Talk:Bernardo Sandals

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Untitled

This article is fundamentally flawed. The vast majority of their sandals are made in Brasil and have been for several years. Like many post World WarII shoe companies, from Amalfi to Bandolino, to Ferragamo, Italy dominated the art of shoe making. Many of the sandals Bernardo imported were generic footwear that was imported by Edison Bros. Stores Incorporated as well as many mass merchant shoe importers. The only thing specific about the Bernardo shoe was their attention to quality. Their patterns and design came from the many small factories throughout the Tuscan area.

Carl Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.245.140 (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Like an advertisement"

I wanted to come back to this, should someone put it in again, later.

One editor wrote, about templates they were changing on the article, "Left the other two, cause it is still like 'hooray for them!'"

The problem is, that isn't a neutral position to take. To quote Jimbo from 2003, in a mailing list piece cited by No original research:

There's a popular view of bias in journalism, held more in practice out of laziness I think than held as an actual theory of bias, that the way to be unbiased is to present both sides of an argument without prejudicing the discussion for or against either one. "Some say that the earth is round, others say that it is flat... Our approach is more sophisticated, I think.

The problem is, unless there's something citable that shows something isn't "hooray for them!" then that's how it is, and how the article should be written. We shouldn't be aiming for the present bias for balance. We should be presenting what we know in a neutral way. There are some things in the world that are an unqualified good. If there are qualifications, then quote 'em and cite 'em. :) Hal (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]