Talk:Saks Fifth Avenue/Archives/2015

This reference from popular culture would be a nice addition

In the 1979 movie The Main Event, Barbra Streisand's character Hillary Kramer, after learning that her accountant had embezzled all her money leaving her broke, asked her lawyer "when you say I have no money, do you mean I have to be careful at Saks, or I can't afford toothpaste?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.25.13 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This section just seems a bit too fanboyish

It's pure shilling. You can tell because there is no way Saks is at the level of Barney's or Bergdorf or even Nieman's 32.142.31.156 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Saks offers the finest designer collections for men and women, as well as accessories, cosmetics and home furnishings, all supported by highly personalized customer relationships. With modern energy and great fashion authority, Saks Fifth Avenue pays tribute to — and continues to enhance — a rich legacy of exceptional style and service."

Saks is a luxury dept store, and should be in the same category as Barneys, Bergdorf and Neiman, even if it is the least luxurious of the four; I can't imagine grouping it with Macys, Lord & Taylor, etc.. The article could probably use a reference or two on that if you'd like to improve it. :) Ranever (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is press-release style

"the purpose of this retail legend has always been the same: to be the first and only choice for the most discerning consumers, the ones with the highest expectations."??

No, sorry. Not encyclopedic. 18.173.1.42 17:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Locations

Does anyone have anything against taking out the list of state locations in the content box? They'll remain there, but listing each state instead of just "Locations in the United States" takes up too much space, and serves little purpose. --DavidShankBone 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To follow-up to this issue, I am planning on fixing this page at some point to conform to a more encyclopedic entry, as opposed to a directory listing that is served well by Saks's home page. This page and Neiman Marcus both need to resemble, more so, the way the Macy's page is set up. It's been 20 days since my posting, so speak up if you have issues (or ideas). --DavidShankBone 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sakslogo.gif

Image:Sakslogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SaksFifthAvenueA.PNG

Image:SaksFifthAvenueA.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the Titanic story belong?

Does the Titanic story really belong in this article? Here is the text I an referring to: "Leila Saks Meyer (1886 - 1957), and her husband Edgar J. Meyer to return from Europe on the RMS Titanic to attend her father's funeral. Only Leila survived the April sinking of the ill-fated ship, Edgar Joseph Meyer died on the Titanic after putting his wife on a boat." It is a very interesting story, however, the story has nothing to do with Saks Fifth Avenue. Any thoughts on this? Thank you.--DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Titanic story

I agree. I don't think that the Titanic story is relevant. Dma124 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Saks Direct and Folio History

Feature to come...

Two attempts by Saks to launch a .com business has again failed to produce satisfactory results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion Consulting (talk • contribs) 01:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Saks 34th Street

Does anyone know the story of Saks 34th Street / how it came about and their transition to 5th Ave.? I think it's an important part because this was a major New York department store at the time and is the direct predecessor to the 5th Ave location. Ranever (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Article With Saks Incorporated?

Having two different articles is confusing. If the corporate history of Proffit's Inc. --> Saks Incorporated --> Spin-offs of Proffit's and others to Belk is notable enough to be discussed I think it's better placed in the individual articles for Proffit's and Saks individually. Thoughts? Ranever (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A person looking for Saks Fifth Avenue is not looking for Saks Incorporated and vise versa. The ownership information is part of the company's history, but it may be too detailed in the Saks Fifth Avenue article. Saks Inc is the holding company. Should we merge Neiman Marcus with the two private equity firms that acquired it?--DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When I thought of merging them it was because there didn't seem to be enough detail. After taking a second look I agree, this should be more like Macy's and Macy's, Inc. (which coincidentally has a very similar history), we just need to fix up and add to the Saks Incorporated page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranever (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can Someone Unsort the Founding Date and Brand Tangle?

The article says:

- Andrew Saks founded a clothing store in 1867 and then incorporated as Saks & Co. in 1902. Was Saks & Co. the same venture, renamed as his 1867 store, or was it a new venture and the 1867 is just a matter of biographical background?

- Likewise, it says that Saks Fifth Avenue was launched in 1924 (and I have ads which herald it as new from that year, BTW) by Horace Saks and Bernar Gimbel, who were, it is implied, partners in GImbel Bros. But it was an all new chain? Or just a rebranding of an existing Saks & Co. chain?

- FInally, the box says that it was founded in 1898, whichactually doesn't synch up with any of these three potential founding dates.

108.27.88.178 (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring by "SAKS FIFTH MARKETING TEAM"

This article has recently seen highly problematic changes by an IP editor (74.76.148.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who self-identifies as "SAKS FIFTH MARKETING TEAM" and states that they are acting "per request of HBC" (Hudson's Bay Company, the owners of Saks Fifth Avenue; while deleting independently sourced content in this edit).

Besides adding unsourced advertising-like content (e.g. extolling the article's subject as "The Legendary Store") this editor has been aggressively edit-warring to remove independently sourced information that is not conforming to the company's point of view, either without any justification, or with a misleading edit summary, or one that betrays insufficient understanding of Wikipedia. Some examples:

• "redundent Information - as per request of HBC" - the information about the closure of these locations, citing independent sources, was actually not present elsewhere in the article. Therefore it's hard to not see the "redundant" claim as a deliberate effort to mislead other editors who are reviewing these massive deletions.
• "This is not an advertising nor copyright violation. See to terms of use please." - as far as I can see, nobody had claimed there was a copyright violation; the reference to "terms of use" is totally unclear.
• [1] - describing an edit as "Correction" that deleted various article parts without any explanation why they should be considered factually wrong.
• "Historical Update, parent company Saks inc is now defunct" - no explanation why the "historical update" should include removal of e.g. the results of the SEC investigation; and the fact that the former parent company is now defunct does not justify deleting the link to the still existing article about it.
• "Topics and controversy's have been resolved and are now irrelevant" - Wikipedia reports on historical facts as well as on current issues (and differs a bit in that from e.g. corporate marketing material). Therefore vaguely claiming that something has been "resolved" is not sufficient justification for deleting mention of something that has been covered in multiple reliable sources.
• [2] [3] [4] - deletions of sourced content with no justification at all.

A message asking the editor to heed Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest editing was deleted without a response, alongside followup warnings to stop the disruptive editing. In the last 24 hours the editor has blanket reverted (often tagging on a minor editor to the revert) no less than five other users: I dream of horses, Mild Bill Hiccup, Materialscientist, 20.144.12.189 and myself.

What's more, 74.76.148.38 has said that "My colleagues and I are trying to update our [sic] page" and "We are prepared to fight this", which indicates an insufficient understanding of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND. These behavioral issues have been brought up elsewhere and may need to be dealt with administratively, but I ask 74.76.148.38 (or rather those who have been editing in this manner from that IP and possible also other IPs and accounts previously) to justify any major changes here on the talk page from now on, and - again - to respect WP:COI.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And another example of an insufficiently justified wholesale deletion: "Re added to list of allies after large donation" - even if that unsourced claim is accurate, it would not erase that controversy from history, and as mentioned above Wikipedia reports on historical facts as well as on current issues. Therefore this is an insufficient reason to remove a whole well-sourced paragraph. (It may be worth adding if reliable sources have covered it.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)