Talk:Toms Shoes/Archive 1

Needs Work

I'm going to be doing some major work on this article. There are no citations and I've checks two of the references and they link to pages that make absolutely no reference to TOMS. I have citations already prepared (below) that I'll be putting in line. OlYeller^Talktome 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I added some of these but not all of them. They'd basically all go to the History section but I'm not feeling adventurous enough to fix that section right now (see here).

History

I think the history section needs rewritten. It reads like an essay. I may do it but I may not heh. OlYeller^Talktome 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving Page

I'd like to move this page to "TOMS Shoes" today or tomorrow. It's the name of an organization so both words should be capitalized and TOMS is capitalized in the name. If you object, please do so here (with reasons). OlYeller^Talktome 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved OlYeller^Talktome 20:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular self-promoting reference

To expand on the edit I just made, I removed this text:

Mycoskie claims his business model turned a profit in just a year and a half

I hope it's clear why I removed that (WP:NPOV). What is a little more subtle was the reference recently added to that claim: http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/24/green-retail-shops-tech-paperplastic08-cx_ls_0724retail.html. Although it's from a reliable news source, that article by itself provides no independent opinion or research on the principle's claim, but simply quotes the same claim. Primary-sourced material simply repeated by a secondary source doesn't make the material a secondary source. The only secondary fact that can be concluded is that the principle made the statement. The underlying fact is not independently supported by the reliable secondary source. —Danorton (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

okay, you're right about this, however the source also mentions other information about the company. For example, from the article: "The company sells simple rope-soled shoes, which--in their most basic incarnation--retail for $40. For every pair of shoes sold, another pair is donated to an underprivileged child. Mycoskie says his costs are comparable to that of a traditional shoemaker, except he spends his advertising budget on philanthropy. Of course, Mycoskie's philanthropy is also a clever way of advertising. The firm employs public relations firm HL Group to work with the press and promote charity events, advertising the company's good deeds alongside its profit-generating products." I think the key word here is 'clever' which is clearly an independent opinion of Forbes. riffic (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A agree with both of you here. That line is sort of fluff but the reference itself still has decent insight from Forbes. I'd say take that line out but leave the one after that. OlYeller^Talktome 13:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that that the principle's claim should be in the article at all, for WP:NPOV alone. More generally, I don't think it's good style or policy to write that someone expressed a fact unless the intended emphasis is on the expression of the fact instead of the fact itself. If the fact is verifiable and from an independent and reliable source, then the text doesn't need to indicate who expressed it: the text should simply express the fact directly and cite the source. In this case, the fact would be "The company's business model turned a profit in just a year and a half." Is there an NPOV source for that fact? Does the word "just" express an unbiased opinion or is it an attempt to fluff? If there is an independent and reliable source for both the fact and the opinion, then add the reference. If the fact and opinion aren't both verifiable from an independent reliable source, it should be removed. —Danorton (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of "The Amazing Race?"

I'm stumped in trying to imagine the relevance of the fact that the principle of the subject of this article appeared in the television show "The Amazing Race", particularly in the leadsentenceparagraph. —Danorton (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Valid point. I moved it. Personally, I think it's notable to the subject of this article. OlYeller^Talktome 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you believe that it is notable, but I don't see any objective support of that opinion. I'd be interested in learning how it's notable. —Danorton (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm done trying to prove anything to you. Your overzealous attitude about this article has successfully run me away. OlYeller^Talktome 00:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for proof, I only asked for evidence. You provided none. —Danorton (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevance is twofold: One, it goes to providing background about the company founder and confirms the info for readers who may have heard the name before. There is nothing wrong with keeping the article interesting. The info is mentioned in many of the news stories including the lead in Time mag. Two, and more importantly, as the Seattle-Intelligencer reports, it was because of his participation in the Amazing Race that he ended up traveling to Argentina where he saw the shoes, that caused him to start the company, etc. etc. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the relevance if there's a reasonable likelihood that people would recognize him from the TV show. The connection to Argentina is a subject self-report and, as this company produces so much fluff, it's more likely to be just more marketing fluff. —Danorton (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unclear or questionable importance or relevance

I added {{Importance-section}}, specific to the following items. One way to help clean up this article would be to provide neutral sources to justify the relevance/importances of their inclusion, or else delete them. (As with most of this article, the wording comes verbatim from the company's press releases.)

• ...a former contestant on The Amazing Race ...
• ...employed a start-up staff of 7 full-tme employees, 6 sales representatives and eight interns...
• The company produces a Fall, Holiday, Spring and Summer line for women, men and toddlers.

—Danorton (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the wording or even importance of the second two sentences are poor. I would prefer to see a couple of well-written sentences about the current size of the company, amount revenue, the use of overseas manufacturing plants, etc. — CactusWriter |^needles 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, I concede that the reference to The Amazing Race is relevant, as there's a reasonable likelihood that people may recognize him from that show. —Danorton (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I added {{POV-statement}} to several statements that clearly lack neutrality. One way to help improve this article would be to provide neutral sources for the claims (see WP:NPOV). As discussed above, that a reliable secondary source quotes a primary non-neutral claim does not create neutrality of the underlying claim, but only that the non-neutral claim was actually made. (e.g. advertising fluff in an interview or quoted from a press release). —Danorton (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem you are having here. The language in the article isn't trying to prove his claims and it isn't necessary for us to do so. It is only stating that he makes those claims and there are numerous sources provided which bear that out. Now, if you have some sources which dispute the claims, then we should add them -- otherwise it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. But as it is, the statements are fine. There is no policy which says WP cannot use quotes made the main subject of an article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me as marketing fluff that lacks encyclopedic merit and it wouldn't be in this article had it not been written by the subject's own PR organization. I ask for your patience to allow a couple of days for others to weigh in and if I'm the only one who sees it that way, the tags should be removed. —Danorton (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. There is no rush it. — CactusWriter |^needles 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Newest Additions

When I was working on the article earlier, I decided to leave some of the information that was just added, out. For instance, the shoe drops aren't done by TOMS Shoes, they're done by Friends of TOMS which is actually a completely separate identity. They're easily confused (as I think the companies want you to confuse them) but we need to make sure that we're not suggesting that they're the same.OlYeller^Talktome 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

general comments and suggestions

from the writing class instructor. I mention this not to claim authority but to explain the approach.

Content added is useful and well documented information. This is an innovative company and associated non-profit and business model that's new to me and has larger significance.

If possible add more material about their shoes and shoe business to provide some balance to the non-profit activities. This should come early in the article. I dont agree with person who said that the non-profit should be a separate article, but more information about either side and about the connection between them might satisfy them.

Most of the headings need work. I prefer "History" for "Background." "Shoes" isnt informative. Instead of "One for One," lets have something that indicates the presence of a new business-non profit model--e.g."social entrepenuership." Under that some headings that provide categories, e.g. "Philosophy" and "Activities."

"Expanding the Philosophy" isnt a good heading. Rudolph2007 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

more comments

Overall very good content, but organization needs work. Headings dont divide up the subject matter adequately and overlap.

Impact of Shoes isnt a subtopic of Toms shoes. Social Entrepeneurship seems to overlap with Philanthropy and its subtopics. After History, you might want to use something like "Corporate Philosophy" to cover much of this material.

Rudolph2007 (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Less talking, more doing. OlYeller^Talktome04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

May 16

Impact of Shoes is still not an appropriate heading, nor does it introduce a free standing section. The material in it belongs under philanthropy, as "Background" or some analogous heading.

Developments is also not specific enough for a heading. You mean something like "Future Projects"

Most of the material in the article, perhaps appropriately, refers to the philanthropic efforts of the organization. It should be at least partially balanced by information about its business operations--product lines, distribution, growth, revenues, profits, ownership, for example.

Formatting: make references consistent; no direct links to other websites in article, just to footnotes. But all footnotes need to be linked to the source URL's.

This should end up as an A project, but its not there yet.

B- Rudolph2007 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. This has turned into an excellent article. Have you seen that its been consulted over 15500 times?

New to wikipedia, but this article seems like an advertisement page. This has no balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by66.214.115.41 (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolph2007 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

TOMS PR Employees

In the past few weeks, two TOMS employees have started editing. I'd like to point out that it's a COI with Wikipedia for an employee of TOMS to edit the article about TOMS. If you would like to add information, please add it here or to my talk page and I will add it to the article as soon as possible. This will prevent any possible COI problems. If you continue to edit, I'll be forced to tag that article with a COI tag. OlYeller^Talktome 04:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

There is controversy surrounding TOMS shoes, and I think it is important that there is a new section on this page to give that information. I will write the new section, not as an argument, but as an informing paragraph. Wikipedia is not a biased source of information, therefore it needs to include the criticisms of the product as well. The controversy surrounding TOMS shoes is that its methods of donations are not adequate. Many people believe that the shoes are simply a status symbol, a “Hey look what I did for the world” statement, rather than a generous donation. Much more could be gained with a direct donation to charities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogers sarah (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd really appreciate your write up. We just need to make sure that it's backed up by reliable sources. Let me know if you need any help with anything. OlYeller^Talktome 17:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just removed the criticism section. There's a problem here that needs to be addressed before text like this can be published by WP. I'll break down the text and give note where there are problems and how they can be fixed. I'll break them up into bullets and my criticism will be in parenthesis. OlYeller^Talktome 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

• The controversy surrounding Toms shoes has mainly focused in on the motives behind the company’s philanthropy. (Says who? A statement like this has to be immediately backed up by reliable sources.)
• Toms Shoes may look good to the public,(Does it? This isn't exactly an encyclopedic claim and it has no references to back up the claim) but when critics take an in depth look at the company, they may begin to question the company’s motives.(What critics?)
• According to an interview with CNN, Mycoskie said that he was overwhelmed by the sight of children living without shoes, but instead of simply starting a charity, he decided he could better serve by launching a for-profit business.(A reference is given here but it simply states that he started a company. That it's for-profit is already mentioned in the article and implying that this act is devious is completelyoriginal research and false in my opinion)
• Critics argue that charity should be as efficient as possible.(What critics? This statement is incredibly ambiguous and assumes that a for-profit scenario isn't the most efficient which in itself isoriginal research)
• Instead of giving a profit and calling it charity, it's more effective to buy less expensive shoes and donate the left-over money directly to global relief organizations.(A single reference is given here. Let's assume that this school newspaper is a reliable source. The person writing the article has made zero claim to being an expert in this field or backed up their claims with any references other than their own speculation. This sentence is most likely true but assumes a lot about the efficiency of other "global relief organization". Personally, I'd really like this point to be made in the article but the way it was been presented isn't adequate.)
• The Toms website states, "Using the purchasing power of individuals to benefit the greater good is what we're all about." (This sentence is fine although it would be good if a reference was given to the exact location of the quote)
• Critics see it the other way around.(What critics? No reference being given regarding what critics think makes this pure original research)
• By using people’s conscious desire to help those in need, the company markets the idea of benefiting the greater good, so that they can in turn benefit from the consumers purchasing power.(No references/WP:OR again. On a side note, you're kidding yourself if you think "non-profits" don't do this. Check out info on non-profits started by celebrities; some pay their employees upwards of 80% of the amount of donations. Being a for-profit and being a non-profit doesn't imply anything about how much they help people.
• The criticism doesn’t stop with the questionable philanthropy and marketing techniques, but it goes as far as to question the consumers motives as well.(No references/WP:OR. You've also started attacking the reader with only your own opinion. This is usually called a WP:SOAPBOX and is something that WP is not)
• Critics claim that people purchase these shoes thinking they are a hero walking down the street with a stylish “hey look what I did for the world” on their feet. Although buying a pair of Toms is more helpful than buying a pair of Nike or Converse, but critics claim that a pair of Toms shoes are merely a symbol to the public that their owner is a charitable person.(Says who? The only reference given cites no sources. This would be OK but there's no proof that this isn't WP:SYNTHESIS as the only reference is apparently an opinion of a single student of a source of questionable reliability that cites no sources)

To sum things up, this can't be written like an essay. Facts must be stated and opinions may be stated and immediately (at the end of the sentence) backed up with references that point to reliable sources. When it comes down to it, I think that TOMS should definitely be publicly investigated regarding the claims made in your writing but it needs to be significantly backed up to have a place on WP. This isn't something that you can do unless you have a lot of influence over the media in some form. OlYeller^Talktome 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has a lot of experience with non-profits, I suggest you check out organizations like Yéle Haiti which is a non-profit started by Wyclef Jean to aid other Haitians. When the earthquake hit Haiti, The Smoking Gun published a pretty scathing report regarding the percent of contributions to the organization that went to highly questionable purchases. This isn't a new problem but isn't as black and white as being good and evil. If a company doesn't do well, its profits fall and maybe fall below zero. If a non-profit doesn't do well, usually the amount of money that goes to people in need falls and that can be due to greed but can also simply be due to a bad business model or poor business decisions. In short, it's not as cut and dry as it seems you may think it is.OlYeller^Talktome 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Focus on the Family Event

Recently, a few editors have attempted to add something to the article about TOMS Shoes supporting an "anti-gay" movement. Up to now, I have reverted all of the edits because they either make highly inflamatory claims or very opinionated claims with either no references at all or not enough references to back up the furor of the claim. Something obviously happened though and I'd like to get something in the article. I've written a more properly referenced article (uses reliable sources in my opinion) and added it to the article. If you'd like to discuss the section, please do so here. OlYeller^Talktome 10:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have invited the three related Wikiprojects to get involved in this discussion. I was going to ask on the talk page of FotF for help as one might assume that the same discussion has taken place there but I decided not to. I'm worried it might be overkill so I decided to wait to see how much help we get from the related Wikiprojects.

For the record, I am in no way a supporter of FotF or what they stand for. Regardless, we're here to create an encyclopedia and I want this article and all of the sections in it to be as encyclopedic as possible. Whether anti-gay, pro tradition marriage (whatever that is), or pro Elmo Party is used to describe FotF, I don't care. As its description will inherently reflect on the CEO of TOMS, a living person, I feel that we're obligated to make this section as accurate as possible. OlYeller^Talktome 14:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution would be to simply describe FoF as "socially conservative", which would allow us to avoid any accusations of weasel-wording. This also reflects how FoF is described in the article on the organization itself. Based on the FoF article, there might be a case for describing the organization is anti-homosexuality (quoted directly from that article: Focus on the Family works to preserve its interpretation of the biblical ideals of marriage and parenthood, and therefore the organization takes a strong stance against LGBT rights and same-sex marriage) which cites Dobson himself as the source of the claim.

Either way, I would suggest that the terms "traditional marriage" AND "anti-gay" or "anti-homosexual" be avoided as much as possible to avoid the section coming across as advocacy. eldamorie(talk) 15:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything you've said makes sense to me. I think the best plan is to be consistent in the description of FoF and the way it's described in that article. I wrestled with the idea of using their own description and saying something like, "a self described <whatever> group" but couldn't find anything concrete on their website. I'm somewhat split between using that description from Dobson and "social conservative" but I'm leaning towards "social conservative" for the same reasons you stated. OlYeller^Talktome 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with eldamorie's suggestion. Focus on the family is unambiguosly anti-gay and dissembling with "traditional marriage" is the eptiome of weasel words.

Litch (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, don't describe it at all! It's fine as it is today, "an event sponsored by the group Focus on the Family." The rest of the graf is fine, too. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion is about the following sentence. Did you read any of the rest of this section? OlYeller^Talktome 08:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Classical Jute Espadrille.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Classical Jute Espadrille.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Classical Jute Espadrille.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)