Talk:Karrimor

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

The receivership and buyout happened in 2004, including the dissolution of the company that followed - can anyone clarify why it looks like the company is active again in Sept.2006? Karrimor.com has a list of outlets and international distributors and is looking alive, contrary to the 2004 reports and events... --Firien § 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now owned by Sports Direct International Plc., The "UK’s leading sports retailer by revenue and operating profit.". They also own the rights to many other leading brands including; No Fear, Slazenger and Dunlop. - Bruce. 09/09/2007.

Outdoors Magic

Is Outdoors Magic a notable source worthy of the extensive quotes? My initial feeling is that it is not an acceptable source and does not contribute much. Overall I suggest that we should look for sources which instead of loading praise on the company, discuss the praise loaded on the company. This a common, and understandable, mistake people make when writing these sorts of articles :) If the plaudits are substantial someone will have commented. --Errant (chat!) 16:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other sources might be worth querying. Investindustrials is used for some of the positive coverage, but going by the link it appears to be an investment group talking up their portfolio (including Karrimor) to new investors. Similarly, the Cullinan acquisition document is used for some of the positive depictions, but that appears to be a message describing their purchase, and so might be overstating things in the description. From what I can see elsewhere Karrimor were significant players, but some of the self-published descriptions (as in published by investors/owners, rather than Karrimor itself) may need to be pulled back. - Bilby (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All but Cullinan are "looking back" quotes. When a company collapses and the editorial is about it being "saved from liquidation", it's likely the article is written to describe the perceptions by the authors, not for marketing purposes. The Cullinan cite is even stronger - it's from the official and formal stock market acquisition document, authored (and almost always audited) by a major merchant bank, not a PR press release. The validity of these cites is shown also by the fact that when you remove them, all other sources concur, including clearly reputable and dispassionate sources like Management Today, a professional publication that assessed finalist companies for best manufacturing management, and The Independent that used words like "leader in its field", as well as the absence after diligent search of dissenting sources.
A single source can easily be an issue for a strong statement, but here we have exceptional claims and also the support (in terms of breadth, area of approach, focus, and time-consistency) by exceptional sources. Of course more and wider sources in reputable publications commenting on its reputation and standing would be useful, but that's true any time. I think we meet the criteria for what we say, today. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree that Cullinan and Investindustrials are exceptional sources. The Cullinan document is a piece explaining, in effect, why the purchase of Karrimor is a great move and should be supported - it can't be seen as a neutral document - and the Investindustrials source is advertising for their portfolio. I don't disagree that Karrimor may have been a great company, but if you remove those sources and all of the other sources say the same thing, then it makes sense to remove those sources - they won't be adding anything, and neither is sufficiently neutral. - Bilby (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't classify those two alone as exceptional sources for sure (not every source is). But when that view is the unanimous voice of sources from a highly reputed Management journal awarding national awards to candidate businesses they investigated, a major national broadsheet citing the company as an example of a world renowned business, an "outstanding achievement" award for a 30 year history by reputable organization, an 80% market national presence from nowhere and in the context of other peer competitors, and the most telling choice - use on a range of "extreme environment" firsts (Everest to the Antarctic unsupported crossing) by people whose life depends on this and could have had the pick of any supplier, and surely will have voted with their life in mind - and there is a complete absence of any significant view visible to the contrary, then other cites, such as a major enthusiast site's editorial upon its liquidation, and why its possible reincarnation means a lot, or a market document used for investor purposes by a significant merchant bank - those add strong support to the general sense of the rest. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there may be some confusion. I'm not denying that Karrimor may have a great reputation, and while I think the current wording might not be ideal, I have no problem with using sources that say it does. However, some of the sources are connected too closely to the company to be used. This doesn't mean that we can't continue to say positive things, but simply that we need to be selective about which sources are used. Although I've removed it, the quote "the most famous alpine sack ever" was from Investindustrials, and they were far from neutral. The problem with using the Cullinan letter is that I don't know the precise relationship between the bank and Cullinan, but it reads like a "we just made a great investment into this terrific company" letter, which certainly seems to be non-neutral. With other sources that are more clearly neutral available, I'm inclined to drop that letter and focus on the others.
But to reiterate, I'm not saying that the other sources don't say positive thinks about Karrimor, or that we shouldn't carefully reflect those sources. - Bilby (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reasoned discussion, Bilby. Can I disagree or clarify one point? You said, some of the sources are connected too closely to the company to be used...simply that we need to be selective about which sources are used. My answer would be, disclose who they are, as the article did, so the reader can form their own view. These cites are not just "random", they also convey to a reader how this business was represented and characterized at the time. Even the perception of those involved has value; while they have more risk of bias and under/overstatement, they also have significant perceptions not always accessible in others' views, that enrich the article as well. For example, Standard Corporate and Merchant Bank would not have been able to get away with a gross mis-description of the business, and would have autited and scrutinized any public announcement. They can shade it, but it's informative on the topic and its perception (so long as readers are told clearly that this was a past owner's investor document) and the other facts they state and manner of general presentation, are interesting. I do agree if we can cite any facts from better sources, we should. Overall, it's important to avoid the trap you're hinting at -- we do not avoid cites from involved persons. (We routinely cite from companies' "about" pages and press releases, personal websites and tweets, etc.) What's far more relevant is informing the reader so they can decide how to interpret what's written. Hopefully not contentious, and we can discuss how to better source this article on that basis. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we have to evaluate the reliability of sources, where the reliability is dependent in part on the type of claim being made. Sources closely connected with a company, such as the organisation itself or major investors, are fine for uncontroversial claims such as "the company was founded on ..." and we regularly use them for such. My concern is that those same sources would not be considered reliable for claims such as "the most famous alpine sack ever" or other similarly exuberant descriptions.
At any rate, I think we can reasonably clean that side up. As you say, we have good, reliable sources speaking highly of the company, so it seems reasonable to emphasise the reliable and independent sources, and drop the less reliable sources closely connected to Karrimor. The same message will come across, but without the same problems. I'll slowly read through the sources and see if I can help move this along a bit. - Bilby (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will admit to one niggling concern. Namely, that I don't think such quotes will have come from nowhere. They are too exact for usual puffery. A merchant bank or indeed prospective purchaser simply doesn't (normally!) fabricate specific cut-and-dry hard-core and categorical challengeable claims about specific products, since the market would jump on them extremely fast. (For example in a legal document stating that one had acquired Nike, you might say it was one of the most famous shoe brands and the first to invent XYZ trainer, or had sales £XXX, or "the biggest sports shoemaker in some field", but you'd be incredibly unlikely to claim without foundation that a specific shoe model "dominated 1990s sport" or was "the most famous field cross-trainer ever" without covering your bases. At best you'd have a rationale of some measure of high standing to back it up with, or you'd see disagreement abound. We don't see any). So I worry that actually, those cites - if we had better sources - would actually turn out to be an investor repeating claims in other, more reliable or better grounded, sources (which we don't yet see), and are not mere puffery. Nobody seems to be dissenting, either; though that proves nothing of itself, it opens a loophole for a worry that we might be POV watering down matters that are factually verifiable or neutrally citeable (or based on concrete facts we can offer instead such as market share or uptake), but for which we don't yet have the needed sources. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just the more I read the article its content puts me off. Why is this language necessary or in any way encyclopaedic? began to build the 6-employee[10] company into a renowned international outdoor equipment manufacturer. The whole article is stuffed with peacock terms, and the sort of language we see in press releases. FT2; you have still not explained why you have chosen this approach. --Errant (chat!) 08:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what the sources state - explicitly, repeatedly, whether in the field or reputed outside publications, during its existence or after, unanimously. When the sources are different, then the article will be, too. I mined the sources for opposing views, including the throwaway comment about "ill-managed". That was it. I found no other significant views, and enough to suggest the views expressed were not minority, contentious, fan-bois (or girls), or hype. To pick one example - the one you give above: - the company was in 1960 a 6 person bag maker. An individual joined it, whom the world seems to agree was personally responsible for its transformation and catalysis. Skip forward 20 years later, and it's now a market domineering business with a track record (according to sources) of industry changing innovations, a huge market share, used on at least 3 or 4 "extreme environment" globally reported "firsts" (specifically 1/ Everest oxygen-free 2/ Everest female 3/ Anapurna 4/ Antarctic unsupported crossing, and that's the most famous only) and being described as "world renowned", "leader" or having had a "tremendous" tradition. The wording you pick seems to describe no more and no less than what sources state, and what the evidence of facts like these seems to suggest was not unreasonably perceived at the time.
That said, the articles cite specific innovations, specific recognitions. Rather than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't likely to help, try WP:FIXIT. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The move to Clayton-le-Moors

The "early history" section mentions: "moving early on from Rawtenstall shop premises to nearby Clayton-le-Moors". The company had a factory in Accrington (where I think the company was based at one time) and moved to Clayton-le-Moors; different years are given for this (1980, 1989, 1990) but it was almost certainly built in the 1980s. Was there already a site in Clayton-le-Moors? Peter James (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Some facts or issues simply lack certainty or sources (pre internet), or aren't documented in any easily-found way, like the exact dates of some moves, or some sites. I haven't seen a record suggesting when Karrimor was first active in that town in some way (which might have been an office or old factory that later got consolidated to a "new high tech" one, or was chosen to be their new centre of operations having been a minor outlying office, for example).
Many sources imply the firm was at Clayton-le-Moors most of its life, but we just don't have authoritative answers. Its offices and factories might have moved at different times (you discuss when its factory moved). Perhaps old company house records or accounts show a head office move, but even that legal formality may be meaningless in terms of an operational site or move, or may contain minimal information. There's no info out there on its Accrington/Clayton-le-Moors sites' history that I can see. Really sorry. Perhaps a source will emerge and then we'll be able to say something. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Couple of comments:

  • 'External and post-Karrimor activities of key figures' - why is this section sourced entirely to LinkedIn profiles? Are these considered reliable sources now? And why is this relevant to the article anyway?
  • The 'Keeping it in the family - The Engineer magazine, 12 April 2001' reference (currently number 31): has the strange note: "some figures incorrect in source article and are struck out". There must be a more elegant way of handling this, surely? Ditto for note 38: "Various sources state that Karrimor had ~320 (usually quoted as 300, 320 or 350) employees at the time, so 80 job losses would have been 25% of the 1996 workforce" - that reads entirely as an editorial note justifying the 25% calculation. Too much attempt at explaining things like that.
  • The various 'Parsons and Rose' sources - the Parsons is Mike Parsons? That should be made clearer. It is also not clear where some of these sources have been published: 'Lancaster University Management School Working Paper'?
  • Some of the sourcing feels like an attempt to buttress the article: the bit where two sources are provided to support the claim that Ken Wilson's Mountain is a prestigious international mountaineering journals is overdone. You shouldn't need to provide sources in an article to show that a magazine is 'prestigious'. That is the sort of discussion you have when the article is being reviewed. It just distracts the reader to include that.

I'd suggest that you get someone else to summarise the article in the lead section. It could do with a lot of tightening up and copyediting. Getting the balance right in the sources and wording used is tricky, but it is an interesting subject. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your comments would be interesting and they are. Quick responses for you:
  • Two are, and one is cited to a paper whose author includes the ex-CEO writing as a university fellow on innovation, and who is surely a reliable source whether a person mentioned was in a given role or how long for. There's also independent papers (1982) cited which attest to this. The other two probably aren't contentious and if better cites are needed, that's sensible. The point affects citation quality not content validity though.
  • (a) Sources can make mistakes on matters like dating, evidently this one did. We should note that so a reader reviewing the source isn't misled that it differs from all other sources on some dating points, and so they can form a view what reliance they place in its content generally. But I wouldn't construe from that, myself, that the gist of the few matters it is used for citing purposes are incorrect, given it's an interview and quotes seem likely to be reliable on that basis. The reader should be empowered to be aware though, in case there are other date-related mistakes in the rest of the article.
    (b) no source directly says "25%" so it's important to show this is not mere WP:NOR. Alternatively it could be rewritten as "80 of about 320 employees" and avoid the percentage. But most people will find "25%" easier to grasp.
  • I'd say that being on the university's publications website, is a reliable source for their validity as genuine papers by those authors. Finding where they were published, if they aren't just papers written for that university's internal use, would be good though, and I'd agree with the suggestion. If it's not clear, then I also agree it should be made so.
  • I don't agree on the last point. It's important to allow understanding why there was impact, to know whether a publication was in mundane tabloids, mundane outdoor sports magazines, or sources that carried real weight and respect in the field at the time discussed. The reader needs that information to assess the significance of the publication the coverage was in, and the reliance they want to place on it, since they won't have an obvious reason to be familiar with it, and it closed long ago.
FT2 (Talk | email) 08:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think it will be best to just edit the article per WP:FIXIT (as you say above). There are ways to express things differently, to alter the emphasis while still being true to the sources. If I get time to do that over the weekend, I will. But right now the amount of discussion and time spent on this outweighs the benefits. In an ideal world, this would involve some brief discussion, followed by a couple of edits and then everyone moving on to something else. As opposed to the type of 'discussion' taking place here and at WP:AN (lots of words typed for very little benefit). Fundamentally, this is about writing style (present someone else with the same sources you used, and the article they produce would differ markedly in style from the one we have here). I'll repeat what I said above - get a good copyeditor to look at what you have written. Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In places this article reads like a company promotional and not an encyclopaedia article. I think it could do with a review. Lxs602 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karrimor. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 03:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Karrimor. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Karrimor. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Karrimor"