Talk:Patagonia, Inc.

message: This page is atrocious.  It consists of maybe 4 facts interspersed with blanket statements, none of which are cited. "[Patagonia] is considered a socially-responsible company".  By whom?  140.180.129.44 17:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. And who writes "outdoor-oriented" clothing? What tautology. It's outdoor clothing, folks.192.206.151.130 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Regarding the random edit by 75.128.174.1 adding the link to the Fortune article and questioning the "seemingly strange relationship with Wal-Mart"---think about it. Patagonia is such a small fish in the ocean and has relatively low environmental impact even if it is does work extremely hard to minimize it. The only way to actually make a difference is to influence larger corporations like Wal-Mart, helping them realize some of the sustainable methods and goals that Patagonia pioneered. By converting a small fraction of its cotton supply to organic, Wal-Mart has already surpassed all of Patagonia's efforts (and Patagonia uses organic cotton exclusively). So, rather than a "suspicious" relationship from working with Wal-Mart, a company with such a "bad rep" from those who normally support Patagonia I think Patagonia has a commendable relationship with them and is doing the right thing. What other company cares more about the actual real big picture than their petty business or image? Is it so hard to break out of your closed-minded assumptions and realize that? (End POV)
That said I agree this article is extremely biased and pretty bad. It needs lots of work, and adding biased questioning statements attached to links is not a way to do that. Reverting. trisweb (Talk) 16:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart relationship 

message: :Image:Patagonia logo color.JPG 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 Wikipedia: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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Patagonia logo color.JPG

message: The Patagonia article contains far too much content about environmental activism of Patagonia. In Germany currently there is running a controversy with an animal welfare organization FOUR PAWS accusing Patagonia and The North Face for using live-plucked down feathers and downs of force-fed geese for their products. Patagonia admitted this in a statement. So not everything is green about Patagonia. I suggest to insert the critics about this to give the article more impartiality.
References:
“FOUR PAWS calls on clothing industry to stop using grey down geese.” Webpage by FOUR PAWS. Retrieved March 14, 2012.
"The Lowdown on Down: An Update." Weblog by Patagonia. Retrieved March 14, 2012. 
Captaintelex (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy: Patagonia is using down feathers of force-fed geese 

message: This page is overtly promotional and outdated. The bulk of the content here is self-published puffery about their environmental initiatives. It comes across as if it were written by an employee of the company and/or lifted directly from the company's website. I'm going to work on improving it, but wanted to post this as an explanation for the tags I recently added. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs serious overhaul 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Patagonia (clothing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512012944/http://www.mensvogue.com/clothing/threads/articles/2008/04/patagonia to http://www.mensvogue.com/clothing/threads/articles/2008/04/patagonia
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101106123000/http://organicexchange.org:80/oecms/ to http://organicexchange.org/oecms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi all, I have interest in improving this article by adding a history section. History sections are commonly found on similar pages such as Nike, Eddie Bauer, etc. I have done much research and would appreciate any constructive feedback/collaboration with my addition. I have finished preparing my additions in my sandbox and will now be posting. Thanks. StudentRyan (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Addition 

message: I added a short paragraph at the end about Patagonia's wool sourcing and some links. These are my first edits on Wikipedia so please check if ok. I think this article is way to "marketingish" and could be improved by some more critical eyes. I will try to add more in the future.
EdoRissen (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wool and PETA 

message: This is regarding this revert.
 Hello. The substance behind the content you added is already included in the article in sufficient and more-neutral language. 
Nothing is explained by the inclusion of WP:BUZZWORDs like "mission-driven company" or "corporate tithing". Likewise, "impact of the making and end-of-life handling " is vague, jargony, and doesn't explain enough to be informative. Oh, and "impact" is also a buzzword, as well. This all strongly gives the impression of promotion or PR-related editing, which is fundamentally counter to Wikipedia's mission. 
Finally, B-Corporation status is almost never covered in any substance by reliable, independent sources, because making its inclusion yet more PR-friendly trivia. If this is significant, it should be supportable by something other than Patagonia's (or B-Corp's) site. Please discuss here before reverting again. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mission-driven" and other buzzwords 

message: Patagonia Films has over 50 films they produced - but this page currently says nothing about this.  Is there someone knowledgeable about this who can kick-off a section on their films? Enquire (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patagonia Films 

message: Regarding this line: "The move allows Chouinard to avoid taxes by gifting his shares to a nonprofit holding company, while effectively maintaining control of the company."
Is the Chouinard family retaining a portion of profits from the company going forward? I'm not sure that it makes sense to describe the donation of the company as a tax avoidance strategy if they aren't retaining profit to be taxed. Hylahyla (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: — Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change