Talk:Primark

BHS Ireland purchase

AKAIK, BHS never is one of the ex-BHS sites, incidently. --83.70.59.159 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jervis Street. They were an anchor tenant there when it opened, although I actually think thats closed down again by now - I can't remember seeing it last time I was there. --Kiand 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Penneys into this article

Primark is a very cheap shop :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.28.99 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As suggested at Penneys by someone else - I'd support, Penneys and Primark are one and the same, even the logo is the same, only the logotype is different. They offer the same proposition and services. Penneys actually predates Primark, however since Primark is their corporate name (the Penneys stores have "Penneys - Operated by Primark" on their packaging) I would suggest leaving it at this location with a redirect at Penneys.

--Rdd 16:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

How it works

I'm not sure the information contained there has any place in an encylopedia, but I've moved it here in case somebody wants to put it back in.

--Rdd 16:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

How it works: Each section (or department) runs the operational side of the business. The (tactical) floor manager selects the stock that should be ordered and placed on the shop floor. The manager (strategic) controls the local shop, unlike other companies franchise system. The manager remain in control of the store and can function independently from other local chains.

Departments and codes: 1=Accessories. 2=Socks and Tights. 3=NOT USED. 4=Womens Apparel. 5=Childrens Wear. 6=Mens Wear. 7=Shoes. 8=Womens Wear. 9=Special deals / Reduced Clothing. 11=Homeware 23/24=Xmas Shop 26=Sportswear 27=Todlerswear Pay: Standard wage for Sales Assistants. £3.69 per hour (under 18) £4.92 (£5.55 with London weighting) per hour (over 18) No paid breaks or lunches Overtime is standard rate Biometric hand system installed

here pay is £3.83 under 18, £4.99 over 18, no overtime 81.156.33.251 08:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

I have cut the paragraph -

• This reputation has come about despite the company spending very little on advertising, which has consisted of little more than press releases to local newspapers as new stores have opened. A major exception to this is their Christmas advertising campaign, which has run on radio each Christmas (and occasionally on Irish television). In contrast to their main competitors, Matalan and George at ASDA, Primark have never advertised on television in the UK, and there is evidence that most of Primark's customers first heard about the store through word of mouth.

I REALLY don't think that its sourcable. Can't imagine any company not marketing itself in one way or another - If its important please discuss Mike33 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be - I have started working in a flagship Primark store, and the above statement is more or less true; the HR person who finished off the induction said almost the same thing as the above statement.

In any case, it has advertised on UK Television, although possibly only Northern Ireland, not Great Britain. NotMuchToSay 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a couple of contradictions in the article about advertising, with one section saying they do not advertise, and another saying that they do... Also the largest store in this article claims to be Manchester, but in the Oxford Street article it claims to be there. I have never been to either of these stores, or seen any advertising, so am not really in a position to correct it myself. Craighennessey 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

in regards to floor space the Manchester store is the biggest in the company having 100,000 sq ft but originally Oxford Street waa the biggest when opened, Manchester took the position when TK Maxx relocated giving Primark the full building. Advertising is only fairly new within Primark, when opening a new store there is local coverage but on a whole the company doesn't really have advertising. Penneys have a christmas advert and a jingle which is well known in Ireland but unheard of in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.140.173 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tidy up

I have had a go at tidying it up, but there is still loads to do. Comments on my alterations would help me as I am fairly new to this--Screen42 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is slightly confusing:

All workers in their associated factories are paid a living wage that as a bare minimum covers all their basic needs and are consistent with local wage laws. All associated factory are paid the equivalent of at least the UK minimum wage in their country. Primark has deals with factories in Madrid and Vietnam and do not manufacture clothing in Bangladesh. "All associated factory are paid" - should it say, "All associated factory workers"? Also: in the paragraph before, it quotes Geoff Lancaster talking about raising standards in Bangladesh - which appears to contradict the final sentence above. Can anyone make this clearer?217.68.21.230 12:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed this whole section as it was both unsourced and factually incorrect. 86.136.142.95 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed vandalism

I removed a comment left by someone: "Its totally fabulous for lil cheapie bargains and you can customize them and if you go wrong it doesnt really matter beacause they are so cheap!"

Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.22.12 (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It is noted in the Trivia that Primark is pronounced "Pree-mark" in NI, but "Pry-mark" in Great Britain. When I lived in Glasgow everyone said "Pree-mark." Is this just a Glasgow thing, or should the trivia be changed to "Pree-mark" in NI and Scotland? Spiderdust 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

no you are right, in scotland it is pronounced preemark, probably due to the fact that the scottish head office is in dublin and is not the same as the english head office Davidb90 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say this was purely down to the accents of the Scottish and the Irish to be honest rather than it having anything to do with where the head office is based. My Husband and all his family are Scottish and all pronounce it 'preemark' but if u asked them why they pronounce in that way none of them would be able to make the connection with the way they pronounce the word to the fact that the head office is in Dublin. They dont know where the head office is. The Scottish pronounce a lot of words differently to the English purely because of the difference in their accents. For example, Scottish people pronounce the world 'police' as 'polis'. The general way they sound their words is completely different in many respects.TammiMagee 10:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

nope sorry your wrong, neds pronounce 'police' as 'polis', polis is just wrong, nothing to do with accent. the point i was trying to make is if the staff in scotland pronounce it preemark, then the customers are going to do the same. "The general way they sound their words is completely different in many respects" and generally correct! the english cannot (or do not) pronounce 'wh' 'aw' 'r' 81.156.33.251 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I live near Birmingham, and most people I know say "Pree-mark". Honestly, this is the first time I've ever read that British/English people say "Pry-mark". In my experience, they just don't. 86.132.141.178 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I live near Edingbrugh, and we call Primark Pree-mark. In england they call it Pry-mark and in Ireland they call it Penneys. Honestly just stick to the one name. MON/30/03/09 18:13PM

I remember a Christmas TV advertising campaign on Ulster TV during the eighties with the slogan "Primark, got a whole lotta things for Christmas, got a lot for the family" - it was definitly pronouned 'pree-mark' back then, however i have family in liverpool who insist on calling it 'pry-mark'.

That advert campaign (with the slogan "Penny's, got a whole lotta things..." etc) has ran every Christmas in living memory in the Irish media, until very recently. Incidently, the Primark name was apparently invented due to the company's inabillity to use Penny's outside of Ireland due to registration of the name by JC Penny.--Rdd 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only ever heard the word pronounced with primary stress on the first syllable, ie /'pɹaɪmɑːk/ or /'pɹiːmɑːk/, et cetera. 130.88.85.111 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm in Wigan, and it's always Pry-mark. If someone said 'Preemark' they would get very funny looks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.199.137 (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was meant to be pronounced 'Preemark' then would the spelling not be Pree or Prea. Pri is usually pronounced /aɪ/ as in Prime or /ɪ/ as in Primitive. The word Primary is only one letter different from the word Primark and Primary is pronounced /aɪ/. I was told that the actually pronunciation is prɪmahrk but due to certain accents in Ireland it was often mispronounced with an ee sound instead of ɪ.

Why does the pronounciation section have "Northern Ireland, Ireland" listed? It should be Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or in this case, seen as it is a whole island thing, just "Ireland." Am I Right?--82.46.48.147 (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I genuinely can't believe anyone with half a brain cell would pronounce it "pree-mark". It's ridiculous. In Scotland, the education level before secondary/high school is not "pree-mary" school, its "pry-mary" school, spelled, yes, you guessed it "Primary". This pronunciation is prevalent throughout the English language. One idiot pronouncing a work wrong should not warrant a nation doing it or we will all end up talking nonsense!

Their Christmas TV and radio advertising jingle in 1980s did indeed pronounce the name as 'Pree-mark' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELnuijThhpU - here's their advert in 1981, 2nd ad in the clip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.91 (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

More Vandalism

Removed "It is also Reilly Marshalls (of Nottingham) favourite shop, it is reported that he once spent an astonishing £11 there in one go. He purchased ten shirts, six pairs of socks, twelve t shirts and three pairs of jeans" from the article, why is this article so prone to vandalism? This comment was left by §©ʁİƃƀȴıŋ’ Ƨł₥ȫȠ ^{talk|contribs} 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC). Its prounounced Pre-mark as in 'pre-mark-up' prices hence the low end pricing of merchandise

"Fat Wear"

Is there actually such a department??? Artybrad 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No[[1]]. I will remove. This comment was left by §©ʁİƃƀȴıŋ’ Ƨł₥ȫȠ ^{talk|contribs} 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Store Structure

Is this section necessary? Is it of any interest to anyone except employees? There is nothing remarkable or significantly different compared to other retailers, and I have looked at other retailer's articles and none seem to have details regarding staff pay and low level management structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandygatt (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is a Wikipedia page, not Primark's corporate website. If no one has objected within a week I will remove this section. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Source?

Removing:"2009 primark are planning to make verious adverts on televison. They have recently said that they do make children make their clothes" Don't Know Whether It's Just Bad Spelling Or Just Completely False. And I Sincerely Doubt The Second Part. Give Me A Source, I Might Believe It. Until Then I'm Removing It QuietusExtraho (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you really criticising someone's spelling before capitalising every word in your post??? Smurfmeister (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New Logo

I have just uploaded the new logo, I had a few problems with the uploading because Wikipedia keeps thinking it's a duplicate, I have now also included a Non Free rationale on the logo page. Bevanl (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Number of stores?

The article differs from the "Company Profile" section on here. Which is right? --HighKing (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Headquarters

Are the headquarters definitely in Ireland? I can find no reference on the Primark, now the ABF website confirming this. Pennys may have started in Ireland, but where does Primark come in? Was it a merger or take-over or just a different name?Darkieboy236 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Definetly in Mary Street, Dublin, this was even stated on the BBC Panorama programme on the company. This may change since Arthur Ryan is retiring. As for the Penneys/Primark, its just a different name. The chain was owned from the very beginning by ABF and originally called Penney's. The name "Primark" allegedly came about due to fear of litigation from J.C. Penney. Rdd (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31978D0193:EN:HTML for an authoritative account. Most relevant fragment below. Anyone up for updating the article as appropriate (ideally creating a 'history' section)?

5. On 26 February 1976, to settle their pending litigations and proceedings, Penney America and the ABF Group entered into the notified agreement, which became effective on 27 August 1976 (the operative date) and which is outlined below. (a) The ABF Group shall not use "Penneys" as a trademark or - except as a business name in Ireland - as a trade name in any country of the world, shall change all company names or titles, so as to eliminate "Penneys" therefrom, and shall never organize or acquire a business which includes this name. It shall also proceed to phase out step by step in Scotland and Northern Ireland all use of "Penneys" as a trademark, trade name or otherwise. Such phasing out shall be completed during 1978. Penney America shall cause the trademark registrations of "Power", "Quinnsworth", "Finefare", "Fine Ware" and "City Girl" to be relinquished. They acknowledge that the word "Primark" is not confusingly similar to "Penneys". While these trademark registrations and "Primark" may be used by the ABF Group, "Penneys" may be used by Penney America as a trademark and, except in Ireland, as a trade name in all countries of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Seems odd that the stress would be on the mark. Can anyone confirm? kwami (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of date information

Some of the information on the page is out of date.

The total number of stores primark now has is up to 232 due to opening new stores in the united kingdom (bexleyheath). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattricus (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

2013 Savar building collapse

This is an event with a tangential connection with Primark at best. It shouldn't be mentioned in the Primark article. --HighKing (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your two sentences. We can count how many articles in just The Guardian about both Primark and the incident.

Anyway I put up a tag to ask for third opinion here. Best, New worl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm assuming that the below blockquote is the content in question?

On 25 April, 2013, a garment factory in Rana Plaza, Dhaka, Bangladesh, housing some 3000 workers collapsed, causing the deaths more than 400 people. Primark is one of the recipients of clothing made at the factory. The part of the factory making clothes for Primark was on the second floor.

Yes, Technical 13. It was the only part in the section Incidents that was deleted twice by HighKing who kept using a bunch of WP terms. New worl (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My questions that may help figure this out are:

Does the factory "only" make clothing for Primark?

Is it the "only" factory that makes clothing for Primark?

How much coverage did Primark get in the article covering the story about the collapse?

Let's start with those questions and see if we can't find out whether or not it should really be in there. :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've updated the paragraph to better reflect the noteworthy elements of the link between Primark and the collapse of the building. To answer your questions:

1. the factory did not solely supply Primark - it was an 8 storey building that housed many different factories, shops and a bank. The various factories producted items for a range of customers including the Benetton Group, Joe Fresh, The Children's Place, Primark, Monsoon, and DressBarn. (New worl has added the same info to all those articles).
2. It is not the only factory. Primark has many many suppliers throughout the world.
3. Well - take a look at the wikipedia article 2013 Savar building collapse. Primark does get a mention, especially in British press (gives it a British angle - same press wouldn't mention Joe Fresh or Benneton in the article, whereas in the US press it's vice versa).

It's a tragic event, and has it's own article, but it is only tangentially related to the companies that were the customers of the factories. The factories were independently owned. Note that originally this was tacked into the "Criticisms" section (and still is in "criticisms" sections in other articles). How can it be a "criticism"? That is potentially libellous, inferring that these companies had some part or fault in the building collapse. --HighKing (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reports of Primark being impacted by this? Would a single sentence like "The 2013 Savar building collapse (affected|impacted|caused) Primark (in a certain way|to do something to fill the lack of supplies coming in)." have any reliable sources to cite it with? This way, the collapse could be mentioned in a way that will allow the reader to follow the link to read up on it if they chose, but not have all the extra details that I agree probably do not belong. Technical 13 (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no reports of Primark being impacted - but this BBC article reports that Primark (and Loblaw) said they will be offering aid to the victims, and this articles states "Primark has been working with other retailers to review the country's approach to factory standards and will now push for this review to include building integrity". That's about the only Primark relevant discussions in *all* the articles. It's an event, for sure, but in my opinion it simply doesn't meet the criteria to mention it at all in the articles on the various retailers. I've no problem with the 2013 Savar building collapse article listing the various retailers that used these companies as suppliers, but it's not necessary to list the building collapse in each article on each retailer. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Technical 13 for your volunteer support. I agree that going to the article 2013 Savar building collapse is a good approach. I can see a bigger picture there, more than a building collapse. I think the Pope have a part of a big picture here: On 1st May, Pope Francis spoke out against the working conditions in the factory: :"A headline that really struck me on the day of the tragedy in Bangladesh was 'Living on 38 euros a month'. That is what the people who died were being paid. This is called slave labour. Today in the world this slavery is being committed against something beautiful that God has given us -- the capacity to create, to work, to have dignity. How many brothers and sisters find themselves in this situation! Not paying fairly, not giving a job because you are only looking at balance sheets, only looking at how to make a profit. That goes against God!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by New worl (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian has an image here. How it may be named! New worl (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment of "I can see a bigger picture here" worries me. Wikipedia isn't a news channel, or a mechanism for publicizing a particular point of view. For example, the pope comment isn't relevant to the Primark article, because the pope doesn't mention Primark. So why bring it up? Adding this into "Criticism" sections shows that you are looking at this incident with a POV which includes associating Primark with the low wages and dangerous working conditions. Unless you can find sources to back up your view (and they meet the criteria for sources), the rest is simply WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that you don't see any link between the image and 'Living on 38 euros a month'? Do you see the image yet? New worl (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

HighKing and New worl, I'm marking this as "helped" now and will continue watching it and commenting where needed. WP:NPOV is very important here, I agree. I also think that in regards to the original question, that the collapsed should be mentioned "if" it had some citable impact on Primark as my suggestion above says. The pope has nothing to do about this discussion, slavery and whatnot doesn't belong in this discussion either. Let's stay on topic New worl... Technical 13 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

References

'Sweatshops' & Primark

Hi HighKing,

You have been with Wikipedia longer than I am and I thought you know more about Wikipedia values, pillars, etc. than I do...

Now I will do some Google search Sweatshops' & Primark' for you so that all editors can have more resources to improve the article.

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) I'm not sure if that is intended to be some kind of threat and or whom it may be directed at. What I can tell you is that vandalism will not be tolerated and I won't hesitate to report it and let an administrator figure out what your comment above implies. I can also tell you that if I was an administrator on this wiki, I would likely consider that a threat and you would end up blocked. Technical 13 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Technical 13. I didn't mean so. English is not my mother tongue. I will change my sentence. Best, New worl (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical13, I'm sure he didn't mean he was going to try to Google HighKing; he was going to Google whatever subject you guys are talking about to provide information to HighKing. No comment on the underlying issue, I'm just passing thru from the help desk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment was in regard to the fact that his wording made me think that he was upset about something, was going to Google every possible piece of unreliable blog stuffs he could find and spam the crap out of the article with useless information. I simply wanted to make clear that would not be allowed as it is WP:POINTy... Technical 13 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy with words such as ' every possible piece of unreliable blog stuffs', 'spam the crap', 'useless information'. Best, New worl (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please tell me if Technical 13's words such as 'going to Google every possible piece of unreliable blog stuffs he could find and spam the crap out of the article with useless information' and his post here User_talk:New_worl#May_2013 are violations of

• Wikipedia:Harassment including threats ('I can also tell you that if I was an administrator on this wiki, I would likely consider that a threat and you would end up blocked')
• Wikipedia:Civility and
• Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

And could you please tell me if his participation in the talk is really neutral as a third opinion provider?

You can see more reference information here Wikipedia:Help_desk#Wikipedia:NPA

Thank you very much. Best, New worl (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello New worl! I'm going to help you out here and get you the help you requested. Let me echo a few people. User:Yunshui, User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:iridescent, User:Writ Keeper, User:Nerdfighter, User:Vacation9, User:Fluffernutter, User:Sladen, User:Thumperward, and User:AutomaticStrikeout should do the trick for you... I consider them all to be fair and non-bias people. Before you claim that they are all my friends or whatnot, I'll inform you them most of them were involved in my (un)blocking a month and a half ago. Most of them are administrators, and most of them denied my unblock requests. Now that I'm satisfied that you will have ample other opinions to settle your dispute, I'm stepping away from this article. I've been as neutral as can be (I'd never heard of Primark before now being whereas I'm a Levi's - Fruit of the Loom kind of guy from USA) in regards to this topic. Note: I'm unwatching this page and if I was wrong here in my concerns, assessments, and or warning, I would appreciate a note on my talk page (not a page mention) telling me my mistake and I would be happy to come back and apologize set things straight. I currently do not see this as a possibility, but wanted to get that out there. I wish everyone a good day and happy editings!!! Technical 13 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• From what I can see, User:Technical 13 misunderstood what you were saying and took it as a threat, then saying "If you did that you would be blocked", and I can see why if that's what you meant. While I know it's not, I wouldn't interpret that as harassment or a threat, just trying to tell you that you would be blocked if you kept making threats like that. While it may be a bit BITEy, I believe it was perfectly appropriate given the circumstances. Just my view though. Vacation9 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Vacation9 very much for your opinion. I agree with you that at first there was a misunderstanding. I took advice from Floquenbeam at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Wikipedia:NPA and stopped there by just saying nicely "I am not happy with words such as ' every possible piece of unreliable blog stuffs', 'spam the crap', 'useless information'. Best,"

After my edits here, he told me at my talk page that "if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Primark, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.". That's why I asked for help to see if any of these are violated: Wikipedia:Harassment, neutral, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thank you again. Best, New worl (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

All information for my edits here are referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability (quote from Wikipedia:Libel. New worl (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems resolved; Technical 13 provided a long list of people you might ask for third opinions. While I'm sure we all despise child labor or the working conditions in Bangladesh, Wikipedia is not a soapbox to be used for advocacy. We should not base significant amounts of content solely on advocacy organizations and discredited (!) news reports. Huon (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your great support. Technical 13 and I say 'peace' now for the better of Wikipedia. Cheers, New worl (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The timeline

Link

2009

1. Primark linked to UK sweatshops
2. Primark in storm over conditions at UK supplier

2008

1. protest hits Primark shows some of India's poorest people, including children, working long, gruelling hours for poverty pay on Primark clothes in slum workshops and refugee camps. Another article Another one

2006

1. War on Want report finds child labourers in Bangladesh making Primark clothes for 3p an hour. Another source

I've reverted your additions. It seems to me that it is very much WP:OR due to selective sourcing to sensationalize the notion that Primark endorses slave labour. It is very WP:POINTy to continue to add to this article after the discussion above. If you want to add something in that is potentially libelous, please get agreement here first. For example, what exactly is the relevance to the story that protesters surrounded a Primark store on Oxford street? One store? Out of 256? Seems to me that it's a very poor attempt to place a quote into the article from "War on Want" - what evidence is there that Primark didn't take their responsibility clearly? Is Murray Worthy an expert on Primark work relations and practices? Is Primark's behaviour unusual for the clothing retail sector? Similarly, we don't use the article to overly praise Primark or report on every event that Primark was involved in. We don't list every award they've won, or we don't mention their staff raising money for Children In Need, etc, etc. It's not a company newsletter or bulletin board. Personally, I don't believe the building collapse should even be mentioned in the article - as has been pointed out, Primark didn't own the factories, had no part in running the factories, and was simply used the clothing manufacturer as a supplier. Please, could other editors weigh in with their opinions on this and lend a hand so that some sort of consensus can be reached please. --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read before revert?

HighKing, you reverted at least two edits without understanding how such edits help improving the article:

• 1st edit by 180.234.93.156, updating the death toll from 501 to 550 in the building collapse: link
• 2nd by me, providing clear explanation (link not found, +): link

Please explain why you did so. New worl (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with spreading the same data into different articles - nobody bothers to update all the articles later. I see the death toll is now over 600 for example. Who will update all the articles with correct death tolls? Is it not better to simply wikilink to the main article?

Usually when disagreements break out on articles, it is best to simply stop editing the article until consensus can be reached. Mixing controversial edits with fixups isn't recommended because the whole lot is liable to get reverted, especially when the edits are mixed in sequence.

But thank you for not reverting all your edits again. Have you had a chance to understand (not necessarily agree) why I object to mentioning the tragic incident in the article? --HighKing (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You said 'nobody bothers to update all the articles later' and then you reverted the edit which was done gracefully by 180.234.93.156.

I cannot accept your explanation for the two reverses. New worl (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you updated the Benneton Group article? Or the List of industrial disasters? Or what about Joe Fresh? This is my point about including low-level detail that is subject to rapid change in articles. Many of the articles you inserted a mention are now out of date. So equally, other editors might take the stance that it is unwise to accept your "good intentions" to keep everything up to date. So far, it seems some "anonymous" IP editor is trying to do the job, and usually without adding a reference. My advice would be to not include any fact or figure that might need updating - that way the up-to-date facts and figures can be kept in the main article, with references.

So back to the question I posed. Have we any sort of agreement or consensus about the article? And the other articles you added a mention of the incident? --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The normal way of discussing something is sequential, so that the timeline of discussion is preserved, and other editors can see how a discussion progressed. New worl, your style of starting multiple discussions in several sections just doesn't work. Can you please, in future, sequentially add your responses to the bottom of the current discussion. Do not edit others comments (although you can cut and paste to respond. And try to keep it short as possible. --HighKing (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC) .

Arbitrary break

New Worl, you originally edited this article to insert a mention of the Savar incident. You've posted about 12 links which *you* say are relevant, but the only common thread are lots of pretty sensational and potentially libelous statements from "War on Want" (a tiny charity that tackles "poverty"), low paid workers manufacturing high street fashion for a variety of high street stores, and the fact that most of the links are from between 2006 and 2008 around the time the BBC made a documentary. None are relevant to this article in my opinion. They're mostly out of date. Just because Primark is mentioned as an example of a store, does not make it notable for inclusion in this article. That's pretty much my take on it. Since we disagree, there's no consensus, and we should really try to engage other editors into the discussion so that the matter can be resolved, because I don't believe we're going to resolve this between us. --HighKing (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests 6 May 2013

Two additions

I propose some additions. First I have two. I also prepare the format of 'why' and 'why not'. Please add your comments. New worl (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Facts in 2006 (to be added): In December 2006 investigators find sweatshops in Bangladesh where workers are making Primark clothes for 5p an hour. Link: The Independent
• Facts in 2008 (to be added): In June 2008 Panorama finds 9 year olds working on Primark clothes in India for 60p a day. Link: The Observer

More reliable sources:

1. The Guardian: link 3 (An 80-hour week for 5p an hour: the real price of high-street fashion) and link 4 (What can you buy for 5p in Bangladesh?)
2. The Daily Telegraph: link 5 (Engaging the high street is the way to ethical clothes)
3. The Herald (Glasgow): link 6 (Revealed)
4. Retail Week: link 7 (Retailers slammed over factory conditions)
5. Manchester Evening News: link 8 (Disgusting... but Primark's so cheap)
6. The Independent:link 9 (Primark faces new claims that it uses sweatshop labour), link 10 (Primark faces demonstration after child labour TV exposé), link 11 (British retailers sell cheap clothes as workers suffer), link 12 (The real cost of fashion: a special report)

WHY:

1. Wikipedia:Verifiability
2. The current article only stated many numbers of different types of stores(1), number of locations(2), dates of first openings in every countries(3), how large stores are(4), etc. No information at all about people who make the products, how they are treated, how they are paid. It's a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
3. Fact 2006 is the cause of 'In 2006, Primark joined the Ethical Trading Initiative, a collaborative organization bringing together businesses, trades unions and NGOs to work on labour rights issues in their supply chains' (quoted in the article) The article cannot omit the reason of Primark's join in the Ethical Trading Initiative. New worl (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WHY NOT:

---

Let's not prepare the "why" and "why not" format because it calls for responses interspersed with your comments, and this isn't the best format for wikipedia where individual comments would no longer be kept together.

It is impossible to answer your questions as you've posed them, so lets step back a little. What is the Notable addition you with to make to the article? Note that adding a bunch of facts isn't the role of the Wikipedia article. As I've said above, we don't make a note of a "fact" every time the work "Primark" hits a news article or is mentioned on the TV. This isn't the company bulletin board. --HighKing (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

They are not simple facts. Without such facts, this article is a very good example of how Wikipedia:Neutral point of view has been violated for such a long long time. The facts should be included as soon as possible to preserve (at least) one of five Wikipedia pillars.

You also state above that the article should mention the people who make the products. Why? We don't mention the employees, or their working conditions or pension arrangements. Why should the article mention people who don't even work for Primark? Or how would you suggest we limit the external people that should be mentioned? Should we mention the people who work for the company that write the software that runs their computer systems? Or perhaps we should also mention the person that works for the cleaning contractor that cleans their stores in Spain?

BTW, you appear to misunderstand NPOV - that policy is to ensure that articles don't take sides. You say it is against policy (NPOV) to *not* mention these facts. I disagree, and what's more, your attempt to link Primark with responsibility for the incident is unsourced, is original research and potentially libelous. --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

New worl - you were told previously that it's not a good idea to edit other people's comments. That includes interspersing your responses with another editor's comment. Can you sort the mess you've made above out to separate your response please. --HighKing (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

HighKing, could you please focus on one main point per paragraph?

I also added sub-headings so that all editors can follow the talk easily. New worl (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer

New worl is a normal and neutral editor. I and my family have never ever:

1. worked in fashion, retail industry;
2. worked for advocacy group;
3. worked for this sort of companies
4. gone to Bangladesh nor
5. known a Bangladeshi in person.

I didn't know about Primark until the building collapse.

I made the first edit in this article on 2 May 2013 here

---

HighKing, as a long term (since January 2009) and most contributed editor (51 v. 27 edits of 2nd most) in this article, is that O.K. for you to provide some disclaimer? Best, New worl (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're trying to do, in a roundabout way, is ask if I have a possible conflict of interest WP:COI in editing this article. Rest assured, I don't. BTW, your disclaimer isn't necessary. We all try to WP:AGF and judge on actions and edits. But I really really don't like the tone and insinuation behind your "innocent" request. So please don't try to look for reasons to somehow devalue another editors contributions by suggesting that the editor may have an agenda. It's in poor taste, and fishing for private information is seen in poor taste and frowned upon. --HighKing (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How many times have you used bad adjectives for me? Do I do the same for you? No. Not to mention that I am a new comer here. Best, New worl (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus, you can count how many times you have used "someone trying to do" + your assumption for other editors. Is this WP:AGF? New worl (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, I've been very patient with you. But AGF only takes you so far - after that, the actions and comments of other editors become clear. I cannot think of any other reason why you would directly ask an editor, who disagreed with you, to make a disclaimer statement. In all my years, I've never seen that. I think it's a pretty sneaky tactic and my advice to you is not to try it on again. If that is a "bad adjective", feel free to complain. Or better still, explain why you requested a disclaimer in the first place. --HighKing (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you clearly have had bad assumptions for me.

1/ You said that I am 'trying to do some Original Research to somehow continue to link Primark with the Savar incident'. You said that " attempting to link responsibility with Primark and other companies to this incident", etc.

2/ You even questioned an anonymous by using " " and discredited his support. Your words: "anonymous" IP editor is trying to do the job, and usually without adding a reference.

3/ You used many bad adjectives here.

So I must protect myself, I need to let other editors know that I do not have personal interest here at all. A disclaimer would be perfect for that purpose.

It's all up to you. That's why I said 'is that OK'. I am not you and I would not link that question with anything at all. Cheers, New worl (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is article's current version a very good example of NPOV violation?

Yes. Because:

• The current article only stated many numbers of different types of stores(1), number of locations(2), dates of first openings in every countries(3), how large stores are(4), etc. No information at all about people who make the products, how they are treated, how they are paid.
• Fact 2006 is the cause of 'In 2006, Primark joined the Ethical Trading Initiative, a collaborative organization bringing together businesses, trades unions and NGOs to work on labour rights issues in their supply chains' (quoted in the article) The article cannot omit the reason of Primark's join in the Ethical Trading Initiative. New worl (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC) New worl (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This was answered already above. Those workers were not employed by Primark, but by a supplier. It simply giving Undue Weight to mention a supplier's workers without potentially mentioning others as well, etc. You were already told this in the Pope Francis article. If you want to grind an axe about poor conditions, take it somewhere else. We don't use articles for soapboxing. Also, if you have a good reference providing the reasons why Primark joined, I think that could be mentioned if it is deemed relevant. --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

First, please re-read the talk in the Pope Francis article to see how others responsed. For example, Andrewman327 said that 'If there is additional coverage of statements made about workers rights, it might warrant a subsection...'

Second, can you go to Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Labor_practices and Nike,_Inc.#Sweatshops to have a simple but eye-opening experience for you.

Third, this Guardian article stated that 'Primark and Monsoon, have been caught up in recent exposés of labour practices through rogue suppliers ' New worl (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Re. 'We don't mention the employees, or their working conditions or pension arrangements'

Answer: A very easy task for you because you edited this article since Jan 2009: Provide articles about Primark's employees that meet Wikipedia:Verifiability New worl (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We don't mention the employees because there's nothing notable or relevant to this article about them. Sure, we could. We chose not to. Perhaps in the future something notable and relevant will cause someone to add to this article, but it hasn't happened yet. The point isn't about verifiability, it's about relevance. --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then don't use such subjects in your argument. They will weaken yours. New worl (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if you just fail to see the point. Once again. We don't metion the employees because there's nothing notable or relevant to this article in doing that. Similarly, we don't mention the people that clean the offices or wash windows or supply the computer systems, etc. And that's the same relationship that the workers making clothes has with Primark. As you've been already told, mentioning them would be WP:UNDUE and probably fail WP:NOTABILITY. --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Re. 'external people'

They are not notable. And please provide Wikipedia:Verifiability if you disagree. New worl (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, you agree that "external people" are not relevant. Can we now also agree that the "external people" working for other companies, supplying goods and services are also not relevant, even if a tragic incident occurs? --HighKing (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go to Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Labor_practices and Nike,_Inc.#Sweatshops. New worl (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note how these are separate articles. If you want to set up a "Criticism of Primark" article, then that would be a good place to write about various work practices (so long as its sourced, etc). But they don't belong in the main article for an incident where the connection is that Primark did business with one of the companies in the building that collapsed. --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you read Nike,_Inc.#Sweatshops? New worl (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Nike link to sweatshops was very notable and received extensive coverage in news reports, books and even documentaries. In those reports, the focus was about Nike (and not the sweatshops per se), and therefore Nike wasn't a tangential mention, and the event was notable. I don't see the same criteria with your linking of Primark and other retailers with the building collapse. --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Which books, which documentaries? Do you know how to cite your sources? New worl (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you see Apple_Inc.#Labor_practices? New worl (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How about 'Primark and Monsoon, have been caught up in recent exposés of labour practices through rogue suppliers (Guardian 2010 article) New worl (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the title of the article? Is Primark or Monsoon the focus of the article, with detailed reporting and maybe some facts and figures? Has an investigation been carried out? Or (in the interests of NPOV) is it simply a reporter adding big names to an article to generate some sensational coverage? Also, do I take it (seeing as this article is from 2010) that you're still trying to do some Original Research to somehow continue to link Primark with the Savar incident? --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence. Please explain. New worl (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Re. 'libelous'

I disagree, and what's more, your attempt to link Primark with responsibility for the incident is unsourced, is original research and potentially libelous.

You need to watch your language when you talk about editors. I did not attempt to link anything. The following info is from Reliable source: The Guardian

On 27 April protesters surrounded Primark store on Oxford Street in the City of Westminster in the West End of London. Speaking outside the store, Murray Worthy, from campaign group War on Want, said: ‘We’re here to send a clear message to Primark that the 300 deaths in the Bangladesh building collapse were not an accident – they were entirely preventable deaths. If Primark had taken its responsibility to those workers seriously, no one need have died this week.’ New worl (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's twice you've said I need to watch my language. Please inform me what exactly you find offensive to you because it's becoming very clear to me that by adding handpicked quotes and links to articles, you are attempting to link responsibility with Primark and other companies to this incident. Otherwise, please explain why you have chosen the quote above which states "If Primark had taken its responsibility to those workers seriously, no one need have died this week.".

And just because "The Guardian" reports on an event, it doesn't make the event notable (as per WP:EVENT) and it certainly doesn't grant factual status (or lessen the potential libellous nature) to any comments to a spokesperson for a fringe organization like War on Want. --HighKing (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Can you count again how many times I said so? And can you count how many times you said 'libelous' or 'libellous'?

2. Do you read Wikipedia definition for 'libelous' before using such word many times against editor here?

3. I use that quote because I need to protect myself against your 'libelous' claim against me. New worl (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Please point out where I made a claim that what you said was libelous. And again, I can't decide if you are being deliberately obtuse or if this is your normal interaction style. Let me be clear. A claim made by a spokesperson for "War on Want" directly blames Primark for the loss of life. No evidence at all - they're still pulling bodies from the rubble - and *you* want to include the direct quote in an article? That statement is potentially libelous, and if you think I'm being unreasonable, go ask someone else. --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

External Links - Most relevant/alphabetical

@HighKing: As far as I'm aware Article links go by most relevant, Not in alphabetical order...
WP:ELLAYOUT states A bulleted list of recommended relevant websites, each accompanied by a short description,
If Primark has more stores in IRE/UK then in Germany, It makes more sense to list IRE/UK first? Plus Primark was founded in IRE so again they should have more priority,
On another note I've never seen an alphabetical list on here in the 3yrs I've been here...
Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree in so far as the policy states only recommended relevant websites should be included. It says nothing about what order they should be added. So how do we define "relevant" - that's the point at issue. It could be the greatest number of stores. Or the highest revenue by country. Or the fastest growing market for Primark. Or the most employees. Or most customers. Or whatever other measurements of "relevant" there might be - that's the point. You've chosen one method, but it's not clear why for any passing reader. But it's a small point, and I'm happy to let it go. In the beginning I just felt you hadn't understood why I had sorted alphabetically, and why "relevant" doesn't actually translate to any particular ordering. While I disagree with your reasons, it's not a big deal and hardly worth us getting in a knot over it. --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point .... I meant as in it being relevant store wise as well as founded wise,

I've looked through other store wikis (IE Debenhams, C. & J. Clark) and none include official sites to different languages so I've decided to remove them, We both definitely agree that warring over this is stupid, Anyway If you want to revert me then feel free as I think we both have different definitions of "relevant" ...

Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Most(?) chains choose to not operate their own stores in multiple European countries - at best they'll grant a franchise. More relevant would be something like Tesco or Lidl I'd say, but they also don't list country specific websites. Happy to go with something that makes sense, and unless and until another editor joins the discussion with a different viewpoint, I'm happy to go with yours. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's actually very true, Anyway reverted..

Thaanks →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting info about Bonmarché

Note: The bit about sweatshops says "Several companies refused to sign, including Walmart, Carrefour, Bonmarché, Mango, Auchan and Kik. The agreement was signed by Primark, Loblaw, Bonmarche and El Corte Inglés.[31]" So did Bonmarche sign or not?

Strange and inappropriate that so much of this article focuses on overseas labour issues. It distorts the whole article and comes across as politically motivated. I'll wait for comments before editing 46.171.180.178 (talk)

I have had a look at the reference and cannot make out which is meant. We just reflect what the reference says - confusing as it is. May need a better reference that gives a clearer statement of the position. Keith D (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Primark. 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/20110618132300/http://www.primarkresponse.com/panorama/ to http://www.primarkresponse.com/panorama/

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) 20:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Primark. 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/20071008102159/http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/05/primark-press/index.shtml to http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/05/primark-press/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302054854/http://waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii to http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325223918/http://www.dhakatribune.com/business/2013/nov/17/buyers%e2%80%99-compensation-rana-plaza-victims-far-reality to http://www.dhakatribune.com/business/2013/nov/17/buyers%E2%80%99-compensation-rana-plaza-victims-far-reality
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160709093857/https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/%E2%80%98cry-help%E2%80%99-prisoner-chinese-forced-labour-jail-alleged-have-been-found-inside-primark to https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/%E2%80%98cry-help%E2%80%99-prisoner-chinese-forced-labour-jail-alleged-have-been-found-inside-primark

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) 12:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Primark. 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/20150502100506/http://www.abf.co.uk/responsibility/our-actions/primark_ethical_trade_team to http://www.abf.co.uk/responsibility/our-actions/primark_ethical_trade_team

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) 03:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Rita Ora X Primark

There is no mention of Rita Ora X Primark. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)