Talk:Leatherman

message: I've just removed a comment that says that Leatherman tools are believed to have been used by the 9/11 hijackers. I have never heard this mentioned anywhere else. I've always read that they used box-cutters, which aren't remotely like Leathermans. Anyone have a decent source for the claim? --DudeGalea 22:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My reaction was the same, but when looking on the page September 11, 2001 attacks it cites CNN  as a source for this claim so I left it in. But I'm not reverting as I'm unsure if it is relevant here. Bergsten 22:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that link. I think it should stay out; the report doesn't say that they used Leathermans, just that they may have used Leatherman-style utility knives. --DudeGalea 06:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 

message: Do we want to mention that it is frequently used by "Techies" when working in a Theatre? JP Godfrey 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would. I use mine ALL the time. KeepOnTruckin 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre 

message: Itsme2003 (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant when the company holds a press conference and makes it known throughout the industry.  It was a bold gamble made by this company and others.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not politicizing anything and stop with the personal attacks calling me a democrat.  I put in the Hall of Fame entry.  You just can't remove sourced information, when covering a topic you have to report the positive and the negative.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can remove sourced info. Anything can be removed if it qualifies as What Wikipedia Is Not or if the item is not relevant to the topic. Fro example, if I add a perfectly sourced sentence on the construction of a new residence hall at Oregon State University in 2000 in the article Chad Johnson, it should properly be removed. It would have nothing to do with him, even though he was at the school that year and would likely have seen construction going on (assuming a dorm was being built at that time). Just because something is sourced does not keep it from being removed, though most people will automatically revert the removal if there was no edit summary accompanying the removal of the sourced text. As to the actual information being discussed, the "positive and the negative" part of the reply tends to demonstrate that you are trying to make a point, in that you view the political information as negative, as opposed to your entry of the "Hall of Fame" information. It doesn't really matter if it is positive or negative, what matters is if it is relevant, and I don't think it is. Most articles on companies do not cover the political activities/leanings of the employees/owners. That information would belong in an article on those individuals, if they would even pass WP:BIO to warrant having an article on the person. Otherwise, unless the company gave the money directly to the campaign, the information does not belong here just as any information that Bob the janitor donated money to his church. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That puts it in a different perspective, I guess I saw it as the company was being sort of "maverick" and bucking against the industry, etc. I'll remove it although I thought it was reading very neutral.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One, I think the way it was presented was as neutral as it could be, but second reading the news release that was the source tended to show that it was not really bucking the industry as he was one of 30 executives. I don't know how many that is as a percentage, nor what percentage that group controls, so the action might have been inline with the majority of the industry, a large majority of the industry, or a small/big minority. Ultimately, I think its better to keep it out as, you removed have now done. This one is a close call, since it almost seemed like he was acting on behalf of the company, but I think it was a private PAC type group and they used the names of the people to try and add more weight to the statement that way. If Tim Leatherman gets an article, it could possibly go their (slight problem with the source being Business Wire as they just republish press releases and his article would be a WP:BLP), and their is a good chance their are enough sources out there to meet biography inclusion guidelines if someone wants to start an article. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 30 companies is a minority in the US Outdoor Industry which is close to 2,000 companies,  possibly two-three times more if you include all the companies who make rubber worms, fishing rods, etc.  Most of the companies listed in the article were some of the more "mainstream" types that may have crossover to other markets (meaning that hunters, hikers, and fisherman aren't the sole market):Columbia Sportswear, Patagonia, etc.  There was wider coverage in 2004.  I recall seeing it in the NRA magazines for example and National Shooting Sports Foundation issued a statement as did many of the Firearms trade periodicals at the time.  Again, I didn't see it as Tim Leatherman's personal opinion (which would have no place in the article) but as a part of something bigger, that is...these Outdoor Business Folks coming together to support candidates diametrically opposed to 98% of the rest of their industry.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, I visited this article to check where these tools are made (China? Nope, Oregon.) and to see if there's any reference in the article about how when Tim Leatherman officially and publicly endorsed Kerry in 2008, all the outdoors and gun web forums went into a mental tailspin ;) --Kar98 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: Template:Leatherman_Multi-Tools
How about we add a timeline template in the bottom of the article?
Is this too large? Too much? Maybe the article is too small for a timeline, but what do you think?
leguas (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I propose updating the "Products" table with new products and linking names and categories to relative Leatherman webpages. Jdela (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products table