Talk:Grohe

Edit Request Due to COI
- I wrote a proposal for a comprehensive article about Grohe AG (which is the actual name of the company): User:Pfandtasse/Grohe AG Among other things, it features the recent history and information about the company's activities in the U.S. As I wrote the article on behalf of the company, there clearly is a conflict of interest, so I kindly request review and implementation, if appropriate. I tried hard to adhere all of WP's standards. Please refer to my talk page for any questions or concerns. -- Pfandtasse (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012‎ (UTC)
 * The article mostly sources to Grohe AG itself. Seems more a representative survey of what Grohe AG feels is important about itself, which could not result in a Wikipedia article that presents views fairly and without bias. Using Grohe AG as the article source gives undue weight to history events of Grohe in those situations were no reliable source independent of Grohe found that information important enough to write about in their publication. What about instead using coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Grohe? (see Creating articles that comply with major content policies) That may help lead to a fair and balanced article. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grohe. 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/20150925114812/http://www.grohe.com/30212/about-company/the-grohe-group/ to http://www.grohe.com/30212/about-company/the-grohe-group/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to update article
Dear all,

I am working in the communications department of Grohe. I therefore have a financial COI. In accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines I would like to help to update the article about my employer. I have also been working with the German mentoring program to update the German article over the last few months. I would like to start to make suggestions to update our revenue and employee numbers, make some format changes and add one additional information as well as delete what I believe is sugarcoated wording in the paragraph “Grohe in the U.S.”. I created a respective to compare my suggestions to the current version.

In addition, I noticed that there is a dead link at the last sentence of the second paragraph under “2010-present: recent history”. I tried to replace this, but was not able to find an available source. Do you have any suggestions how to proceed here?

I am very much looking forward to your feedback. Please do not hesitate to contact me here or on my talk page in case you have any questions or suggestions on how to move forward.

Kind regards,

--JBJDus17 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks fine for the most part, but can I ask why you removed a link to the internet archive's version of a source used? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wanted to update the source but put it back now as I noticed that the one I used is not suitable anymore. How do we proceed? --JBJDus17 (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 more thing - for the financial statement 2017, can you provide a link to the specific page? I didn't see it on the main site page --DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bundesanzeiger is the official page of the German government, where financial statements from companies get published. Unfortunately, there is no possibility to provide direct links to these pages. If you go to the page www.bundesanzeiger.de put in "Grohe AG" where it says "Suchbegriff". It is the 8th hit from above where it says "Konzernabschluss zum Geschäftsjahr vom 01.04.2016 bis zum 31.03.2017 Berichtigung der Veröffentlichung vom 22.02.2018" from 08.03.2018 (meaning 8 March 2018). This is the most up to date consolidated financial statement of Grohe AG and its subsidiaries. You will be ask to put in the letters/numbers shown to prove that you are not a machine. Put it in where it says "2. Zeichen eingeben". Under 2.2.2 you'll find the revenue for 2017 ("Umsatz") of "1.347,1 Mio." In German we use the comma and dot differently, so this is 1347.1 Million euros, which we rounded up to 1.35 billion. Under 2.6 you'll find the employee numbers ("Mitarbeiter"). There it says "Zum Geschäftsjahresende betrug die Mitarbeiterzahl 5.831" meaning At the end of the fiscal year the number of employees was 5831. Does this help? --JBJDus17 (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll assume good faith and take you at your word. You can make the edit seen here (without the connected contributor tag). Please ping me when you are done, so I can review it one last time before setting the edit request template to done. Thank you for your contributions, and for managing your COI so diligently. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me also check source #17, which was marked as a dead link yesterday. In addition, I would in a next step like to make further suggestions for the history section. I worked with the German mentoring program on this and would like to likewise update the article here. Would it be okay if I make these suggestions on the subpage of my user page again for review? What do you think? --JBJDus17 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * sure, do something like this and ping me or leave a message at User talk:DannyS712. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you very much! --JBJDus17 (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions for history section
I hope you are doing fine. As I announced Tuesday, I made some suggestions to add missing information and correct wrong or not precise information to the history section of the article as well as adding missing sources. Here is the. My suggestions are a little bit more thorough than the suggestions I made Monday. I hope this is okay!

Here is a short summary of what I did:

- First paragraph (1911 until 1990: family-owned): I added information about the new plant in Lahr and the exact year it became part of Grohe due to the taking over of Carl Nestler Armaturenfabrik, the introduction of Skalatherm and the expansion into Austria and Italy

- Second/third/fourth paragraph (1911 until 1990: family-owned): Added more context about why Friedrich Grohe sold 51% of the shares. Also added the expansion in several other countries and the introduction of the ladylux. In addition, I added the beginning of the cooperation with Grome Marketing to give more context to the full takeover in 2017, which already is mentioned in the article today.

- 1990s and 2000s: involvement of investors: Small additions on when the companies DAL group, Armaturenfabrik H. D. Eichelberg & Co. GmbH were founded as well as adding missing sources for this paragraph. In the last paragraph I corrected wrong information about the restructuring (e.g. the program started 2007 not 2005 (it was announced 2005) as well as 950 instead of 500 planned job cuts.

- 2010-present: recent history: I would like to suggest to delete the first paragraph here as this is partly outdated and would probably fit better into a new section describing the corporate structure, which I am happy to suggest if you agree. In addition I added some information about the Joyou bankruptcy and the takeover by Lixil. Towards the end of this section I suggest to mention the appointment of our new CEO (2015) as well as more recent developments.

I also included a new source for opening the showroom in NY in 2011 as the old one is not available anymore.

All my new suggestions are also already mentioned in the German article today. Here I tried to use as many English-language sources as possible though.

Please let me know, what you think and if you have any questions! I am looking forward to your feedback.

--JBJDus17 (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * based on your summary, I'm concerned that the added content might not be the most neutral. Would you be okay with splitting this up? I see nothing that could go wrong with adding the new source for the showroom, or correcting wrong information, but the addition of some of the other stuff requires a closer look --DannyS712 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Thank you for your feedback. I will add the source for the showroom and correct the wrong information about the restructuring. I leave everything else for now. Please let me know what you think when you took a closer look. Thank you very much for taking your time to review my suggestions. This is greatly appreciated! All the best --JBJDus17 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that I made a minor mistake in correcting a cross-reference to the article TPG earlier. I now corrected this. I hope this was okay. Let me know, if you have any questions with the other suggestions I made. They are really just a translation of what we have worked on with the German mentoring program. I did try to put as many english-language sources though as possible for readers' further studies on the topic. Looking forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, --JBJDus17 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Special:Diff/901793118, it should be fine --DannyS712 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Thanks! Anything else I can do with regard to my other ? --JBJDus17 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said earlier - please split it up into more manageable segments. If you can give me a sandbox diff (don't edit the actual article, make a copy like last time) of adding sources, then another for the other stuff by paragraph, that should be okay in terms of being easier to review. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I understand. That is no problem, of course! I will do that in my sandbox like last time. I greatly appreciate your continued feedback! --JBJDus17 (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the for the first paragraph of the history section. I added missing sources to the paragrah and specified when and how the factory in Lahr became part of Grohe. In addition, I suggest to add some historic information about the development of products - in this case the Skalatherm and the first expansions of the company - after France - to other European countries. What do you think? --JBJDus17 (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * sure, go ahead. Please ping me when you make that edit and link to the diff --DannyS712 (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I made the edit Special:Diff/901805239. Like this okay? --JBJDus17 (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * yes --DannyS712 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. I made further suggestions for the paragrahp "1911 to 1990" : I added more context about why Friedrich Grohe sold 51% of the shares. Also added the expansion in several other countries and the introduction of the ladylux. In addition, specified the cooperation with Grome Marketing (since) as currently it sounds like the cooperation was only in that one year. --JBJDus17 (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but given that I'm not familiar with this subject and have a lot of other things to do, I'm probably not going to get to this for a bit --DannyS712 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Whenever you get the chance, will be absolutely fine. I greatly appreciate your help and the time you spent on this. --JBJDus17 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How are you? I wanted to kindly ask, if you were willing to help me with a few more changes. I understand that you are not familiar with the subject, but what I suggest is just some general information in the history section and nothing too specific. What do you think? Here is the last I made. Looking forward to hearing from you. --JBJDus17 (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but since I am not familiar with this, I'd prefer to leave it for someone else DannyS712 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your reply. Best, JBJDus17 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Updates to the history section
Dear all,

I am working in the communications department of Grohe. I therefore have a financial COI. I have been working on updating the German Grohe article together with a mentor, who kindly took his time to help me create a thorough article about Grohe based on what existed already. We therefore mostly updated old information, but also added new information (mainly in the history and corporate structure sections), where we felt important information was missing. Based on this, I created a similar update for the English version of the article and suggested some updates above already; first I suggested to delete some - what I believed was sugarcoated - wording and some format changes and now some updates to the history section. DannyS712 was already so kind to take some time to review a few suggestions.

I would be very grateful if another uninvolved editor would review my further suggestions. I am happy to make suggestions paragraph by paragraph if that is convenient: Here is the last I made for the paragraph "1911 to 1990". All the changes I offer can be found here (with some already implemented with above changes).

Thank you very much in advance for your time. Looking forward to your feedback.

Kind regards, --JBJDus17 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As you have made constructive edits to this article in the past, I was wondering if you might have the time and interest in reviewing this request to update the history section? What do you think? Thanks in advance! --JBJDus17 (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the last diff I made for the paragraph "1911 to 1990". All the changes I offer can be found here (with some already implemented with above changes). There needs to be an economy of requests here. From the quoted sentence, it appears that there are two different "diffs" of changes. The request also indicates that you've mixed portions of one diff with the other ("with some already implemented with above changes") and given minimally vague directions as to what has been implemented ("with some already implemented"). Other editors appear to have asked for you to break up your request into pieces. I'm asking that you either (a) place them back together again, or (b) submit each piece separately, one at a time. The single portion which you choose to submit need not mention the other non-submitted portions (as your most recent request does) since this needlessly complicates the request. When you've chosen which version to submit, please reactivate the request by changing the answer parameter from yes to no. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  09:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the approach suggested by . Edwardx (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your fast feedback and ! Since it is easiest for uninvolved editors to review smaller offers for edits, I would like to choose the economy of requests approach. Having said this, I would greatly appreciate if an uninvolved editor could review my suggestions to the paragraph "1911 to 1990": . I am very much looking forward to your feedback. And: Thanks again in advance! --JBJDus17 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 30-JUL-2019
Regards, Spintendo  15:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Portions of the proposed text are insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. All additions to an article need to be placed using an editors own words and phrasings, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.
 * 1) Information displayed at the fundinguniverse.com website was taken from sources gathered by fundinguniverse.com and pieced together to form a narrative at the fundinguniverse.com site. Portions of that text were then copied and placed in the COI edit request. The text that is ultimately proposed to be added here in the article should not be copied verbatim from fundinguniverse.com.
 * 2) If the COI edit request is going to make use of properly paraphrased material from fundinguniverse.com, it needs to state the sources that fundinguniverse.com is using. Those are the true sources of the information — not fundinguniverse.com. Those are listed at the bottom of the fundinguniverse.com page.
 * Finally, the article as it stands now is virtually identical to the draft that the COI editor is suggesting in the edit request, as you can see with this diff of the changes between the draft version and the current standing version of the article. This renders the request as not actionable.


 * Thank you for your feedback. I rephrased the sentence "Under the brand name Ladylux, Grohe introduced the first pull-out spray kitchen faucet in the U.S. market in 1983.", which I believe you thought was too close to the original. Here is the Regarding your second point: The source is already used in the article today. In addition, it will probably not be possible to find out, which of the mentioned sources at the end of the fundinguniverse page are the ones taken for the different information in the text as they are largely not available online (anymore). Your last point: Of course, the article is largely the same. I was asked - as you mentioned before - to only make small changes; one at a time. Or am I just not understanding this correctly? --JBJDus17 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * can you help? --JBJDus17 (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Too busy! Edwardx (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to create Corporate Structure section
Hello again,

On behalf of Grohe I have translated the German Corporate Structure section and added English-language sources where possible. Where this was not possible, I have used the German sources. I have worked with the German mentoring program on this section there to ensure it is up-to-date. For the English-language Wikipedia I would like to propose to leave out the list of important Grohe locations from around the world, which are in the respective German section and which were placed there by another user. I feel this is not relevant here. However, I am happy to add those if this is perceived differently by another user.

You can see my proposed draft and markup in the collapse boxes below. I suggest to place the new Corporate Structure at the end of the article after the section Grohe in the U.S.

Recognizing this is not a very short new section and being mindful of the time of volunteers, I've shared the full section draft. But if editors would still prefer to review this subsection-by-subsection, that would be great, too!

As I do have a conflict of interest working for Grohe, I won't make any edits myself. I, therefore, very much welcome input from uninvolved editors and assistance taking live changes if others find them appropriate. I am looking forward to your feedback! Thanks in advance,--JBJDus17 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 19-AUG-2019

 * As I stated earlier, the draft version is practically identical to the standing version of the article. Instead of submitting an entire draft to replace an entire section, kindly state each specific desired change in the form of verbatim statements which can be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text to be removed should also be described including the exact location where the desired claims are to be placed. Finally, reasons should be provided for each change. An example edit request for how this is to be done is shown below:


 * Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."


 * Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."


 * Using as the reference:


 * Reason for making the change:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards, Spintendo  02:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text, placement locations and reasons.

Request to create new Corporate Structure section, not existing today
, Thank you for your remarks above. I am proposing a completely new section, which does not by itself nor its content exist in the English-language article today. This proposal does not include any content to be deleted from the current article. It is a translation of the respective section in the German article as described above. I suggest to place this new Corporate Structure at the end of the article after the section Grohe in the U.S.

I would like to add this section, as it provides relevant information on the (legal) company structure, the management and supervisory board, the production sites and a very short summary about the products of the company - all backed by reliable sources, e.g. New York Times or The Economist.

You can see my proposed draft and markup in the collapse boxes below.

Recognizing this is not a very short new section and being mindful of the time of volunteers, I've shared the full section draft. But if editors would still prefer to review this subsection-by-subsection, that would be great, too!

As I do have a conflict of interest working for Grohe, I won't make any edits myself. I, therefore, very much welcome input from uninvolved editors and assistance taking live changes if others find them appropriate. I am looking forward to your feedback! Thanks in advance, JBJDus17 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 20-AUG-2019
Regards, Spintendo  21:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ The Corporate structure section was added.
 * 2) ❌ The Locations section was not added per WP:NOTADIRECTORY.
 * 3) ❌ The Productions section was not added, per WP:NOTACATALOG.


 * , Thank you very much for your help. This greatly appreciated. Sorry that it took me so long to reply! Wish you all the best, JBJDus17 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Update Info box CEO
Dear all,

I would like to propose to update the info box of the article according to the description in the section company structure as Michael Rauterkus is - as of July 2019 - no longer CEO of Grohe AG. His successor is Thomas Fuhr. The source number 22 of the current article could be used as source.

As I have a conflict of interest, I won't make any edits myself. Looking forward to your feedback. Best JBJDus17 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 02-SEP-2019
Spintendo 21:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)