Talk:Burberry

Chavs?

What about Burberry's role in Chav culture?

Chavs are mentioned and linked in the "UK. Image Problems and Revitalization" section. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The section was deleted without any reason given, so I've added it back in. 82.18.49.148 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Redeleted, can we add it back in please? Andy Lowson (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's apparently a past issue, I have added an explanation of the issue, with references, into the history section. Please do not delete this without first discussing. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a Burberry advertisement. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

PETA protest against Burberry in NYC

Someone keep removing material from the article about the the boycott of Burberry. The material is properly sourced to newsmedia. Someone said it's irrelevant. I added newsmedia source to show it is relevant. He also said that the website is not npov. I agree so I removed it. Someone else said that the material is NPOV. The material only say that Burberry is the target of an international boycott. I think NPOV would be saying the boycott is justified/not justified. The material doesn't say that, it only say that the boycott exist. It would be great if a moderator could look at it and say if it's NPOV or not. I think someone wants to hide the boycott because they they don't like it or because they like Burberry too much.

You and the other party are involved in an editing dispute; neither of you is a vandal. It really isn't a wikipedia admin's job to settle your dispute, to figure out what is or isn't NPOV, or to tell off the other. Admins are blunt instruments: you really don't one involved. You guys need to work together to solve the matter. Talk a look at the sage advice at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As a regular editor of this page, I agree with the numerous people who have reduced or removed your PETA-related content. PETA is a very worthy cause, the only big problem with adding PETA-related content to the Burberry article is that many, many clothing manufacturers use fur, and every upscale clothier article doesn't need a couple redundant paragraphs about PETA. PETA's actions should be primarily discussed on PETA's article, on existing fur criticism articles (which I've noticed you've also edited), and possibly on specific articles about BloodyBurberry.com and related sites. But until there's more to it than a 4-person protest in NYC, I don't believe the topic deserves a mention here. Jonemerson 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, please log-in so we can communicate with you better. You currently seem to be hiding behind many logged-in users and numeric IPs, which is not helping your case. Jonemerson 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For your information, I've been insulted many time because of my editing at PETA in the past, that's why I wasn't editing logged in. Come to think of it, I just broke my 1rr revert parole. I might as well note it on my talk page :) Jean-Philippe 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Peta has protested against the use of fur by numerous fashion labels, including J.Crew, Ralph Lauren, Versace, Valentino, JP Gaultier, Marc Jacobs, Michael Kors, Oscar de la Renta, Lagerfeld, and Brooks Brothers. But these actions are relatively minor footnotes in the history of those companies / designers - as are the current protests against Burberry - and as such, should not rate a mention in this encyclopaedia. Allegations of "animal abuse" are unsubstantiated - on its 'Bloody Burberry' website, Peta provides no proof that the animals from which Burberry sources its fur are "skinned alive" or otherwise abused, yet this is strongly inferred by that site, and on Wikipedia, mentions of this sort of abuse are routinely added by Peta supporters. Given Burberry's long history, Peta's campaign is of minimal relevance, and should not be given such (emotionally charged, accusatory, biased) prominence on Wikipedia. Barker1975 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever PETA says is irrelevant to this article and any other Wikipedia article. PETA is considered a domestic terrorist organisation in the United States and other countries. They exist for the sole purpose of creating controversy where none exists. They are hardly an authority on any subject whatsoever. It is fatuous to insert a paragraph or section about "controversy", where the only "controversy" is about a PETA statement or protest. Anything PETA should be confined to the PETA article. —Quicksilver^{T @} 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Burberry's response to PETA's boycott

"As a luxury brand, there will be occasions where the use of fur will be considered important to the design and aesthetics of a product," said Laura Cummings, director of Brunswick Group press relations, which represents Burberry.

"In those circumstances, (Burberry) will continue to use fur," she said. [1]

Jonemerson I was typing as you did :) The boycott isn't a "4 person" boycott as you say. Peta is very large organization with almost a million member and Burberry will be hurt very badly by the boycott. But it's just speculation and if everyone think it's not good I won't add it anymore. Jean-Philippe 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a four person protest. While the boycott is larger, the majority of the text in the Criticism section was related to the protest. Jonemerson 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write any of it, I just provided appropriate references and removed the website. It does seem broader context was lost when you trimmed it earlier [2]. Anyway, I won't be sticking my nose into that matter anymore, see my talk page to know why :) Jean-Philippe 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think the protests and boycotts are very relevant. It's not like putting them in there accuses Burberrys of anything, it's international news and should be included. GingerGin 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PETA campaign persists

I think the campaign is persistent enough by now to be included, so I've tried to describe it in a way neutral enough to satisfy previous opponents. SeL 11:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the PETA propaganda. They don't like fur, we get it. This is an encyclopedia not an editorial forum or a blog. This info, if it belongs in the encyclopedia at all, should be in the PETA article. K1ng l0v3 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote in the article: "In autumn 2006, animal rights organisation PETA made Burberry the focus of an international campaign, which is ongoing as of April 2007, over the continued use of fur in their clothing. The campaign has involved catwalk protests at fashion shows, appearances in front of Burberry stores, and a dedicated website." Could you please explain why that is propaganda? In your edit comment, you wrote: "removed nongermane cruft, keep your commie peta agenda out of the encyclopedia please". Sounds to me like you are trying to suppress a view you don't like, rather than upholding encyclopedia standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.135.235.248 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, I forgot to sign in when I wrote that paragraph. SeL 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Two further points. First, I am not a member or active supporter of PETA, just an ordinary person who has had a few discussions about PETA and its Burberry campaign recently. I'd like to know if you are affiliated to Burberry in any way. Second, does this info belong in Wikipedia, and if yes, does it belong in the Burberry article? That is of course the relevant part of your objection, and I hope you will be ready to discuss this in a more civil way than by conducting an edit war and using dismissive language ("we get it"). I can't see why one could have doubts in the first part of the question, given the amount of current events that gets reflected in Wikipedia, often in dedicated articles and not just remarks in existing ones. On the second question, the Burberry article does already report on other controversies and image problems, so the PETA campaign is surely not out of place in this article (and it does get mentioned in the PETA article too). I'm not saying that any protest by any pressure group (or any PETA protest) against any company should be reported in the company's Wikipedia article. My point is that, rightly or wrongly, PETA as a high-profile group has been specifically targetting Burberry for several months now and in my view that does make the issue a relevant part of Burberry's public image next to the "Chav" and factory closure issues. SeL 11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've waited for more than a day now and all that's happened is that the user who deleted my paragraph has also deleted my request, added on his talk page, to join in a civil discussion here. I do not wish to enter an edit war, but for now it seems the only way I can move the discussion forward is to add a paragraph about the PETA campaign to the article that answers previous objections and seeks to describe the campaign neutrally. My best effort for that was my previous paragraph, so I'll have to put it back in. Please don't just delete again, join the discussion. Thanks. SeL 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of the PETA thing in the article. This is what is known as a glaring ommission. Come on, people. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Burberry's closure of Treorchy factory

The phrase "The value of a luxury bag that is made of plastic and made in China, is now in question. Many customers have refused to pay $500 for a bag that cost $25 to make" seems a bit weasel-like. First off, who's "many customers"? The citation present contains no quotes to that effect. In addition, a fairly thorough search of the Burberry web site reveals most of the bags are billed as "made in Italy" with less than ten (that I can find) labelled "imported" - presumably a code word for "Made in China", though that's rather difficult to determine. The other articles that mention the closing of this factory talk about how it made polo shirts, not bags, so that's slightly confusing as well.Ckalinwi 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that no one has refuted my argument, I removed the section talking about how "many people" refuse to pay for a bag made in China when all references to the Treorchy factory talk about how it made polo shirts and all indications are that Burberry bags are still mostly manufactured in Italy just as they always have been. I also updated the link to the House of Commons debate on the subject (it was one page off - the only thing on the original referenced page about Royal Warrants were a couple paragraphs talking about general history. The Burberry specific information is on the page I referenced, I figured the relevant information would be easier to find this way and users can always back up one page if they want to read the preamble.)Ckalinwi 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

reference style

intro indicates "There are two other ways to refer to the trademark; one is Burberry and the other is Burberrys." what is third (or, actually, what is first if there are "two other"?)--71.183.238.134 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Long list of Stores

Is such a long list really necessary? It was removed [3] by Crocodile Punter who gave a reason why he removed it. However this was reverted [4] (even removed before this) and I can't find any discussion about this, or any reasons how this list is relevant for wikipedia or appropriate for the otherwise relatively short article. I think the list is excessive.

If anyone needs to know where to find a Burberry store, there's the Burberry store locator on www.burberry.com which also includes the addresses of the stores(and thus more useful). At the end of the article, there's a link to the Burberry web site and I assume that anyone who wants to find out more about Burberry (including the location of one or more stores) would have a look on the web site as well.

I think it would be more appropriate either to remove the entire list, just to list the stores per country or to write a text about their geographic distribution(if that's the right phrase)--YoungWee (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this guy and have removed it again. Kilopi (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of date

The article is seriously out of date, e.g. the Prorsum and Brit sub-brands no longer exist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521044059/http://special.hsmglobal.com/us/wbfny2011/ahrendts-info.php to http://special.hsmglobal.com/us/wbfny2011/ahrendts-info.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622090514/http://www.burberryplc.com/about_burberry/company-history to http://www.burberryplc.com/about_burberry/company-history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106233220/http://www.burberryplc.com/media_centre/press_releases/2012/fragrance_and_beauty_to_be_directly_operated to http://www.burberryplc.com/media_centre/press_releases/2012/fragrance_and_beauty_to_be_directly_operated

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

my changes

I want enter a little language change and enter professional word like rebranding because thats occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystian w ski (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit was ungrammatical, unreferenced and irrelevant to the subject so I am going to revert it (again). . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring is not profitable Krystian w ski, but thank you at least for coming to talk. A consensus is needed to make the change you prefer but IMHO that is unlikely given the poor English grammar and lack of source.SovalValtos (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Best brand ever 165.16.167.180 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

u can edit my gramma, i want add new information, propablu i cant write good but u canr help me and wikipedia. if u can better english edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystian w ski (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Camp - Notes on Fashion at the Met - Burberry rainbow cape (73854).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Performance (textiles) Talk to Burberry, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Rebrand 2023

A new large-scale brand re-design just launched, it will need to be added this page, as well as updating "current brand designs" such as logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ave7578 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Added the new logo :) Jaedenediting (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)