Talk:The Body Shop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:59, 25 March 2009

Sussex Unassessed Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have elected to remove the section in this article with information pertaining to the vanity fair article of the body shop. These statements were unfounded and ill-informed. The facts contained in the article were simply untrue and again, unfounded.

NPOV

There is someone that is trying to defame the company by using it as a way to spew unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo. Everything I have posted is accurate and can be verified by several diferent sources as listed. Do the research yourself. - Geminibuddah 08-20-07Italic text

Maintenance tag on articles does not mean defamation against the article's subject, they are there to point out issues that the article has. Many articles on Wikipedia have them, and they are there for a reason. You have unnecessarily and without reason been deleting 3 tags (POV, adv, cleanup) that I have appropriately and with cause, tagged this article with, and I'm going to add a 4th one, copyedit. This article still needs a lot of work and other editors can see at this point that the issues which I have tagged still stand. Please work at fixing them instead of deleting the appropriate maintenance tags. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would list the areas that you feel are in dispute. Geminibuddah 08-20-07. as stated by policy: Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

Show me where you pulled that from. Obviously you think that the article is currently neutral.

The article is neutral and since you haven't changed any of the article yourself how can you claim it's in dispute. Thier are grammar errors of course, but not biased. It lists the lawsuit that Mattell filed and I'm sure the company would rather forget that. The items that were listed under "Critics of The Body Shop" weren't critcism's they were items that couldnt be proved so it was opinion and heresay. To be blunt, this isnt about The Body Shop article at all. What I take issue with is members that don't back up what they're saying with input, and that is what you've been doing. If you take issue with something in the article then do what you're supposed to and make note in it. Don't just post tags that give the article false classifications based on only what you feel. Back it up in the article. Geminibuddah

I don't tag articles falsely. If I have an issue with it, it's likely that other editors will; I make these issues known by tagging an article appropriately. I have outlined my concerns with this article here and on your talk page in an attempt to work these issues out. The dispute arises because someone perceives that there is an issue and points it out, which I have. I am not disputing the accuracy of the info you've added, but the presentation makes it appear biased. There is also info that was here prior that also adds to the issues I've raised. I have stated repeatedly what they are and they haven't gone away yet; even on the bottom of this talk page another editor says that some portions of this article look like an advertisement. You have addressed a few issues, but the adv and POV issues to me are still there, and I seriously doubt that you are being neutral enough in respect to this article to address them like you did with some of the others, or else you would have. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV issue is now generally resolved; the advert issue is still in the Products section, although I tried editing it somewhat. I've added fact tags throughout where necessary for statements that could use citations. Since there is an article on COTE and it relates more to Roddick than TBS, I pulled that section.

As for the sections you deleted: the section that references McSpotlight is from a likely POV source, but the section re. the job losses resulting from poor trading can be added back in. The Controversy section can also be added back in. Both of these can be put under a single header. If this article is NPOV, it should cover both sides of the issue, both the criticism and the praise. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out all references to John Entiene because nothing he has ever said has been proven outside his political circle. He works for The American Enterprise Institute which is a conservative organization that claims to uphold and protect american freedom and liberty. That information comes from the wikipedia page about them. Also the organaztion is known for it's absurd statements such as Global warming is a hoax. Also, John Entiene has published books claiming all black people are better than whites at sports. See his book Taboos. Re-iterating his false claims about The Body Shop and supporting his political views shouldn't be a focus of this article. ^[1]. Geminibuddah 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claims about community traded accessories now have citations and I removed the Chanel No.5 claim as it makes it sounds like it outsells the brand globally which it doesn't. Also the claim that the make-up brushes won beauty awards is advertised in the shops and marketing as well as White Musk being their No.1 fragrance. Geminibuddah 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the cites. Overall it looks better now and should look good with some cleanup of the refs. The products section does look a little odd now with just the Make Me Fabulous and Accessories appearing to be highlighted. Which particular product line (s) are they known for the most? It would probably be helpful to mention these briefly, if they're not already in. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The areas that I have issues with are in regards to the issues that I tagged for, see above. This article is definitely biased in favor of TBS and its product section reads like advertising. Large portion of it need a rewrite (copyedit), and there's some cleanup to be done. I should also note that you deleted sourced sections of this article (the paragraph that starts with "Critics of The Body Shop..." and the Controversy section) that were critical of TBS and called them "inaccurate". --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several complaints below about the POV elements of this article. I've tried to straighten them out. I have removed some information, such as the detail about Naturewatch's boycott; this was because on balance there seemed to be too much POV-heavy information about Naturewatch and the Bay Area Body Shop, in relation to the actual subject of the article. The links to those other subjects are still there for anyone interested to follow, of course. Please remember that this is Wikipedia and it is vital to keep this page encyclopedic, rather than using it to air grievances or drum up support for pro-/anti-Body Shop campaigns. -- TinaSparkle 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed an unverifiable statement that implied L'Oreal's policy on animal testing had been influenced by The Body Shop, this has yet to be seen. Also not sure that the phrase about The Body Shop being a "Trojan Horse" in the industry is quite correct either.

I have removed quite a few purely advertising sentences: "Sales staff were trained to be friendly and knowledgeable but never overbearing", "neat stacks of black-capped, green-labeled products lined the shop floors" — I love the Body Shop, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Also some redundant adjectives, and descriptions of Anita Roddick's flamboyant nature. I have to say, the article is probably too much of an advertisement still, though. (I also removed the implication that Glasgow is in the Third World.) Bishonen 00:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. In this article, it says that the original store was in Brighton, but according to the stub article Anita Roddick, the business was founded in Littlehampton. I suppose one of them is wrong? Unless "founded" means something else than the first store opening. User:Fervent spirit, I see you edited a little while ago (sorry I had to shorten the article so much!), perhaps you have information on this point? Bishonen 10:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) The business HQ is in Littlehampton and the first store was in Kensington Gardens, Brighton. So "founded" does mean something other than first store opening wee paddy 12:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first shop was opened in Brighton England. The headquarters are in littlehampton. Period. - Geminibuddah -08-20-07Italic text

Have anyone read the external link of an article of Jon Entine. Although it was done in 1995, it seems quite interersting about the body shop. I would like to know if anyone here thinks its reliable information. I am already read first 23 pages of 50 and it seems to. In that case BSI would have been a quite evil company, at least until 1994, being hypocrit in its claims on natural-based products, not tested in animals and so on... Any clue? --Darkmaiki 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some of them but seems like too much tendencies in his writing, looks like Anita doesn't have good side at all.But it's worth mentioning i guess..along with Green Peace and sue by chief somewhere in Amazon..

Btw, isn't "The Body Shop up to at least 2007, has been a financial supporter of Arab-Palestinian terrorist causes and organizations" a bit to harsh ? 222.124.200.70 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on L'Oréal appears other than NPOV. There has been mixed comment, the way it is described in the article appears more slanted. Needs review. --wee paddy 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The first store was in Brighton, quite simply, if you've ever been to Littlehampton, you'd understand why a new cosmetics business would not choose it as a startup location ;) However, as far as I know, Roddick lived in Littlehampton and ran the business from there, but maintained the shop in a more consumer-orientated location. 13/08/06 18:03

Hi theres some errors in the "history" section, any ideas on how to fix them? Some portions of the article look like an advertisement.

I've re-added the NPOV tag. There are far too many negative unsourced statements in this article. FYI, I have no relation to the cosmetics industry; I'm just a WP reader who likes his articles neutral. --85.5.167.217 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Roddick

some sources describe Gordon Roddick was a co-founder of Body Shop. Was he involved in the expansion and financing? Paul haynes 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article469090.ece[reply]

Criticism

This page is surprisingly free of critical comments, and it looks as if the Criticism section has been removed. I don't know enough about the subject to know exactly what could be mentioned. Can someone who kmows more about it please take a look at it please?

Animal Testing

The Body Shop claims that none of their products "have ever been tested on animals, will ever be tested on animals" etc. most emphatically. However, in the United States, the FDA does not permit the sale of cosmetic products that have not been declared safe for human use. This is usually done by animal testing. Does anyone know how the Body Shop gets around this requirement? I have heard that many companies simply repackage products or ingredients that have been animal-tested at other companies or for other purposes, but the Body Shop was not mentioned specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.50.194 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without being too biased and too POV, as an employee we are informed that testing is done in laboratory circumstances using other materials such as agar plates continuously before tests are then done on humans. This fits in with a campaign of the late 1990s called "Tested on humans, not animals". Now in a logical opinion, The Body Shop would not alter its core policies and values purely to enter the United States market, and one would assume that since there are many stores in the US that the aforementioned query about FDA requirements may not be accurate. Sturgeonslaw (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To enter the U.S. market, the Body Shop must comply with U.S. law. I added the section and used the Body Shop website's description of the policy as a source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

Shouldn't this be updated - "Roddick will be able to have an input into decisions" now that she's passed away? INXS-Girl (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Roddick

I think that this article is more about Anita Roddick than it is about The Body Shop. I want to delete much of this article, but I don't even know where to start. Can someone second this so I know that it is not just my point of view? Chexmix53 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Body Shop up to at least 2007, has been a financial supporter of Arab-Palestinian terrorist causes and organizations.[10]

Please somebody read the link and remove this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.69.80 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]

Revision as of 04:04, 25 September 2008 edit 85.5.167.217 (talk) →NPOV ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:59, 25 March 2009 edit undo MortimerCat (talk \| contribs) 7,925 edits Add Sussex Banner using AWB Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject Sussex\|importance=low\|class=}}

	I have elected to remove the section in this article with information pertaining to the vanity fair article of the body shop. These statements were unfounded and ill-informed. The facts contained in the article were simply untrue and again, unfounded.		I have elected to remove the section in this article with information pertaining to the vanity fair article of the body shop. These statements were unfounded and ill-informed. The facts contained in the article were simply untrue and again, unfounded.