Talk:Pottery Barn rule

This is a fairly common concept, is it not? I recall that the phrase "You break it you bought it" was uttered by Ricky Jay's character back in 1997 in the movie Tomorrow Never Dies, and it certainly did not originate there. What's so special about this instance? Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree-- I remember this rule from my childhood (early 70s). I'm sure the term "You break it you bought it" has been around for as long as retail sales have been around.

Gigglesworth 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto on the above. I certainly remember "You break it you bought it" being publically displayed in UK shops selling delicate wares during my childhood (mid 80's). I'm also pretty sure that even then it was regarded as an 'old rule', one that was around in my mum's and gran's childhoods. Maybe if someone was to scan through the UK TV series, Open all hours (26 episodes, 1976 to 1985), they might find a citable quote of it. --Myfanwy 19:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point is that Friedman or anybody invented the concept, it's that it was used in an Iraq context that's important. In other words, this article isn't about merchandise policies, it's about a bit of political jargon. It's slightly amusing that there isn't actually any such rule at the Pottery Barn, too. The fact that it was used by Powell and Kerry, not just journalists, gives it historical relevance. --Dhartung | Talk 10:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not even really a piece of political jargon, it's more of a now long forgotten slogan, a nine days wonder. 24.16.164.253 (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Powell has actually directly denied using this term prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion. "It is said that I used the 'Pottery Barn rule.' I never did it; [Thomas] Friedman did it ... But what I did say ... [is that] once you break it, you are going to own it, and we're going to be responsible for 26 million people standing there looking at us." He obviously discussed the notion, but did not use the term itself, hence making his mention on this page incorrect. Can't link to article because it was on an academic database (private). "Ideas and Consequences." Atlantic Monthly (10727825); Oct2007, Vol. 300 Issue 3, p53-58, 4p. --Spyde (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image of Powell adds little utility to the article. --mtz206 03:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 on that. Better would be Kerry at the debate, maybe. --Dhartung | Talk 10:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "alleged" from the sentence "the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the [alleged] ongoing occupation of that country." The occupation of Iraq is a fact, and is not "alleged".

Discussion

Shouldn't there be some criticism or discussion of the drawbacks of such a policy?Ggb667 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a Nathan For You episode based on this concept which might merit mention. 2600:8804:7500:30B:881F:4CA:3F1A:7405 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)