Talk:Reebok/Archive 1

Untitled
Original Research tag added to recent news section. There is no evidence that the given reason is the real reason behind the loss in revenue Aniket ray 13:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this phrase: "However, many people are saying that even with the combined "power" of Reebok and Adidas, they will still be behind Nike." This is hearsay and lacks substantiation. trialsanderrors 09:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please edit this sentence "Reebok's early beginnings date back to before 1900, founded by a young runner Joseph William Foster and his father Joseph B. Foster under a company called J.W. Foster and Sons Limited (formed 1939) by Joseph Williams' sons John and James of Bolton, Lancashire, Great Britain." - I had to read it quite a few times to understand what was actually being said. I still don't understand, who founded the company? JW and his father JB or was it JW's sons?

Inaccuracies
Not trying to be pedantic, but how can Reebok be classed as a British manufacturer when the majority of their shoes are made in Indonesia and their clothing in China, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, or as a British company when they are owned by Adidas. The first paragraph needs changing.

Reebok Logo
Can anyone tell me what the reebok symbol is called? I have done a lot of research and cannot find it. Thanks!

The logo of reebok has a name, "Vector". I presume that the logo represents the massive magnitude and uplooking direction (as in the geometry term, "vector") that the company wishes to portray to the public and the buyers of reebok apparel. I found "Vector" below my reebok shoe box. See more here Sjsharksrs 09:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The current iteration of the Reebok logo design is called the "vector." It is an update of the original logo design which was called the "stripe check." 24.147.126.167 02:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)anon

DMX Line
Shouldn't the DMX line be included in the article?
 * It's added. Sjsharksrs 08:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bedding
I have heard that Reebok has their own line of bedding; is it true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shawkf (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

No

Bias point of view
It is not universally accepted that "sweatshops" are bad. If the labor is voluntary and those working there are better than not working there then "human rights" have not been infringed. Merely tossing this in accepts a priori that sweatshops are bad.


 * Human rights is the provision of livelihood to people. If the workers work below the living wage, they are not given the necessary resources to live, their human rights are gone! Ruennsheng 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient information on human rights section, what about labor/production policies?
I second the comment that this article demonstrates a biased point of view, but in another direction. The details under 'human rights' seem glib and lack detail. Compare to the article on Nike. Where does Reebok make its shoes again? Not in the USA, I'd wager. Is their behavior so much better than Nike's? I'm going to look this up.

Fair use rationale for Image:Reebok logo.PNG
Image:Reebok logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

UK's Flag on Reebok
What ever happened to the UK Flag that Reebok used in the majority of their apparel?

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)