Jump to content

Talk:Reebok

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Fixes Needed

[edit]

This page is pretty decrepit as far as flow, information, and general quality is concerned. There is little introduction to the company or its history and instead the article contains only a minor lead and then starts in on product line info. For being a "high" priority in 2 different WikiProjects, you'd think there'd be more attention paid to details. For instance, I just fixed the fact that the company is based in Canton, MA now instead of its original location in Bolton, England. That's been changed since the 2005/2006 merger. The article could really benefit from a lot of positive attention to bring it up to speed with the company's worldwide profile. ju66l3r (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't gotten much better since Ju6613r's comments. The article doesn't answer key facts about the company (when did Adidas buy them out? That should feature prominently in this article, but instead is mentioned nowhere). The article takes way too much space dedicated to the many individual teams Reebok sponsors and the mechanics of those sponsorships; instead a brief section covering where Reebok focuses its sponsorship efforts with a few key examples would be more appropriate in my opinion. There is also material in the last "news" section which is clearly marketing hype, with unsubstantiated claims ("It is a well known fact that many women...") that do nothing more than promote products. Pretty much a straightforward violation of the NPOV policy. This one needs a ground-up re-write. 98.216.158.246 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I came looking for when Adidas acquired Reebok. It's on the Adidas page, but not here. Also, the opening 3 paragraphs are horribly written, e.g.
Reebok . . . is a producer of athletic footwear, apparel, and accessories.Joe and Jeff Foster founded Mercury Sports. and Reebok developed a new innovative fabric that holds any dirt picked to avoid creating mess.
Also:
despite being pricier than competitors adidas, Nike and Puma.
Somebody, for some reason, changed this from Nike, Adidas, and Puma. Maybe to alphabetize, but Nike is #1 and Adidas #2. And although their logo says "adidas," it should be capitalized as it is a proper name. Contradictory that the article says Reebok is a subsidiary of Adidas, then 2 paragraphs later says they're competitors - one more reason to include the merger info.
I don't mind making small contributions to Wiki, but a major overhaul should fall on the responsibility of the moderator. I'm not going to spend the time to research and rewrite key points of the article knowing the moderator let it get this bad in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.42.163 (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European HQ

[edit]

According to Reebok's own site ([1]) this is in the Netherlands.

Reebok EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa)

Koningin Wilhelminaplein 30
1062 KR Amsterdam
The Netherlands

HtD (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basquiat

[edit]

What does this mean: "In 2006, Reebok licensed Jean-Michel Basquiat; there have been three collaborations to date."? I assume they don't mean that they issued JMB a Reebok license. They licensed his art, or his likeness, they can't have licensed him, he's a person and he's been dead for 20 years. What does the rest of the section mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.82.163 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't agree more. It makes no real sense and it fails to cite any sources. I've deleted it until someone can see fit to rewrite it. Clearly nobody has responded to your message to they're unlikely to restore and rewrite it. brob (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

[edit]

I have changed the part @ the top of the Article that states the company was founded in Canton USA in 1858, don't know were this came from, but the articles was contradicting it's self as it said that in the start of the article, and then stated in the company round up that it was founded in Bolton UK in 1895. I looked @ Reebok's website and it confirms that the company was started in the UK, in 1895 (perhaps why the shoes have a Union Jack on them). It does say that ansestor company J.W. Foster and Sons was started in 1895, but Reebok itslef was started in Canton in 1958, so perhaps that's were the confusion came from. Yakacm (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 'allegedly' causes brain damage in those who edit it

[edit]

From the article: "It allegedly caused the lead poisoning death of a 4-year-old child who swallowed it."

What?! If a Reebok pendant killed a 4 year old, this 'alleged' incident would be easy to find. There would be a coroner's report, a media frenzy, and a HUGE lawsuit.

Surprise, surprise, said incident IS easy to find. The US CDC has publicly available articles on the incident, as does the US Consumer Products Safety Commision.

Oh well, what else can one expect from a million lazy nerdy disaffected monkeys on typewriters. The article might as well have said "I heard some kid died from eating a Reebok charm, but couldn't be bothered looking it up, because while I'm active enough to edit Wikipedia, I'm too lazy and stupid to perform simple searches".

WIKIPEDIA IS GARBAGE, PEOPLE, AND IT'S GETTING WORSE! GIVE UP ON IT NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.63.98 (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsership - Crossfit

[edit]

Reebok sponsers the CrossFit Games. I'm not sure how to put this in the sponsers sections. It's not a "team" and it's not a "country". It's a international competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article light on history

[edit]

For a brand with such a strong history in the UK (even using the Union Jack as part of it's logo), this article seems too based on recent events. Two or three sentences in the first section does not suffice in describing the company's origin. --69.124.112.126 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reads a bit like an ad...

[edit]

No mention that: Reebok Paid $25 Million in Customer Refunds To Settle FTC Charges of Deceptive Advertising of EasyTone and RunTone Shoes - http://www.ftc.gov/reebok --Elvey (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatshops

[edit]

The German Wik site says that R had a bad history of using sweatshops and/but that now it is active in the area of human rights. If any of this is correct, it deserves mention in our article. Kdammers (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll try to find some reliable sources on the issue. Zhang500 (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reebok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reebok. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsorship section

[edit]

The present state of the sponsorship section violates Wikipedia policies:

  1. MOS:FLAG–national flags should only be used when an athelete is representing a national organization.
  2. WP:PROMO–a cut and paste list from the Reebok web site, without any meaningful prose.

I will update accordingly. Flibirigit (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Change - 2019

[edit]

The company has scrapped the Delta logo as of November 2019 and reverted back to the old Vector logo with Motter Tektura script. A new version has been created by the company and can now be found on its website but not sure where to legally put it onto the title box, which needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapidAssistant (talk • contribs) 11:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reebok updated logo in November 2019 to the all black vector.
I am a Reebok HQ employee and have been directed to update the logo image to the all black version. Please do NOT change to any other color version.
The link below is to the internal PR page about the logo change.
https://news.reebok.com/global/latest-news/all/reebok-unifies-under-one-logo--one-wordmark/s/e3f32cff-6241-47cb-a1c1-1b8704dc4afc
The website also uses the black logo: https://www.reebok.com/us — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardifkara (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I already told to the user, who claims to be a former Reebok employee, I uploaded a black version in Commons: Reebok logo20.png and added it to the article. I hope this controversy come to and end right now. Fma12 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi All,

As a Reebok HQ employee, I am updating the Reebok logo to represent the 2019 Vector logo update. The all black logo version is the image Reebok corporate has defined as the primary logo to be represented on Wikipedia and Reebok.com. See PR article below.

https://news.reebok.com/global/latest-news/all/reebok-unifies-under-one-logo--one-wordmark/s/e3f32cff-6241-47cb-a1c1-1b8704dc4afc

There are many color way versions of this logo but the all black is preferred as the primary logo for Wikipedia by the Reebok Corporate HQ.

Tardifkara (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tardifkara: : As I already told to the user, who claims to be a former Reebok employee, I uploaded a black version in Commons: File:Reebok logo20.png and added it to the article. After all of this, I hope this controversy come to and definitely. Fma12 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"English" and "British"

[edit]

I have undone several edits over the last few months that try to label this company as British or English. Reebok was purchased by American interests in 1985 and has been owned by Adidas, a German company, since 2005. While it was founded in England, it is not an English company today. Please refrain from adding such descriptors unless they are properly cited by independent sources. 162 etc. (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What determines this? Surely a company would normally be labelled as being from the place it was originally founded? Do all other companies lose their original national identity when they are bought out? Is there a hard and fast rule? 94.194.191.250 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reebok USA bought the British Reebok operations in 1984. The company is headquartered in the United States, and owned by an American brand management company.
The British origin of the company is accurately noted in the article.
Do you have sources that say otherwise? 162 etc. (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The current Reebok logo (as seen at official site and some of its social media is a red version (already uploaded to commons). Nevertheless, user @Plasamas: insisted on keeping a previous version.

I'm aware that Reebok change its corporate logo in 2019, and the company has used some variations of it, including a total black and the blue/red emblem, nevertheless the current version (as of 2022) is the red one. I could not find reliable source (p.e. a corporate identity manual) to verify the rules that determine how the logo is used on different communication channels.

Otherwise, I think the red logo should be taken as the official version and being placed on the infobox. Unless the editor who reverted the action can prove the contrary. Fma12 (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, official site/socials have the red, text-free design, on trend with simplifying logos; readers can see the lettertype/colors/variations later in the article. Come to think of it, are any of the years in the "Logo evolution" section sourced?
User:Plasamas has a thing for boldly changing infobox images, for better or worse; good luck convincing him. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I'll wait a few days about what other editors (including Plasamas of course) think about the topic. Above all, I expect a convincing version that justify the recent removal of the red logo. Otherwise, this emblem will be restored as the assumed current logo. Fma12 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reebok uses the red and blue logo on their clothing products. The wordmark and the logo are seen on almost every Reebok product. Containing the icon without the wordmark is impractical unless it is like Nike Inc, where the wordmark is rarely used. On many products (for example Reebok Classic shoe), only the wordmark is used. Many companies have different logos on Social Media, for example on June the logos change to rainbow. This does not change the clothing or actual products themselves.Plasamas (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Plasamas: @70.163.208.142: I was doing some searches at the Reebok website and saw that both versions (with and ithout wordmark) appear on clothing lines (women's and men's) so your reasons to erase the red logo from the infobox seems to be based on personal tastes rather than facts.
You cited other sports brands such as Nike, well, that company also uses different logos on its clothing lines (for example, the "swoosh" is shown with/without the 'Nike' word here).
A recent Reebok announcement (an agreement to supply football kits to Panama national team, dated 4 days ago) shows a red logo (source here). Summarizing, according to the reebok.com website, plus Reebok social media and the links provided, it can be assumed that red is the current corporate color for Reebok so it should be updated on the infobox. Fma12 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reebok&oldid=1239147260"