Talk:Primark

message: AKAIK, BHS never  is one of the ex-BHS sites, incidently. --83.70.59.159 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jervis Street. They were an anchor tenant there when it opened, although I actually think thats closed down again by now - I can't remember seeing it last time I was there. --Kiand 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BHS Ireland purchase

message: Primark is a very cheap shop :)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.28.99 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Penneys]] into this article

message: I'm not sure the information contained there has any place in an encylopedia, but I've moved it here in case somebody wants to put it back in. 
--Rdd 16:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How it works

message: I have cut the paragraph -
*This reputation has come about despite the company spending very little on advertising, which has consisted of little more than press releases to local newspapers as new stores have opened. A major exception to this is their Christmas advertising campaign, which has run on radio each Christmas (and occasionally on Irish television). In contrast to their main competitors, Matalan and George at ASDA, Primark have never advertised on television in the UK, and there is evidence that most of Primark's customers first heard about the store through word of mouth.
I REALLY don't think that its sourcable.  Can't imagine any company not marketing itself in one way or another - If its important please discuss Mike33 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, it has advertised on UK Television, although possibly only Northern Ireland, not Great Britain. NotMuchToSay 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: I have had a go at tidying it up, but there is still loads to do.  Comments on my alterations would help me as I am fairly new to this--Screen42 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidy up

message: I removed a comment left by someone:
"Its totally fabulous for lil cheapie bargains and you can customize them and if you go wrong it doesnt really matter beacause they are so cheap!"
Lol.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.22.12 (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed vandalism 

message: It is noted in the Trivia that Primark is pronounced "Pree-mark" in NI, but "Pry-mark" in Great Britain.  When I lived in Glasgow everyone said "Pree-mark."  Is this just a Glasgow thing, or should the trivia be changed to "Pree-mark" in NI and Scotland? Spiderdust 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Removed "It is also Reilly Marshalls (of Nottingham) favourite shop, it is reported that he once spent an astonishing £11 there in one go. He purchased ten shirts, six pairs of socks, twelve t shirts and three pairs of jeans" from the article, why is this article so prone to vandalism? This comment was left by §©ʁİƃƀȴıŋ’ Ƨł₥ȫȠ talk|contribs 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Vandalism

message: Is there actually such a department??? Artybrad 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No[]. I will remove. This comment was left by §©ʁİƃƀȴıŋ’ Ƨł₥ȫȠ talk|contribs 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fat Wear"

message: Is this section necessary? Is it of any interest to anyone except employees? There is nothing remarkable or significantly different compared to other retailers, and I have looked at other retailer's articles and none seem to have details regarding staff pay and low level management structure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandygatt (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Store Structure

message: Removing:"2009 primark are planning to make verious adverts on televison. They have recently said that they do make children make their clothes"
Don't Know Whether It's Just Bad Spelling Or Just Completely False. And I Sincerely Doubt The Second Part. Give Me A Source, I Might Believe It. Until Then I'm Removing It QuietusExtraho (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: I have just uploaded the new logo, I had a few problems with the uploading because Wikipedia keeps thinking it's a duplicate, I have now also included a Non Free rationale on the logo page. Bevanl (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Logo 

message: The article differs from the "Company Profile" section on here.  Which is right?  --HighKing (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of stores? 

message: Are the headquarters definitely in Ireland?  I can find no reference on the Primark, now the ABF website confirming this. Pennys may have started in Ireland, but where does Primark come in?  Was it a merger or take-over or just a different name?Darkieboy236 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters 

message: Seems odd that the stress would be on the mark. Can anyone confirm? kwami (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation  

message: Some of the information on the page is out of date.
The total number of stores primark now has is up to 232 due to opening new stores in the united kingdom (bexleyheath).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattricus (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date information 

message: #War on Want report finds child labourers in Bangladesh making Primark clothes for 3p an hour. Another source
I've reverted your additions.  It seems to me that it is very much WP:OR due to selective sourcing to sensationalize the notion that Primark endorses slave labour.  It is very WP:POINTy to continue to add to this article after the discussion above.  If you want to add something in that is potentially libelous, please get agreement here first.  For example, what exactly is the relevance to the story that protesters surrounded a Primark store on Oxford street?  One store?  Out of 256?  Seems to me that it's a very poor attempt to place a quote into the article from "War on Want" - what evidence is there that Primark didn't take their responsibility clearly?  Is Murray Worthy an expert on Primark work relations and practices?  Is Primark's behaviour unusual for the clothing retail sector?  Similarly, we don't use the article to overly praise Primark or report on every event that Primark was involved in.  We don't list every award they've won, or we don't mention their staff raising money for Children In Need, etc, etc.  It's not a company newsletter or bulletin board.  Personally, I don't believe the building collapse should even be mentioned in the article - as has been pointed out, Primark didn't own the factories, had no part in running the factories, and was simply used the clothing manufacturer as a supplier.  Please, could other editors weigh in with their opinions on this and lend a hand so that some sort of consensus can be reached please.  --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 

message: New Worl, you originally edited this article to insert a mention of the Savar incident.  You've posted about 12 links which *you* say are relevant, but the only common thread are lots of pretty sensational and potentially libelous statements from "War on Want" (a tiny charity that tackles "poverty"), low paid workers manufacturing high street fashion for a variety of high street stores, and the fact that most of the links are from between 2006 and 2008 around the time the BBC made a documentary.  None are relevant to this article in my opinion.  They're mostly out of date.  Just because Primark is mentioned as an example of a store, does not make it notable for inclusion in this article.  That's pretty much my take on it.  Since we disagree, there's no consensus, and we should really try to engage other editors into the discussion so that the matter can be resolved, because I don't believe we're going to resolve this between us.  --HighKing (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: Answer:
A very easy task for you because you edited this article since Jan 2009: Provide articles about Primark's employees that meet Wikipedia:Verifiability New worl (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point.  We don't mention the employees because there's nothing notable or relevant to this article about them.  Sure, we could.  We chose not to.  Perhaps in the future something notable and relevant will cause someone to add to this article, but it hasn't happened yet.  The point isn't about verifiability, it's about relevance.  --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then don't use such subjects in your argument. They will weaken yours. New worl (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if you just fail to see the point.  Once again.  We don't metion the employees because there's nothing notable or relevant to this article in doing that.  Similarly, we don't mention the people that clean the offices or wash windows or supply the computer systems, etc.  And that's the same relationship that the workers making clothes has with Primark.  As you've been already told, mentioning them would be WP:UNDUE and probably fail WP:NOTABILITY.  --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re. 'We don't mention the employees, or their working conditions or pension arrangements' 

message: They are not notable. And please provide Wikipedia:Verifiability if you disagree.
New worl (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, you agree that "external people" are not relevant.  Can we now also agree that the "external people" working for other companies, supplying goods and services are also not relevant, even if a tragic incident occurs?  --HighKing (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Labor_practices and Nike,_Inc.#Sweatshops.   New worl (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note how these are separate articles.  If you want to set up a "Criticism of Primark" article, then that would be a good place to write about various work practices (so long as its sourced, etc).  But they don't belong in the main article for an incident where the connection is that Primark did business with one of the companies in the building that collapsed.  --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you read Nike,_Inc.#Sweatshops? New worl (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Nike link to sweatshops was very notable and received extensive coverage in news reports, books and even documentaries.  In those reports, the focus was about Nike (and not the sweatshops per se), and therefore Nike wasn't a tangential mention, and the event was notable.  I don't see the same criteria with your linking of Primark and other retailers with the building collapse.  --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which books, which documentaries? Do you know how to cite your sources? New worl (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Do you see Apple_Inc.#Labor_practices? New worl (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: What's the title of the article?  Is Primark or Monsoon the focus of the article, with detailed reporting and maybe some facts and figures?  Has an investigation been carried out? Or (in the interests of NPOV) is it simply a reporter adding big names to an article to generate some sensational coverage?  Also, do I take it (seeing as this article is from 2010) that you're still trying to do some Original Research to somehow continue to link Primark with the Savar incident?  --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence. Please explain. New worl (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re. 'external people' 

message: Note: The bit about sweatshops says "Several companies refused to sign, including Walmart, Carrefour, Bonmarché, Mango, Auchan and Kik. The agreement was signed by Primark, Loblaw, Bonmarche and El Corte Inglés.[31]" So did Bonmarche sign or not?
Strange and inappropriate that so much of this article focuses on overseas labour issues. It distorts the whole article and comes across as politically motivated. I'll wait for comments before editing 46.171.180.178 (talk)
:I have had a look at the reference and cannot make out which is meant. We just reflect what the reference says - confusing as it is. May need a better reference that gives a clearer statement of the position. Keith D (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting info about Bonmarché 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Primark. 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/20110618132300/http://www.primarkresponse.com/panorama/ to http://www.primarkresponse.com/panorama/
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) 20:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Primark. 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/20071008102159/http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/05/primark-press/index.shtml to http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/05/primark-press/index.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302054854/http://waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii to http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325223918/http://www.dhakatribune.com/business/2013/nov/17/buyers%e2%80%99-compensation-rana-plaza-victims-far-reality to http://www.dhakatribune.com/business/2013/nov/17/buyers%E2%80%99-compensation-rana-plaza-victims-far-reality
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160709093857/https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/%E2%80%98cry-help%E2%80%99-prisoner-chinese-forced-labour-jail-alleged-have-been-found-inside-primark to https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/%E2%80%98cry-help%E2%80%99-prisoner-chinese-forced-labour-jail-alleged-have-been-found-inside-primark
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) 12:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Primark. 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/20150502100506/http://www.abf.co.uk/responsibility/our-actions/primark_ethical_trade_team to http://www.abf.co.uk/responsibility/our-actions/primark_ethical_trade_team
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) 03:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is no mention of Rita Ora X Primark. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rita Ora X Primark