Talk:Levi Strauss & Co./Archives/2012

Business structure?
what kind of business structure is levi strauss & Co. ????

Redirect?
I'm thinking that "Levi's" should redirect here but I don't know howGabenowicki 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The ownership situation
Anybody wanna add something on the equity ownership sitaution? When was the company sold to the Haas family?--213.238.212.98 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Haas family is directly descended from one of Levi Strauss's nephews. According to Forbes, there are around 200 or so Levi Strauss heirs. Sandover 08:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about SLATES & other (defunct?) product lines?
"Slates" — a line of dress pants launched by Levi's in the '90s (and named by Lexicon Branding) following the success of Dockers — floundered, so the company commissioned Richard Avedon in 1999 to help resuscitate the brand.

Are Slates still around?

Whether or not Slates are still around, a "discontinued lines & products" section (or some such) would be an interesting and culturally useful addition to this article.

--Bigcharles 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayStroke (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Plant Closures and Ethics doctrines
Here are a few questions for the readers to consider.

What Ethics doctrine is used to consider closure of all the American plants?

Was Utilitarian or Egoism used? Was this really for the greater good of all, just for the company alone since its now back to being a family owned business and has no stock holders?

The company has rules of conduct for suppliers, contractors, employees of international manufacturing and do they have enough personnel to monitor its implementation? Is it ethical to just say well we do have rules we just can't assess and enforce them all?

Points to ponder as NAFTA passes the decade mark and America continues to be a nation deep in corporate and personal debt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayStroke (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

SOX violations
The reason I deleted the sections about SOX labour legislation is that there were zero references in those sections, and much of the content was not directly related to the topic of this article, Levi Strauss. For example, the first big section about the legislation merely described the legislation, not how it specifically relates to the company. That is the kind of information that would belong in an article about the legislation itself, not this article. Spylab (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE THE SOX SECTION -- NO SOURCES, HIGH BIAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.29.209 (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Undid vandalism by 76.174.29.209 on March 17, 2008; Federal court trial proceeding are valid sources. Levi Strauss management is facing multiple decade prison sentences for SOX violations and SOX whistleblower retailiation. x0000grb (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|50px]]
 * Do not put extreme POV unreferenced material in this article. The SOX violation section was written with no attempt was made to write a balanced article.  User:x0000grb has only made contributions on this topic, and appears to have a conflict of interest. I find it difficult to assume good faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox Bardcom (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A little perspective?
Jeez. For a company founded in 1873, only 2 graphs on the history? More on Sarbanes-Oxley?! No mention of the date of intro of major products? (501s come to mind...) This is embarrassing. Trekphiler (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart
The wiki states that Levi Strauss & Co. is the largest retail partner of Wal-Mart, but the reference does not support this. Besides, I have a hard time believing it's not a CPG company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.104.36 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Product Numbering
How about a list of the jeans they offer? I.e. 501, 505, 569, etc. Jigen III (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Levi vs Tesco
I reckon this would be worth adding to the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1261829.stm

About the UK grocery retailer Tesco selling Levi jeans off the "grey market" and the legal battle that ensued between Levi Strauss and Tesco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TurboForce (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Organization
The third paragraph of the "Organization" section reeks of bias, and unsurprisingly lacks any sources. Especially this part which doesn't make any logical sense: "Levi's expansion under Simpkins was accomplished without a single unionized employee as a result of Levi's' and the Haas families' strong stance on human rights"

This whole paragraph needs to be completely rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.12.222 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Founded in 1873 not 1853
The article contradicts itself, by quoting official company propaganda that is false. The company was founded in 1872 or 1873. (The chronology in the article makes 1872 unlikely.) The company claims to have been founded in 1850 or 1853, but this is bogus. For year Jack Herer claimed the company had made hemp clothing, because the company claimed to make clothes of cotton doek in the 1850s even though cotton doek was not invented until 1869. It appears that the company did not make clothes of hemp. They started making cotton clothes in 1873 or 1874.

In my experience, if you try to replace official company history with truth it gets deleted unless you have a Very Good Source. I don't have one. However, if you research the official story you will find they claim to have made clothes of cotton doek before it was invented, which should be good enough evidence to not believe the official history.

I don't do edit wars. I am just telling the truth and moving on.  Randall Bart    Talk   07:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Levi's material supplier was, according to their own corporate history, the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company. Amoskeag went out of business in 1935 but is very well documented; there's a museum and a corporate history. It was once the largest textile manufacturer in the world, and started production of cotton fabrics in 1839. The hemp jeans claim seems to be bogus. Amoskeag did cotton and wool fabrics, but not hemp. --John Nagle (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)