Talk:L'Oréal

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Animal Testing  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brand Section 

message: 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)
thread_title: "currently"

message: 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)
thread_title: Loreal Kids?

message: where is L'Oréal manufactured and where are its headquarters
124.170.244.50 08:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have removed the long list of external links to various L'Oreal brand websites.  Wikipedia is NOT a web directory.  Furthermore, all of these links are accessible from the front page of the corporate website.  Finally, please keep in mind that the guidelines for external links as well as WP:NOT require that we keep external links (if any) to a minimum.  For an article about a company, the external links section frequently includes just one link, to the company's main website.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spokesmodels 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boycotts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apostrophe? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional citations needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Litigation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is it MAGAZINE OR MAHAZINE ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on L'Oréal. 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/20150502221904/http://www.trustadvisory.info/allindia_2014.html to http://www.trustadvisory.info/allindia_2014.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20100424192639/http%3A//www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/anitas-163652m-sellout-470379.html
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) 14:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on L'Oréal. 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/20120505045702/http://gladwell.com/2011/2011_03_28_a_color_of_money.html to http://www.gladwell.com/2011/2011_03_28_a_color_of_money.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010122943/http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D14633%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D14633%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160403113833/http://standardethicsindices.eu/standard-ethics-french-index.html to http://www.standardethicsindices.eu/standard-ethics-french-index.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20170209165431/http://www.connexionfrance.com/court-appeal-price-fixing-fine-upheld-consumer-companies-gillette-loreal-procter-gamble-sc-johnson-18567-view-article.html to http://www.connexionfrance.com/court-appeal-price-fixing-fine-upheld-consumer-companies-gillette-loreal-procter-gamble-sc-johnson-18567-view-article.html
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) 05:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: what's the word L'oreal mean? I used to think Oreo, but that's probably wrong.Feldercarb (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's in a name? 

message: Regarding the change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%27Or%C3%A9al&type=revision&diff=964110165&oldid=963604713&diffmode=source firstly the change to "affirmed" adds bias as it is a strong word (meaning "emphatically state"), suggesting the extent of the company's feeling about the statement (which we do not know/cannot back up with a source). It is more accurate to say this was a claim by the company (something they are stating but cannot necessarily be backed up by a neutral observer). Secondly (and I think this would have been better as two separate changes) the changes to the skin whitening section remove essential context - you have said that the skin whitening creams have been criticised but removed a point about the reason for this criticism which was supported by a citation. Apologies but I took the liberty of undoing the change as you by deletion were undoing someone else's change. Evertent (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Undid here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%27Or%C3%A9al&diff=971218517&oldid=971212759&diffmode=source Evertent (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin whitening detail 

message: Currently links to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paravisi%C3%B3n which is a television network in Paraguay and may have been created in 2005, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paravisi%C3%B3n. I believe the article is talking about Paravision International, which is a different company that was created far earlier. I don't believe the company has an English or French page but it is referenced on this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StudioCanal and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Frydman. Link should probably just be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coystags (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paravision link appears to be incorrect