Talk:L'Oréal/Archive 1

Untitled
To 81.208.106.64, the Matrix brand link you added was not working. The Matrix page clarifies various Matrix terms already.

Vichy stuff
I think that the past political and criminal activities of Bettencourt, Schueller etc. should be mentioned, but should not take too much room &mdash; they are already documented at length in the pages related to these individuals. David.Monniaux 06:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vichy stuff - The individuals put La Cagoule into L'Oréal in many ways over at least 70 years
This perspective, of leaving La Cagoule out of the L'Oréal story, is not neutral when the individuals used the company as the vehicle for these activities in so many different ways, over so much time. It's not just that the money came from this company. The company founder, Eugene Schueller, actually held the meetings at L'Oréal corporate headquarters in the 1920's and 1930's. In the 1950's, L'Oréal hired at least a dozen war criminals and their families, including in particular La Cagoule agents. Schueller passed ownership of L'Oréal to another La Cagoule agent, Andre Bettencourt (who also married Schueller's daughter Liliane Bettencourt née Schueller). Under Bettencourt, a convicted war criminal and high-ranking La Cagoule agent, Jacques Correze, became the president of Cosmair, and when a scandal erupted, L'Oréal's PR department worked to conceal the full extent of L'Oréal's connection to La Cagoule and of Correze's identity and past. La Cagoule is part of the L'Oréal story, because everyone involved put La Cagoule into L'Oréal. Look at it this way - if Schueller had won his money in the lottery and financed La Cagoule, the lottery wouldn't be part of the story. But it's not merely where the money came from. L'Oréal's ownership and management have put La Cagoule into the company in so many ways that it's not possible to truthfully tell the stories of either La Cagoule, or L'Oréal, without mentioning the other. Twestgard


 * Just a side note: you are not forced to say La Cagoule, you can say the Cagoule &mdash; La simply meaning "The" in the feminine. David.Monniaux 16:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

La Cagoule may well have been an anti-democratic, far-right, traitorous organization with Nazi sympathies, which during the Occupation collaborated with the Nazis (though the Cagoule Web page says that some collaborated and some resisted) but it is bizarre to call it "collaborationist" when talking about activities in the 1920's and 1930's for the simple reason that "collaboration" only makes sense in the context of the Occupation. It is also bizarre to say nothing about what happened during the war. --Macrakis 02:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Macrakis, I see the problem you point to, with use of the word "collaboration." To the extent it works, it's because there was some degree of cooperation before the actual occupation began.  Do you think there's a different word that works better? Also, as you point out, the article needs to describe how the organization was dissolved and how many of the participants went on into a new group.  I'll probably get to that in the near future. Twestgard


 * How about "French fascist group with Nazi sympathies"? As for more on La Cagoule, there is a separate page for them.  What should be on the L'Oreal page is what is specific to L'Oreal's relationship with them.  Of course, if there was actual collaboration between L'Oreal management and the Nazi occupiers during the war, that should be mentioned, as should the connections with convicted war criminals, if they are systematic. And it seems to me that Schueller's activities during the war were more heinous than just having meetings at his office.... --Macrakis 22:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankly outraged not a single mention of their shameful and duboius conduct during the war.

Luxury Products Division
For L OREAL GROUP as from April 2005 the new president of Luxury Products is Marc Menesguen and not any more Gilles Weil.Themis

The Luxury Products Division is divided into separate groups. Specialty Brands Group contains Kiehl's Since 1851, Shu Uemura, and Armani Beauty. The president of SBG is Chris Salgardo.

History section
The history sections seems a bit gushy like it's lifted from the company's PR department. An effort should be made to make it more neutral. Also, what's the history of the "L'Oreal" name? It's not mentioned in the entry. --68.103.154.140 06:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing on the Monica Waitzfelder saga about her astonishing case against L'Oreal. Has the company's PR firm removed all references to this David v. Goliath case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain18374 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal Testing
Shouldn't a mention be made of L'Oreal's policy of animal testing be included. It is significant and would contribute to the articleBorgawitz 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's certainly an area of interest. I also believe that some UK students are boycotting L'Oreal as part of the long running anti - Nestle boycott. Saluton 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree!! (That's actually why I came to the talk page- I'd love to make an edit myself but I'm not familiar with the official rules of Wiki editing so I'm mentioning it here). I personally am not using L'Oreal products due to their choice of testing products on animals. (See PETA's shopping guide for caring consumers... http://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp )

L'Oreal is on the "Companies That Do Test On Animals" list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.186.120 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Links 5 and 6, pertaining to L'Oreal's policy on animal testing, appear to be dead... just thought I'd point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.110.152 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Under "Modern controversy", it is stated that "Additionally, L'Oreal, along with Mary Kay and Avon, is currently resuming animal testing on its products as it prepares for the market in China.[28]". But link 28 (http://www.takepart.com/blog-series/paw-and-order/2012/02/27/make-giants-avon-mary-kay-and-estee-lauder-resume-cruel-animal) lists Estée Lauder, Mary Kay, and Avon... L'Oreal is never mentioned. Shouldn't this be removed or replaced with a relevant link? Njdoor (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Brand Section
Why is Nivea mentioned under the L'Oréal brands? This is a Beiersdorf brand?

Almost all the links are external. Perhaps these should be moved to external links at the bottom, otherwise internal links should be created for articles relating to each brand.


 * Did Sei Shonagon 16:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The incorrect brands and out of date details bothered me too when I stumbled on this page. I have started working on the four divisions and updating their respective brands. Fortunately a lot of them have their own brand pages on wiki to ref, but a handful look like they may not yet, so those will need to be created. Work in progress from me! Informationageuser (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"currently"
The article uses the word "current" several times, such as "the board members are currently x and y." Could someone add in the relevant dates? Cause otherwise it doesn't make much sense. Jessicapierce 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
There was a trivia section, which i changed to "slogans" because that was the only thing it pertained to.

Loreal Kids?
Is the Loreal Kids line not produced by loreal or did I just miss something? 172.190.165.215 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
where is L'Oréal manufactured and where are its headquarters

124.170.244.50 08:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Spokesmodels
Why do we care about the long list of people who were paid to promote the brand? What encyclopedic value does it have? Isn't this just WP:TRIVIA? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I support the removal of the flags: it was hard on the eyes.  I have removed all of the people that don't have biographies on Wikipedia.  This still leaves more than 100 names in the list.  Can anyone tell me what the encyclopedic value is for this list?  Perhaps we should delete it altogether, or replace it with a single sentence that says something like "L'Oréal likes to hire celebrities for its advertising campaigns."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a list that long is something of an unsightly carbuncle on the page. There is something of a precedent on the articles on the big sportswear manufacturers like Nike and Adidas, where the lists of players and teams they sponsor were farmed off into seperate pages. Nevertheless, even then there has been some debate on their worthiness. I'd certainly support deletion of much of the list (i.e. those who have appeared in one or two ads), with maybe a few of the more notable spokespeople (like the ubiquitous Andie MacDowell) remaining. Not being much of an authority on the subject, though, I wouldn't know who else would deserve a mention. Gr1st (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the whole thing is unsourced, so we could delete it outright. But if there were a way to identify the handful of people who are the most important celebrities, then I'd be happy with that, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Not only is the whole thing unsourced, but it also appears to contravene WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOR. My vote is therefore for deleting the whole thing outright. Even the "most important celebrities" should only be included if there are reliable sources to support their inclusion.Vitaminman (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to my previous message above - and in light of the fact that four weeks have now passed since I posted it - I note that no contrary opinions have been presented with regard to the proposal that the Spokesmodels section should be deleted. The entire Spokesmodels section broke numerous Wikipedia rules, including WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOR and WP:RS; I have therefore deleted it on these grounds.Vitaminman (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Boycotts
Several groups call for a boycott of L'Oreal because of their use of ingredients from the Dead Sea and presence in the occupied areas of the Palestinian West Bank. The L'Oreal subsidiary " The Body Shop " is also the subject of calls to a boycott of it's products based on the testing of ingredients on animals by L'Oreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulistanos (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe?
While "Ctrl+F"ing for L'Oréal, I noticed that some instances were being skipped. As it turns out, there are two slightly different apostrophes being used throughout the page. This is impossible to notice without setting the font size really high, or by copy-pasting into certain fonts such as Courier.

Compare:

L'Oréal L’Oréal

You probably can't tell the difference, but it affects the search function (PROTIP: the bottom one hooks to the left, and has a slightly bigger space to the right). Is there an "official" apostrophe that should be used? Is this even worth fixing? 96.250.53.165 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations needed
This article badly needs additional WP:RS citations for verification of its contents. Currently, a significant proportion of the text contravenes WP:NOR. I have therefore added an appropriate tag. Vitaminman (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Litigation
Shouldn't the section "Claims of racial discrimination in advertising, and other litigation' be called simply "Litigation"? The current title gives the impression that most of the litigation mentioned is related to racial discrimination in advertising, though this is not actually the case. NicoluxHC (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it MAGAZINE OR MAHAZINE ?
http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/lifestyle/2012/11/09/4th-loreal-workshop-on-african-hair-and-skin-currently-underway/| work=LIFESTYLE Mahazine| title=4th L’Oreal workshop on African76.170.88.72 (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)