Talk:MAC Cosmetics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reply to the "External Link War"

The "junk links" you refer to contain information concerning an international boycott of the cosmetic brand and are relevent. I agree that removing YOUR links is disrespectful and should not happen. The fact remains that there is documented information that pertains to this company (which you might not agree with or even like) yet belongs on a page that describes the company in all facets (good and bad).Dklas 11:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to the "External Link War"

Those are not the "junk links" I am referring to, I have never edited out any of the boycott links. I personally support MUA's who are participating in the boycott, MAC/EL definetly have some underhanded activities going on. You can check the "junk links" I have edited by referring to the pages change log. (Strydor 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

OK ...IP# 88.72.230.200 all this messing with the external links is getting tired.

You might not like where the links lead but it gives you no right to remove them. All the links offer varied opinions and references to Mac Cosmetics and definitely belong on this page. So let's knock off the childish behavior and leave the external link information alone and let people decide what information they want..on their own.

Hey IP 24.46.89.151

Removing all references to the MAC Makeup Boycott was cute, but better luck next time. I'll be keeping a much closer watch to make sure you (and no one else) remove pertinent public domain information relating to the company MAC Cosmetics. BTW...I did a trace and know who and where you are, so don't force me to expose you. The information is part of the MAC corporate story and belongs here.

Recent Edits.

Removed dead links (www.macboycott.com), spam links (blog.kjbennett.com) and assertions lacking proper citation, or factual verifiability (Sandra Bernhard and Union rumors). Dklas, please adhere to Wikipedia Editing Guidelines, and refrain from making threats (i.e. "I did a trace and know who and where you are, so don't force me to expose you") in this section. 24.46.123.100 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Blog is not spam and has been linked all over the internet as a source of verified, factual information pertaining to the growing Boycott of MAC Cosmetics by professional freelance makeup artists. As far as assertions, the IATSE Union Boycott of MAC Cosmetics supported by The Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) is VERY real (not rumor) and was addressed in writing by the president of the East Coast Union (Kelly Gleason) to it's membership (Local 798).

You might not agree with the information presented, but it's fact and pertains to the profile of this company. You have no right to remove it.

Recent Edits, Again

Dklas, once again please refer to Wikipedia's Editing Guidlines. Personal blogs and message boards are not considered credible sources. As per Wikipedia's Guidelines, available here, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

This article has been earmarked by Official Wiki Editors as not citing references or reliable sources (see top blue box on main page). If you intend to continue editing this page, it is your responsibility be aware of these standards. Continuing to ignore them and replacing these statements without proper citation is considered vandalism and will be reported. Further, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to edit others' comments on the talk pages. As these comments will always remain accessable in the history section of the article, removing them is pointless. The threats you made are now a matter of record. Please refrain from making similar comments in the future. 24.46.123.100 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proper Citation Provided

It has been brought to my attention that content in this article concerning IATSE Hair/Makeup Union Local 798's involvement in a MAC Cosmetics Boycott has been challenged. I have added a link to the copy of the Local 798's newsletter confirming the Union and SAG's support of the MAC Cosmetics Boycott. This should secure the validity of the statement and end speculation of it's origin. Dklas, although your intentions might have been honorable, I advise that you follow guidelines and keep your emotions in check when addressing issues in a public forum. Kjbennett 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Proper Citation

The source provided doesn't say that the union is supporting a boycott, just that it's being considered pending further discussions. There also appear to be sections missing from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.89.151 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

In the first paragraph of the newsletter, the union president states "because of our (Local 798's) boycott of MAC cosmetics." This clearly states support.

I am aware that you do not agree with certain content on the MAC Cosmetic page, but you're continued removal of a verified source of information is considered vandalism. You do not have the right to remove or edit according to your personal interpretation of it's content. Wikipedia cites a reliable source as "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The source also meets Wikipedia's guidlines for Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Please refrain from removing this item in the future. Kjbennett 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The website you are listing as a source appears to be your own (click on 'home'). This is hardly an unbiased source, especially since you appear to have at one time been employed by MAC [1]. Please leave your personal grudge against your former employer out of the Wikipedia Editing process. By continually editing this page to contain links to your personal website you are violating Wikipedia's Spam policy. 24.46.89.151 19:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The information has been moved to a hosting site that does not violate Wikipedia's spam policy. Asserting that this information has been provided due to a personal grudge is speculation, not verifiable and could be interpreted as slander. The content was originally published by a reliable source and meets guidelines. It's reproduction and distribution in no way changes it's viability. Please leave your personal grudge against this boycott (and/or myself) out of the Wikipedia Editing process.Kjbennett 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

All that the document you've produced shows are refuted allegations between two parties, neither of whom is unbiased, which again, is a necessary qualification for a citation in this article. Your repeated attempts to include it, given your involvement with both organizations, and via links to your personal websites, demonstrates a clear bias on your part, as 24.46.89.151 also pointed out. Requesting mediation after your blatant and repeated attempts at vandalism have been reported is a strange tactic, but if it gets this issue any closer to being resolved then so be it. user:Kjbennett, I urge you to check the Wikipedia Editing section on Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically pertaining to self-published sources (both online and on paper), before pressing this issue any further unnecessarily. Wikipedia's stance on this issue is quite cut and dry. 24.46.123.100 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Once Again, Spam Links Have Been Removed

As per Wikipedia Editing Guidelines, links to self-published media such Message Boards and Blogs are not considered verifiable sources for information. Yet again, these Spam links have been removed. Simply moving the information to different message boards does not make the information any more valid. 24.46.123.100 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another incidence of vandalism has been removed. Have formally requested that this page be locked for editing due to the persistent nature of these incidents.

So when you were editing the airbrush section with your personal company's cosmetic line, that was ok? But the blog , that had many supportive comments from dozens of artist in the boycott, that wasn't legit? Ok, got it.

Repeated Incidents of Vandalism

From Wikipedia's Editing Guidelines on Attribution: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — that is, a comprehensive compendium of well-established knowledge. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

No one is challenging your right to express your opinion, however Wikipedia is not the place for it. Continually doing so here is considered vandalism and will be reported as such. User:Kjbennett has already been notified by the moderators [2] to refrain from posting this information, please refrain from posting similar information to avoid action against your accounts as well. 24.46.123.100 21:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Incidents of Vandalism, not the case

The fact that there is a boycott is not an opinion but a fact. There are numersous industry related forums and blogs that express one's choice to boycott yet those links keep getting edited by the same person on here who does not want this world wide boycott to be exposed through this site. It is one thing if I was the ONLY one to say there is a boycctt going on, but there are literally hundreds to thousands of artists who have already joined this boycott and it's a big part of MAC and how they should be known. Both sides deserved to be known, even if it's just one sentence to show that there may be more to the story.

Re: Repeated Incidents of Vandalism, not the case

Your gift for hyperbole notwithstanding, who are these "hundreds to thousands" of artists? It is exactly this type of baseless, unverified exaggeration that has no place in Wikipedia. It is fine for the few of you who are motivated by this issue to discuss it all you want, but not in this entry. Wikipedia's Editing Guidelines make it very clear that the edits you attempted to force repeatedly have no place here. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these guidelines before commenting on what belongs here and doesn't. Please see all of the above comments for just a few of them. Your personal espousal of the tenets of this boycott alone also demonstrates a clear conflict of interest (WP:COI) with regards to your motivations to edit this article. 24.46.123.100 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"who are these "hundreds to thousands" of artists?"- If anyone really cared to know this the links to such people would be allowed on the site. But again have been taken off.

Article name

I would put this article at either "MAC (cosmetics)" or "Make-up Art Cosmetics" — with a redirect remaining at "MAC Cosmetics". As it is, when expanding the abbreviation you get Make-up Art Cosmetics Cosmetics. --Charles Gaudette 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the move. The legal name of the company is Make-up Art Cosmetics, Inc. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MAC logo.png

Image:MAC logo.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Fixed. — Satori Son 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Social Initiatives Section

Of the five programs mentioned (Kids Helping Kids, Back to MAC, MAC AIDS Fund, MAC Cruelty-Free Beauty, MAC PRO Program) I am confused about how the PRO program qualifies as a social initiative. A discount that benefits only a small segment of individuals is a benefit, but not quite a "social initiative", and definitely doesn't deserve to be categorized alongside the MAC AIDS Fund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.238.203 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Promotion and Advertising" section

There are more than 40 entries under "Official spokespersons in the past have included:" - that's far too many for a list in the middle of a general article. I know nothing about this subject so don't dare touch it myself, but someone who does might want to choose half a dozen or so of the most significant/famous and split out the rest into a separate list. Incidentally, my feeling (again as an outsider) is that the tone of the piece is a little too close to promotional for comfort; the "MAC PRO" section is almost an advert, and the lack of one word of criticism just doesn't ring true for any major commercial outfit. Loganberry (Talk) 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a lot of the promotional wording. I do agree the list is too long and added a tag to it. I might try slimming down, but I'll probably just end up removing them all. None of it is sourced anyway. --13² 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am unsure of how wikipedia exactly works in this discussion section. I work for MAC and have company knowledge so I know which celebrities have been involved with MAC. I have tried to edit and adjut information but it is quickly restored for not being 'sourced'. If you could please give me some direction in how I can source this information I will do so. Why it is difficult though is that the past campaigns are discontinued, with only the current celeb being promoted on MAC's official site. Again, since I am an employee I know of the past campaigns and who they involve but have no articles to source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.52.247 (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, you probably shouldn't be editing the article at all, let alone the section talking about promotions and advertising, as it may be a violation of WP:COI.

Second, that section has a tendency to get way too long (see WP:UNDUE) and overly promotional (see WP:SOAP). Honestly, the section really only needs a couple of notable celebrity examples, not every single one, and the information about the charities does not belong in a section titled "promotion and advertising" at all.

Third, these all need to be sourced with reliable sources. "I know of past campaigns" is original research and can't be included. The whole section should probably be removed as it is because none of them are sourced even now. --13² 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand how my editing of the subject could be considered conflict of interest, however I have an honest interest in the company and want to share my unbiased knowledge of celebrity spokespersons. I'm not trying to promote or advertise the company, I just want the information to be current and correct. If only sourceable campaigns may be featured, then all the current celebrities mentioned should be deleted (all of these campaigns have ended), with the only one to be mentioned being Fergie. http://www.macaidsfund.org/ viewing that official website should suffice as a credible source. As of March 7th however, that campaign will be replaced with one featuring Cyndi Lauper and Lady Gaga. Furthermore, this phrase "(Viva Glam V got more notice for including a neutral shaded pink Viva Glam lipgloss)" is too subjective and has no source either.

Like I said, the whole section should probably be removed as it is because none of it is sourced even now. You don't have to explain that to me. Also, I didn't say you were violating WP:COI, I said you may be in violation of it and wanted to warn you in case you were unaware of the policy since you admitted your affiliation. While the primary source could maybe be used, I honestly think the whole section should just be removed. It just can't be sourced, at least not easily, by any secondary sources and it's nearly impossible to keep current. --13² 04:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

History Section

Surely it is not the case that both founders died from complications due to surgery the same year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.200.232 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Make-up Art Cosmetics → MAC Cosmetics – WP:COMMONNAME: The company is commonly referred to as MAC Cosmetics. It is seldom named by its legal name. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:UCN -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sandra Bernhard

I did a partial restore of Sandra Bernhard's comments. I left out her exact comment, but it is still noted that she was in a controversial ad, one that was later pulled. Interested readers at least now know to click on Sandra Bernhard if they want to read more. Also, these aren't really Sandra Bernhard's personal comments, as she was paid for them by MAC. Moreover, after hearing Bernhard's monologue, MAC still decided to run the commercial. I would argue that this issue is very relevant to MAC, perhaps even moreso than to Sandra Bernhard, as this type of language has become typical of Sandra Bernhard, while MAC quickly retracted this commercial under pressure. I consider this a compromise, as it mentions the controversy, with a link to Bernhard, but leaves out the quote and the sources (though I'm not sure that this issue deserves any less attention in the MAC article than Bernhard's). If this version is not acceptable, perhaps a controversy section for this article would be more appropriate? Thanks. Ufwuct 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"The MAC marketing copy suggests customers “be like Sandra: provocative, controversial … a real power-mouth!” Sandra Bernhard's MAC Cosmetics video was edited after Estee Lauder (holding company) received over 400 complaints regarding the Republican/Comedian in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaforman1 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

External Link "War"

Why are junk links with no relevance to MAC cosmetics being added (random makeup blogs & forums) (who BTW are only looking for advertising and exposure via this resouce), while revelant links that adhere to wiki guidelines are arbitrarily removed? Can someone please step in and clean up the external links? I have added the definitive archive of color story information released by MAC cosmetics, which legitimately should be linked from this page as adding the content from 10 years of color stories to the wiki would be time consuming and tedious. It has been removed each time, though it's relvance is supremely suited to this entry and it follows external link guidelines. (Strydor 04:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

I agree, external links that do not have anything to do with cosmetics or MAC itself should be left off of the MAC page. The links should be kept relevant to the purpose of the page. Bnsmith5 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the term 'unbiased' that confuses you.

Mr. Bennett, simply moving this questionable content from one of your websites to another one of your websites does not make this any less a violation of Wikipedia's Spam Policy. Your grudge against MAC is well documented on your own blog - it would be very difficult for anyone to construe another party recognizing it as libelous. Please recognize for yourself that you have repeatedly proven yourself to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy by showing that you yourself are not an unbiased party, let alone that the information you present is not unbiased. Wikipedia has already been contacted with reference to your repeated attempts to vandalize this article. Please refrain from any more. 24.46.89.151 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. If you mean to infer that I'm biased by having a preference to one particular point of view or perspective, you would be right...this is a boycott after all. It stands to reason that those affected by the fallout of a company's unethical behavior would be considered biased in their perception of said company. Does any part of that confuse you?

If you argue that bias is a barometer for determining credibility, then your defense of MAC Cosmetics when faced with verified, damning evidence proves bias on your part, bringing your credibility into question also. I think at this point it's safe to assume that you have ties (past and /or present) to this company. I could question whether you carry a grudge of your own.

There's been no slight of hand or duplicity either. The Local 798 newsletter document was not moved to a different domain to "fool' anyone. It was moved to address your concern of self promotion by removing back-linking ability to my website(s)...the spam you made reference to. That became an unnecessary safeguard now that you've provided links to many websites including the blog explaining the evolution of the MAC Cosmetic Boycott.

Shooting the messenger by publicly discrediting me for producing the Local 798 newsletter does not make it's message any less real. Your continued deletion of the link does not make the document disappear from existence. The IATSE Local 798 Makeup & Hairstylist Union is actively Boycotting MAC Cosmetics with the support of the New York Chapter of SAG (Screen Actor's Guild). This is FACT and has relevance in the public profile/description of MAC Cosmetics.

I believe it's time to requested a mediator. A third party needs to look at this information and it's source to determine it's validity. Kjbennett 01:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern Critiques

The first and ninth references for this article do not work. References five & six are the same reference. These should be updated and/or changed.

This article is full of bias. It shows the controversy of the city of Juarez and its violence against women, however it does not address other dealings within the company that are controversial as well. Such as the "tribe vibe" make-up collection, which had racist undertones.

There could also be mention of the celebrities that support the MAC AIDS charity, as well as the celebrity lines that contribute to the success of the billion dollar empire.

Also, since not many people know Estee Lauder, it could be beneficial to show the demographics that MAC aims for in its marketing. On one hand, it seems as though the young, bright, and vivid colours seem to be geared toward younger generations, where as Estee Lauder seems to have an older, more mature demographic. This can be shown from their foundation to their beauty creams. Estee Lauder is geared more toward fighting off aging and not showing wrinkles, where as MAC is more concerned with being more modern, to market to a younger audience.

An additional somewhat covert MAC benefit many people do not know about is the "back to MAC" program. This is a program where you take six empty containers of MAC cosmetics, drop them off at MAC, and the company allows you to choose one free lipstick to own. The AIDS charity is excluded, for good reason.

Finally, another large part of the MAC franchise that many do not know about, is their MAC pro stores. I do not see any mention of this, aside from a url at the very bottom of the page linking these two together. The MAC pro stores have more products, more vibrant colors, better quality products, and products most people have not seen before. It could open up MAC to more business by generating more customers-and money-for these stores.

CharMargaux (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)