this talk page, this is a shame, but it doesn't supprise me. This article needs cleaning up. --VirianFlux 3:09, 4 January 2006 (GMT) (logged on anonymously)
- Maybe it is an idea to merge the criticism into the history section: That would give the article the same appearance as the adidas-article, which include the financial scandals in its history as well. 217.68.50.10 08:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, much of the Nike history section was submitted by Nike's historian, who is not part of the company's marketing department. The primary goal was accuracy, not 'bubbly hyperactive history,' and many of the entries were in response to commonly asked questions received by Nike's consumer services department. NikeHistorian 16:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- i just added a thing on nikes influence but i agree with the idea of adding criticisms in the timeline like adidas-article and also removel of the POV templates across the Corporate social responsibility. iv dont have a real problem with nike adding in the commonly asked questions(although it should be kept 2 important dates). As long as they dont fiddle with the Negative factual information. Shoepedia - Sneaker Encyclopedia is a better place for the little piece of information.(i dont know who posted it) --Whywhywhy 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your point is well-taken about keeping the timeline to important dates, and I clearly went overboard - so I went through the entries again and condensed them to what I believe were true milestones for the company. As per an earlier post about whether it is 'against the rules' for an employee to make posts, I could find no such restrictions, and wikipedia stresses that it is for "everyone." My goal as historian is to provide this online encyclopedia with accurate facts, figures and dates related to Nike, especially those that I am told are requested repeatedly by consumers. Regarding so-called 'negative postings' - I have not edited or removed anyone else's postings, such as the one regarding Nike advertising in 1996.
NikeHistorian
[edit] NPOV
I marked the "Corporate Responsibility" section as NPOV. First, there is a considerable body of evidence, backed up by a chorus of economists, repeated over and over in industrializing countries, that a country with a large, poor unskilled population will most rapidly convert it to a wealthy, skilled population by foreign investment in labor-intensive industries. Throwing around POV terms like "sweatshops" and "exploitation" muddies the water. We should discuss Nike's critics, but it's POV to not discuss the economic benefit of foreign investment. 140.247.60.194 07:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- citations? sounds like weasel words from a marketeer to me. However, the corporate responsibility section is very light on specifics. One cannot conclude if sweatshop abuses are a current problem or not, given Nike's 1998 program committing to labor standards which is cited in the article prior to this section. Are the standards working or not? The article gives no real information about this, just allegations.
Hi everyone, I don't exactly understand how this wikipedia thing works, but if you contact organizations like the National Labor Committee or United Students Against Sweatshops, they will be happy to provide photographic evidence for inclusion in this entry, depicting the "labor intensive" industrial practices of Nike as disclosed in the mid-nineties. Some of them are quite graphic.[citation needed] lol
Nike Shoes : Jordan , Shox , Max , Tn Trainer
- Committee's like the one you're talking about also have a tendancy to sensationalize pictures and make them "editorial" and not really take pictures from a "neutral" perspective. One of the reasons I really don't like PETA. I think I'm okay with the rumors or allegations of the sweatshops, as long as they are written as that they have not been sustantiated by any government. sohmc 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Im not really sure why that is even on this page. I think people are forgetting this is an Encyclopedia, not a blog. If you want to put something about Nike and sweat shops, put a link to another article about sweat shops or a sweat shop prevention page. Wikipedia is not about movements, factions or feelings. It is a FREE encyclopedia-- not just free of price but free from byiast, free from improvication and most importantly, it is free from opinion. I love the information I recieve from this site. Im not disputtiong that it is not an issue that should be left of the page, it just should not have its own focus, and it really should not be put at the top. I mean, if you look at the history of Hitler, it does not say at the top that he killed Jews. Dont disrupt a great site by putting opinions on it....it does not do anything good for anyone...[jrot888@lasierra.edu]
agreed. however i do agree with Yannick's point regarding "bubbly hyperactive history". the timeline given in this article is clearly written by the corporation and is not simply a factual account of the company's development but is clearly biased to CELEBRATE the business, rather than simply provide information. that doesn't feel right in the context of Wikipedia. it feels like the whole entry needs to be re-written, to give a more neutral and objective view - on both sides. as jrot888 says above, to also flag the various corporate governance and social responsibility issues up front is equally biased/subjective and is probably unfair to Nike. can someone write a more considered, neutral overview of the Nike business and brand? while the company has many detractors and has, it seems rightly, been criticised for some of its practices over the years, there is no denying the extraordinary social, cultural and economic influence the brand and business has had over the last 40+ years. whether we like it or not (and both points of view are valid) organised sport has been transformed over the last few decades, and the Nike culture, marketing and economic clout has been a major part of that transformation. this kind of unemotional overview would perhaps be more useful as the body of the article - with a more factual, neutral timeline a short series of bullet points underneath it. perhaps there could then be a link to a more detailed general entry on "corporate social responsibility", which as a subject includes Nike but doesn't lead with it - while i'm not sure a company as big Nike needs anyone to stand up for it, to lead the Wikipedia Nike entry with this issue seems unbalanced and prejudiced. jarvis 15.11.05
The thing is - and this is why I moved the criticism down the bottom - the article is about the history of a hugely influencial corporation, not its alleged crimes. Nike has changed the face of sports around the world, and how this came about is most important. In nearly every article on Wikipedia where a criticism section is included, the history of the subject and other related info always comes first. While you make a valid point about the gravity of human rights claims, Virianflux, it is simply not NPOV if a topic starts with the negativity, such as happens in the NIke article. --Harro5 07:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's not NPOV if you start the article with a bubbly hyperactive history that was clearly written by the company's marketing department. I agree that putting criticism at the top is not NPOV, but Harro5's move is worse. I'll bet a donut he works for the company. In any case, we now have 2 articles, one after the other, that need to be merged into a single neutral text. Think of how a respectful competitor to Nike would write the article. --Yannick 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
[edit] Incomprehensible vocabulary
"Nike produces the kit for many of the world's football clubs and national sides" -- I'm not familiar with the expressions "kit" (in this context) and "national sides". Can somebody please revise these? Thanks. - 07 November 2005
The use of "kit" here is perfectly normal and correct. Gramatically there is nothing wrong with the use of "nadional sides", though it is a little clumsy. Using "national squads" would solve this.
HI, if you don't mind, i've amended it back to kit which is perfectly acceptable British (and hiberno-) English. Uniform is something it would never be called over here. and anyway, they make more than the 'uniform' for clubs - bags, tracsuits and coats other equipment.
Forgive me if I am wrong but Nike is an American company and use of British slang should probably be omitted. Perhaps the Reebok article would be more appropriate. :)
"Kit" is perfectly normal and not slang, and here it refers to football (soccer) which is a worldwide game that is not particularly popular in America. "National teams" might be better than "national squads". LDHan 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Perfectly normal in the UK, but internationally? I had no idea of this word until I looked it up and even the dictionary said it was specifically a British word. I suggest using a more international word being as this is an international encyclopedia.
How about "equipment"?
I am neither American nor British and can completely comprehend "kit." It is a common term used amongst Football (Soccer) and Rugby players internationally. Changing the term to "Equipment" would NOT make things more internationally friendly, rather it would make things more exclusive for the American demographic. Seeing as this IS an INTERNATIONAL ecyclopedia, "kit" is not only acceptable, but politically correct as well. As for the debate between "National Sides" or "National Squads" or "National Teams", Get over it. Americans seem to have to change everything to their likening, then accuse everyone else of being wrong.
if a press released by nike was sourced which im sure they did a thousand of when they announce the whatever it would settle the argument.(my moneys on kit) --Whywhywhy 09:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of the word "kit" as used in this artical is considered a British regionalism. While it may be perfectly understandable my most people, it isn't accepted as "standardized global" English and therefore probably isn't the best term for an "international encyclopedia".
I'm an American. I understand the word "kit" in the context and think that use of any other word in its place is incorrect. Everything that a person uses for a given task is a kit, agreed? In the military, soldiers "kit out" when they put on their uniforms, as well. This is likewise for soccer players, and the use of "kit" is perfectly within the bounds of the "American" definition of the word.
I work for Nike and here's my two cents... Kit is what we refer to it as in the office - at WHQ - in Oregon - in America. It's an appropriate term. However to the American ear it maybe somewhat mysterious as Football (Soccer) isn't a very popular sport in the US and therefore the terminology maybe somewhat enigmatic. Perhaps a link could be created to point "kit" to the Wiktionary where an appropriate definition could be put in. fidissimus 10:54, 31 December 2006
[edit] Inconsistency in numbers (from helpdesk-l)
The following was posted to the helpdesk mailing list:
- according to your article about nike inc. lookin at the company's revenue at the top right it says 13.7 million and then reading the content itself says a fiscal poicy for the yera 2005 to be 13.7billion. plus i need to know, is it biilion or million. i guess it wont be million, but u need to correct it before peple get misled cos it is the first u see before reading the atricle itself. but sincerely u re doin a great job with the site.
Gerrit CUTEDH 15:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] For future reference
This is off topic from the human rights discussion, but I just wanted to put these links here so I don't lose them. --Bobcat 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vote for Removal of POV templates
[edit] Remove templates
[edit] Keep templates
While "The forced labor camp like conditions in some overseas production plants" may be true it is clearly POV. 168.159.213.36 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)rufus20
[edit] Small edits
I have changed the spelling of "Addidas" to Adidas, and changed the sentence "Rivals include.....British giants Umbro" to read "British manufacturer Umbro". Umbro are certainly not a giant, now less so than ever. The only national kit they manufacter is England's, and the days when they produced kits for Liverpool, Manchester United etc look to be over, as Nike and Adidas fight it out for the rights to produce the kits of world famous clubs.
[edit] Anyone catch this?
Apparently, the PC Brigade is out waving their bullshit again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391684&in_page_id=1770
I guess the English flag ought to be banned too since it reminds the Muslims of the Crusades. Anyways, is this notable enough for a mention in the article or does it need to spin further out of control to be called a 'controversy'? Joffeloff 20:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] brand ambassadors?
can anyone post a list of nike brand ambassodors? i need it for my presentation on nike... thx :) -BratX.
[edit] Competition
Nike has no direct competition? I'd say the range (and type) of products is very similiar to adidas. Or is there a market Nike makes huge profits, in which adidas isn't also heavily involved? Ben, June 28th 2006
[edit] Blurb
Rewrote the blurb a bit, and removed the pronounciation guide (which I felt was patronising). I added a comment on criticisms in the blurb too, to balance it out somewhat. The "Corporate Influence" section really shouldn't be at the top, either. Any objections re: moving it nearer the bottom? Also, criticisms of the company seem under represented, considering the company's corporate history... will get around to rectifying that. Sorry I uploaded twice, my comp crashed halfway into the upload, and did something bad to the page. I re-uploaded the latest archive with changes Argh! forgot I wasn't logged in, this is all my doing--Hotel city 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sponsorship of Iroquois Nationals
Nike recently signed a partnership with the Iroquois Nationals. See that article for more info. This is symbolically, if not financially significant. Should it be mentioned somewhere in the article? Nike press release heqs 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs sources
Where's the provenance information for that puctuation?
[edit] Trillion dollar company?
The page currently states that Nike's revenue is $97 trillion dollars. I find this hard to beleive.Terlob 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Offensive ad about chinese people
Some Chinese people found an ad about Lebron James beating many chinese things (dragons etc.) in a basketball games inside a temple. Many chinese were offended by this ad and it was banned. I don't have a citation though any citation would be appreciated. Frankyboy5 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I added a POV tag
I think the controversies surrounding Nike are given entirely too much weight in this article. Yes, there has been controversy and that should be discussed, but it should not take up 90% of the article. Some of Nike's products are innovative, some of their shoes are very high-tech and are designed to work and support the foot in a different way from other shoes. To be honest, even the part of the article that is not about some controversy or other does not talk about Nike's products or what makes their shoes different or special at all. Controversy section should be trimmed, timeline moved to the end of the article or turned into a prose section on the history of the company, and a section should be added about their products, focusing on how they are different, unique, and innovative (rather then mearly listing them). Anyway, just a suggestion and explanation for the tag. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism: Hungary
I deleted the Hungarian flag and its fictional team "Suck my penis united" from the bottom of the European Teams Sponsored section. I'm not a football fan, but I googled that team name and found nothing. If there are any knowledgeable football fans out there, there may well be a Hungarian team that is sponsored by Nike and needs to be added back in. BaikinMan 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed your edit. It can often be more useful to revert back to the last good version, thus removing more vandalism. --Guinnog 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'm doing what I can to help, I'll try to use reverts when I can. BaikinMan 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Suck my penis united are an awsome team!!
[edit] Just a Football company with issues?!
I've noticed that there's a heavy emphasis on two areas for the information presented: That Nike produces Football product and that there's been a lot of controversy around their operations. Can we get a better overview?
Nike started as a footwear company for runners. They're still heavily invested in outfitting the runner - they also make golf apparel and equipment. They outfit numerous American collegiate athletes for a variety of sports; basketball, football, baseball, lacrosse, and training, etc. They have whole lines devoted to the female athlete. They provide watches and sunglasses and have expanded into skating and yoga. And don't forget Jordan. Where does it mention even 1/2 of that in the article?
Additionally this article seems like another opportunity to take a dig at Nike. The controversy around Nike's labor practices that are presented in the article seem biased, dated and one sided. I think it's fair to include the information that's there as long as it's accurate (I think some of it isn't and should be source sited and double checked). Also Nike has made drastic improvements to their Corporate Responsibilities in the past 10 years. For an interesting report see: http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/nike.html or see Nike's complete public statement and position on Corporate Responsibility at http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/nikebiz.jhtml?page=25
fidissimus 11:24, 31 December 2006
~who thought of the nike skate?! o0/31/07 142.177.154.38 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)who thought of this product?
I 2nd that. Why is there such an emphasis on Soccer? The complete list of soccer teams sponsored by are listed on the Main Page. What about the other sports? This soccer team list definitely needs to be put on another page. Tri400 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-English Text...
An anonymous IP added this text to the end of the article (I have since removed it--I believe all Wikipedia text has to be English on English articles). I can't tell if it's vandalism, advertising or spam. Looks like it could be Portuguese to me, but I don't speak Portuguese or Spanish, so I don't know. This is how it read...
A NIKE E UMA INDUSTRIA AMERICANA DE CALÇADOS LOCALIZADA EM BEARVETON NO ESTADO DE OREGON ELA PRODUZ CALÇADOS ESPORTIVOS MATERIAIS ESPORTIVOS EQUIPAMENTOS ESPORTIVOS E ACESSORIOS A NIKE E UMA DAS INDUSTRIAS DE CALÇADOS QUE MAIS FATURAM NOS ESTADOS UNIDOS A NIKE PRODUZ TODO TIPO DE CALÇADOS ESPORTIVOS PRA CORRIDA MARATONAS FUTEBOL OU ATE BASQUETE E TAMBEM EQUIPAMENTOS ESPORTIVOS COMO CANELEIRA TORNOZELEIRA E CAPACETE PROTETOR UTILIZADO NO FUTEBOL AMERICANO E AINDA PRODUZ ACESSORIOS COMO MEIOES BOLAS DE FUTEBOL E BOLAS DE BASQUETE A NIKE TEM UMA ENORME TRADIÇAO NA INDUSTRIA DE CALÇADOS ESPORTIVOS DOS ESTADOS UNIDOS SEGUNDO O PRESIDENTE DA INDUSTRIA PHILIP KNIGHT QUE E O PRINCIPAL INVESTIDOR E DIRETOR DA NIKE A INDUSTRIA FATUROU EM 1968 $1,000,000,000 BILHAO DE DOLARES AMERICANOS E EM 2007 FATURARA $26,000,000,000 BILHOES DE DOLARES AMERICANOS.
Put through the Altavista Babelfish translator, this is what comes out (providing you select "Portuguese to English")...
The NIKE And A INDUSTRIA AMERICAN OF FOOTWEAR LOCATED IN BEARVETON In The OREGON STATE IT PRODUCES PAVED MATERIAL ESPORTIVOS ESPORTIVOS EQUIPMENT ESPORTIVOS And ACESSORIOS NIKE And ONE Of the INDUSTRIAS OF FOOTWEAR THAT MORE INVOICES In The United States the NIKE PRODUCES ALL TYPE OF FOOTWEAR ESPORTIVOS PRA RACE MARATONAS SOCCER OR TIES BASQUETE And TAMBEM EQUIPMENT ESPORTIVOS AS CANELEIRA TORNOZELEIRA And USED PROTECTIVE HELMET In The AMERICAN SOCCER And STILL PRODUCES ACESSORIOS AS MEIOES SOCCER BALLS And BASQUETE BALLS the NIKE according to HAS An ENORMOUS TRADIÇAO In the INDUSTRIA OF FOOTWEAR ESPORTIVOS Of The United States PRESIDENT Of INDUSTRIA PHILIP KNIGHT THAT And The MAIN INVESTOR And DIRECTOR Of the NIKE the INDUSTRIA INVOICED IN 1968 $1,000,000,000 BILHAO OF DOLLARS AMERICANS And IN 2007 INVOICE $26,000,000,000 BILHOES OF DOLLARS AMERICANS.
I'm not exactly sure what this user's intentions were. I just thought I would post it here in case anyone feels like shedding some light on it. :) --TheSlyFox 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just looks like nonsense, any information it had was already in the article, and was unsorced. If the user returns, then mabey we can talk to him/her, but otherwise, it is not so big a loss. ffm yes? 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sponsorship list
How come Adidas and Puma can have a list of teams sponsored by it but Nike Inc cant? Tri400 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
