Talk:Reebok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

|style="text-align:left;"|

|}

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 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakacm (talkcontribs) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)