Talk:Nike, Inc./Archive 1

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

Swoosh logo and Carolyn Davidson

I added some details about the swoosh logo and Carolyn Davidson. Anybody feel brave enough to write up a page or stub on her? --RolandG 13:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I Moved

I moved the human rights / ethical criticisms at the top, above the history, I think Wikipedia users will find no objection to human rights issues being displayed at the forefront of the article, particularly when considering it does not hinder it's following history section, the criticism is short and concise. --VirianFlux 9:13, 7 April 2005 (GMT) (logged on anonymously)

Apparently the consensus in here is that ethical criticisms should NOT go at the top of the article, I'm okay with that if that IS the consensus, now for the other issues that need resolving. We have a Nike employee editing the wikipedia? Oh dear! As I understand it, this goes against Wikipedia's rules. Recently in the news was Jimmy Wales, editing his entry, perhaps news sources would like to also know that a Nike employee has edited the Nike entry? Perhaps people would like to know that the 'Corporate Equality Index rating' had been put in above the sweatshop / factory worker conditions section, probably with intent to detract from it?

From the BBC's article, dated 13 April, 2005, on Nike's factories: "Although 60% of factories monitored achieved an A or B rating in terms of compliance with agreed standards, a quarter of factories were found to present more serious problems. These ranged from a lack of basic terms of employment and excessive hours of work to unauthorised sub-contracting, confirmed physical or sexual abuse and the existence of conditions which could lead to death or serious injury." Please excuse me, but "death" and "serious injury" are both pretty bad last time I checked! According to "", the Wikipedia isn't meant to contain opinion, well, thats a very nice opinion you have there "". If even the most recent facts quoted above would be deemed by Wikipedia's audience as usefull or relevent, and NEUTRAL it should be there. Please read the Neutral Point of View guidelines! WP:NPOV We are meant to include relevent facts AND relevent opinions, but also to portray them as such!

People who buy Nike or are otherwise interested in infomation on Nike would find it relevent that "a quarter of factories were found to" have workers at risk from "sexual abuse", "death" and "serious injury", this is from Nike's own research.

The reason why I have to point this out, is because of the apparent igorance displayed in this talk page, this is a shame, but it doesn't supprise me. This article needs cleaning up. --VirianFlux 3:09, 4 January 2006 (GMT) (logged on anonymously)

  • Maybe it is an idea to merge the criticism into the history section: That would give the article the same appearance as the adidas-article, which include the financial scandals in its history as well. 08:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, much of the Nike history section was submitted by Nike's historian, who is not part of the company's marketing department. The primary goal was accuracy, not 'bubbly hyperactive history,' and many of the entries were in response to commonly asked questions received by Nike's consumer services department. NikeHistorian 16:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • i just added a thing on nikes influence but i agree with the idea of adding criticisms in the timeline like adidas-article and also removel of the POV templates across the Corporate social responsibility. iv dont have a real problem with nike adding in the commonly asked questions(although it should be kept 2 important dates). As long as they dont fiddle with the Negative factual information. Shoepedia - Sneaker Encyclopedia is a better place for the little piece of information.(i dont know who posted it) --Whywhywhy 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your point is well-taken about keeping the timeline to important dates, and I clearly went overboard - so I went through the entries again and condensed them to what I believe were true milestones for the company. As per an earlier post about whether it is 'against the rules' for an employee to make posts, I could find no such restrictions, and wikipedia stresses that it is for "everyone." My goal as historian is to provide this online encyclopedia with accurate facts, figures and dates related to Nike, especially those that I am told are requested repeatedly by consumers. Regarding so-called 'negative postings' - I have not edited or removed anyone else's postings, such as the one regarding Nike advertising in 1996.


To NikeHistorian: Regarding your 'against the rules for employees to post' comment, yes there is see conflict of interest. Aboutmovies 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed "You guys are full of shit all you do is make sweatshops for little Indians." from the history section as I feel that it is extremely biased and offensive. 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Christine 06/06/07

Somebody should have noticed the figure is given in ten-thousandths of minutes, not seconds. I really don't understand the relevance of the precision of the number per se --- if you make more than ten thousand shirts you start getting figures this precise, but it doesn't mean anything more than that. I get the subtle implication from the text that the production is actually timed that precisely on a per-shirt basis, which is not actually supported by the data given (just because they can give a figure that precise doesn't mean they think they can stick to it in the future or in anything other than total factory average) So I changed the text to give the precise number without sounding like it's making something (what?) of the high precision. (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I marked the "Corporate Responsibility" section as NPOV. First, there is a considerable body of evidence, backed up by a chorus of economists, repeated over and over in industrializing countries, that a country with a large, poor unskilled population will most rapidly convert it to a wealthy, skilled population by foreign investment in labor-intensive industries. Throwing around POV terms like "sweatshops" and "exploitation" muddies the water. We should discuss Nike's critics, but it's POV to not discuss the economic benefit of foreign investment. 07:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

citations? sounds like weasel words from a marketeer to me. However, the corporate responsibility section is very light on specifics. One cannot conclude if sweatshop abuses are a current problem or not, given Nike's 1998 program committing to labor standards which is cited in the article prior to this section. Are the standards working or not? The article gives no real information about this, just allegations.
I added a citation about the child labor practices. Nike's abuses of labor including forced overtime and child labor are very well documented, and I will add more references until we can reach a consensus that this is NPOV. I agree that we should avoid unfounded assertions and if we cannot find references for some of the comments, the assertions should be removed. Keep in mind, however, that this is not just an article about what Nike did or does, but also about Nike's public perception...and articles citing the public's perception of Nike's labor practices are equal relevant. But it's important to separate the question of citations documenting what actually goes on from citations that simply document allegations. I see too many documentations of allegations and not enough citations of actual labor practices. However, I will add these as I find them! Cazort 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I don't exactly understand how this wikipedia thing works, but if you contact organizations like the National Labor Committee or United Students Against Sweatshops, they will be happy to provide photographic evidence for inclusion in this entry, depicting the "labor intensive" industrial practices of Nike as disclosed in the mid-nineties. Some of them are quite graphic.[citation needed] lol

    Nike Shoes : Jordan , Shox , Max , Tn Trainer
Committee's like the one you're talking about also have a tendancy to sensationalize pictures and make them "editorial" and not really take pictures from a "neutral" perspective. One of the reasons I really don't like PETA. I think I'm okay with the rumors or allegations of the sweatshops, as long as they are written as that they have not been sustantiated by any government. sohmc 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Im not really sure why that is even on this page. I think people are forgetting this is an Encyclopedia, not a blog. If you want to put something about Nike and sweat shops, put a link to another article about sweat shops or a sweat shop prevention page. Wikipedia is not about movements, factions or feelings. It is a FREE encyclopedia-- not just free of price but free from byiast, free from improvication and most importantly, it is free from opinion. I love the information I recieve from this site. Im not disputtiong that it is not an issue that should be left of the page, it just should not have its own focus, and it really should not be put at the top. I mean, if you look at the history of Hitler, it does not say at the top that he killed Jews. Dont disrupt a great site by putting opinions on does not do anything good for anyone...[]

agreed. however i do agree with Yannick's point regarding "bubbly hyperactive history". the timeline given in this article is clearly written by the corporation and is not simply a factual account of the company's development but is clearly biased to CELEBRATE the business, rather than simply provide information. that doesn't feel right in the context of Wikipedia. it feels like the whole entry needs to be re-written, to give a more neutral and objective view - on both sides. as jrot888 says above, to also flag the various corporate governance and social responsibility issues up front is equally biased/subjective and is probably unfair to Nike. can someone write a more considered, neutral overview of the Nike business and brand? while the company has many detractors and has, it seems rightly, been criticised for some of its practices over the years, there is no denying the extraordinary social, cultural and economic influence the brand and business has had over the last 40+ years. whether we like it or not (and both points of view are valid) organised sport has been transformed over the last few decades, and the Nike culture, marketing and economic clout has been a major part of that transformation. this kind of unemotional overview would perhaps be more useful as the body of the article - with a more factual, neutral timeline a short series of bullet points underneath it. perhaps there could then be a link to a more detailed general entry on "corporate social responsibility", which as a subject includes Nike but doesn't lead with it - while i'm not sure a company as big Nike needs anyone to stand up for it, to lead the Wikipedia Nike entry with this issue seems unbalanced and prejudiced. jarvis 15.11.05

The thing is - and this is why I moved the criticism down the bottom - the article is about the history of a hugely influencial corporation, not its alleged crimes. Nike has changed the face of sports around the world, and how this came about is most important. In nearly every article on Wikipedia where a criticism section is included, the history of the subject and other related info always comes first. While you make a valid point about the gravity of human rights claims, Virianflux, it is simply not NPOV if a topic starts with the negativity, such as happens in the NIke article. --Harro5 07:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's not NPOV if you start the article with a bubbly hyperactive history that was clearly written by the company's marketing department. I agree that putting criticism at the top is not NPOV, but Harro5's move is worse. I'll bet a donut he works for the company. In any case, we now have 2 articles, one after the other, that need to be merged into a single neutral text. Think of how a respectful competitor to Nike would write the article. --Yannick 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Incomprehensible vocabulary

"Nike produces the kit for many of the world's football clubs and national sides" -- I'm not familiar with the expressions "kit" (in this context) and "national sides". Can somebody please revise these? Thanks. - 07 November 2005

To be perfectly honest, I know this is blunt, but the point I'm about to make is valid and, I believe, important; the fact that you're not aware of these words doesn't mean they should be revised. Maybe, and I'm not saying you are I'm just posing a hypothetical, just maybe you're an idiot. Maybe you don't know the proper context of the usage of "kit" and "side" and you should use this wonderful resource to research them before you make the ridiculous demand that the page conform to your narrowly defined worldview. And just for the record, I am an American, before the xenophobic bashing continues. I'm not saying that I think every article here should conform to British or any other kind of English standards either, but the unique context of the section requires the "soccer English" if you will. Words like overtime, playoffs, coach, etc. have either no meaning or different specific meanings with regards to football (soccer), and kit and national side are two of those many words. So, in short, deal with it, and instead of feeling attacked by something that is different than what you are familiar with, take the opportunity to learn a little about another culture or community. Grant.alpaugh 08:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of "kit" here is perfectly normal and correct. Gramatically there is nothing wrong with the use of "nadional sides", though it is a little clumsy. Using "national squads" would solve this.

HI, if you don't mind, i've amended it back to kit which is perfectly acceptable British (and hiberno-) English. Uniform is something it would never be called over here. and anyway, they make more than the 'uniform' for clubs - bags, tracsuits and coats other equipment.

Forgive me if I am wrong but Nike is an American company and use of British slang should probably be omitted. Perhaps the Reebok article would be more appropriate. :)

"Kit" is perfectly normal and not slang, and here it refers to football (soccer) which is a worldwide game that is not particularly popular in America. "National teams" might be better than "national squads". LDHan 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly normal in the UK, but internationally? I had no idea of this word until I looked it up and even the dictionary said it was specifically a British word. I suggest using a more international word being as this is an international encyclopedia.

How about "equipment"?

I am neither American nor British and can completely comprehend "kit." It is a common term used amongst Football (Soccer) and Rugby players internationally. Changing the term to "Equipment" would NOT make things more internationally friendly, rather it would make things more exclusive for the American demographic. Seeing as this IS an INTERNATIONAL ecyclopedia, "kit" is not only acceptable, but politically correct as well. As for the debate between "National Sides" or "National Squads" or "National Teams", Get over it. Americans seem to have to change everything to their likening, then accuse everyone else of being wrong.

if a press released by nike was sourced which im sure they did a thousand of when they announce the whatever it would settle the argument.(my moneys on kit) --Whywhywhy 09:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of the word "kit" as used in this artical is considered a British regionalism. While it may be perfectly understandable my most people, it isn't accepted as "standardized global" English and therefore probably isn't the best term for an "international encyclopedia".

I'm an American. I understand the word "kit" in the context and think that use of any other word in its place is incorrect. Everything that a person uses for a given task is a kit, agreed? In the military, soldiers "kit out" when they put on their uniforms, as well. This is likewise for soccer players, and the use of "kit" is perfectly within the bounds of the "American" definition of the word.

I work for Nike and here's my two cents... Kit is what we refer to it as in the office - at WHQ - in Oregon - in America. It's an appropriate term. However to the American ear it maybe somewhat mysterious as Football (Soccer) isn't a very popular sport in the US and therefore the terminology maybe somewhat enigmatic. Perhaps a link could be created to point "kit" to the Wiktionary where an appropriate definition could be put in. fidissimus 10:54, 31 December 2006

Inconsistency in numbers (from helpdesk-l)

The following was posted to the helpdesk mailing list:

according to your article about nike inc. lookin at the company's revenue at the top right it says 13.7 million and then reading the content itself says a fiscal poicy for the yera 2005 to be 13.7billion. plus i need to know, is it biilion or million. i guess it wont be million, but u need to correct it before peple get misled cos it is the first u see before reading the atricle itself. but sincerely u re doin a great job with the site.

Gerrit CUTEDH 15:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

For future reference

This is off topic from the human rights discussion, but I just wanted to put these links here so I don't lose them. --Bobcat 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Removal of POV templates

  • Remove. --Whywhywhy 05:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. AED 07:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While "The forced labor camp like conditions in some overseas production plants" may be true it is clearly POV. 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)rufus20
  • Remove. If "The forced labor camp like conditions in some overseas production plants" is true and can be sourced, then it is not POV. While from the perspective of the consumer this article should be about treads and materials, or about their success, the company's practices may be more notable, especially from a global perspective. Sneaker enthusiasts will have to deal with it. / edgarde 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher===

Michael Schumacher never had any contract with Nike that I know of, in fact he had sponsorships primarily with Nike competitors Adidas and Puma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Please give reasons, please discuss. / edgarde 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Small edits

I have changed the spelling of "Addidas" to Adidas, and changed the sentence "Rivals include.....British giants Umbro" to read "British manufacturer Umbro". Umbro are certainly not a giant, now less so than ever. The only national kit they manufacter is England's, and the days when they produced kits for Liverpool, Manchester United etc look to be over, as Nike and Adidas fight it out for the rights to produce the kits of world famous clubs.

Accually, Umbro also produces the kits of Sweden and of Beşiktaş in Turkey.Rokkafellah 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC).Rokkafellah 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokkafellah (talkcontribs) 04:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


adidas is actually spelled with a lower case "a."

Anyone catch this?

Apparently, the PC Brigade is out waving their bullshit again.

I guess the English flag ought to be banned too since it reminds the Muslims of the Crusades. Anyways, is this notable enough for a mention in the article or does it need to spin further out of control to be called a 'controversy'? Joffeloff 20:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

- This is really not worthy of inclusion. Is an article in the Daily Mail on a single given day really notable. Certainly it is not a reputable source in its own right, being prone to mischief making.

brand ambassadors?

can anyone post a list of nike brand ambassodors? i need it for my presentation on nike... thx :) -BratX.


Nike has no direct competition? I'd say the range (and type) of products is very similiar to adidas. Or is there a market Nike makes huge profits, in which adidas isn't also heavily involved? Ben, June 28th 2006


Rewrote the blurb a bit, and removed the pronounciation guide (which I felt was patronising). I added a comment on criticisms in the blurb too, to balance it out somewhat. The "Corporate Influence" section really shouldn't be at the top, either. Any objections re: moving it nearer the bottom? Also, criticisms of the company seem under represented, considering the company's corporate history... will get around to rectifying that. Sorry I uploaded twice, my comp crashed halfway into the upload, and did something bad to the page. I re-uploaded the latest archive with changes Argh! forgot I wasn't logged in, this is all my doing--Hotel city 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sponsorship of Iroquois Nationals

Nike recently signed a partnership with the Iroquois Nationals. See that article for more info. This is symbolically, if not financially significant. Should it be mentioned somewhere in the article? Nike press release heqs 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs sources

Where's the provenance information for that puctuation?

Trillion dollar company?

The page currently states that Nike's revenue is $97 trillion dollars. I find this hard to beleive.Terlob 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Offensive ad about chinese people

Some Chinese people found an ad about Lebron James beating many chinese things (dragons etc.) in a basketball games inside a temple. Many chinese were offended by this ad and it was banned. I don't have a citation though any citation would be appreciated. Frankyboy5 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I encountered this at Chinese dragon in more detail, and was also curious. It is my impression that perhaps a third of the national (but almost never local) ads on television in the U.S. have very clear, often quite disturbing ulterior messages for those who care to consider them (most typically manufacturers boasting about how their products are spying on the customer). I haven't seen the ad described but I'd have no trouble at all believing that it was intended as some kind of a statement about how an "American"? company was fighting off Chinese competition etc. But Nike makes some shoes in China, which sort of takes the wind out of the sails of that idea, unless it is only to create a subtle impression in the mind of some consumer? Given all the weeks and months of their lives that people are carpet-bombed with apparently silly ads, I'd think someone would do "literary analysis" of this type in a way that could be referenced, but where would you start looking for it? (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington Post reference to banning of article: But how does a communist country installing their own Catholic Bishop, forcing the Dali Lama into exile, installing their own "next Dalai Lama" have the gall to call anything blasphemous. What would George Carlin have said about their use of this word? Probably something we couldn't print here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a POV tag

I think the controversies surrounding Nike are given entirely too much weight in this article. Yes, there has been controversy and that should be discussed, but it should not take up 90% of the article. Some of Nike's products are innovative, some of their shoes are very high-tech and are designed to work and support the foot in a different way from other shoes. To be honest, even the part of the article that is not about some controversy or other does not talk about Nike's products or what makes their shoes different or special at all. Controversy section should be trimmed, timeline moved to the end of the article or turned into a prose section on the history of the company, and a section should be added about their products, focusing on how they are different, unique, and innovative (rather then mearly listing them). Anyway, just a suggestion and explanation for the tag. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

At the time I write this, I don't believe the article has serious WP:NPOV problems. Also, two sections have been spun off, so overall controversy is not "90%" of the article. There's room for improvement:
  • more sources
  • Beatles & Minor Threat pieces seem like trivia
  • if these products are innovative, specific information should be added (and neutrally sourced, i.e. not from Nike)
... but I believe the NPOV tag can come off. The neutral/pro-Nike parts don't seem to contradict the Controversy sections. I don't see a problem here. / edgarde 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The article does seem to have improved since December when I added that tag; though there is definately still room for improvement in it. I've removed the POV tag, although I still think that controversies have a bit too much weight in the article.

I don't think there's a consensus to have boldly removed the entire section. I've added it back. It may need cleanup/shortening but some of it is relevant/sourced. --Cheeser1 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism: Hungary

I deleted the Hungarian flag and its fictional team "Suck my penis united" from the bottom of the European Teams Sponsored section. I'm not a football fan, but I googled that team name and found nothing. If there are any knowledgeable football fans out there, there may well be a Hungarian team that is sponsored by Nike and needs to be added back in. BaikinMan 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your edit. It can often be more useful to revert back to the last good version, thus removing more vandalism. --Guinnog 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'm doing what I can to help, I'll try to use reverts when I can. BaikinMan 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Suck my penis united are an awsome team!!

Just a Football company with issues?!

I've noticed that there's a heavy emphasis on two areas for the information presented: That Nike produces Football product and that there's been a lot of controversy around their operations. Can we get a better overview?

Nike started as a footwear company for runners. They're still heavily invested in outfitting the runner - they also make golf apparel and equipment. They outfit numerous American collegiate athletes for a variety of sports; basketball, football, baseball, lacrosse, and training, etc. They have whole lines devoted to the female athlete. They provide watches and sunglasses and have expanded into skating and yoga. And don't forget Jordan. Where does it mention even 1/2 of that in the article?

Additionally this article seems like another opportunity to take a dig at Nike. The controversy around Nike's labor practices that are presented in the article seem biased, dated and one sided. I think it's fair to include the information that's there as long as it's accurate (I think some of it isn't and should be source sited and double checked). Also Nike has made drastic improvements to their Corporate Responsibilities in the past 10 years. For an interesting report see: or see Nike's complete public statement and position on Corporate Responsibility at

fidissimus 11:24, 31 December 2006

~who thought of the nike skate?! o0/31/07 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)who thought of this product?

I 2nd that. Why is there such an emphasis on Soccer? The complete list of soccer teams sponsored by are listed on the Main Page. What about the other sports? This soccer team list definitely needs to be put on another page. Tri400 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-English Text...

An anonymous IP added this text to the end of the article (I have since removed it--I believe all Wikipedia text has to be English on English articles). I can't tell if it's vandalism, advertising or spam. Looks like it could be Portuguese to me, but I don't speak Portuguese or Spanish, so I don't know. This is how it read...


Put through the Altavista Babelfish translator, this is what comes out (providing you select "Portuguese to English")...


I'm not exactly sure what this user's intentions were. I just thought I would post it here in case anyone feels like shedding some light on it. :) --TheSlyFox 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just looks like nonsense, any information it had was already in the article, and was unsorced. If the user returns, then mabey we can talk to him/her, but otherwise, it is not so big a loss. ffm yes? 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sponsorship list

How come Adidas and Puma can have a list of teams sponsored by it but Nike Inc cant? Tri400 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nike does - but it's been spun off to a seperate page because it's so long. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares how long it takes to make a shirt?

The documents show the time it takes the workers in a factory in the Dominican Republic to make a shirt in ten thousandths of seconds, with each shirt taking 6.6141 minutes to make, 9 shirts an hour.

Is that supposed to mean something? Every single company in the world has those kind of numbers. Hell - at a place like Taco Bell at the end of day/week/month/year - what ever time frame you want - they can tell you exactly how much cheese - to the tenth of an ounce - the store should have. Its common practice to have every single thing measured for time, ingredients, etc .... companies that do not do that normally fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

- Is it considered impolite to label you a fool, Sir? Beacuse you surely are one, that or a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You can consider me a fool all you want... or a troll - whatever... still curious as to why its important how long it takes to make a shirt is important. As I said... every single major business in the world figures out how long it takes to make their product. It is a standard business practice of any business that wants to stay in business. Heck... I bet you even know how long it takes to do your routine in your own personal life. It sort of makes it easier to plan.... or do you wake up at 2am, and start getting ready for work because you do not know how long it will take you to take a shower, get dressed, eat breakfast... and then take off to work immediately since you have no idea how long it takes to drive to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Ethics vs. Human rights

I think the "corporate ethics" section was inaccurately named. The term "corporate ethics" is broad and encompasses much more than human rights concerns. The issues with Nike are not really general issues of corporate ethics, they are specifically issues of human rights concerns. I re-named this section to reflect this, feel free to discuss if you think there would be a more accurate term, or if we should perhaps create two separate headings...but I don't see much discussion of corporate ethics that falls outside of human rights concerns (i.e. no enron-like scandals, etc). Cazort 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

schumi and nike?

schumi doesn't wear nike. i think. i wanted to change it but since i'm an avid nike user i don't want to erase the right info. schumi's page doesn't say anything about sponsorships, neither does guys please confirm. over. Damaster-rapper 12:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've watched the Grand Prixs enough times, I'm pretty sure Micheal Schumacher uses, or is sponsered, by Puma.Rokkafellah 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokkafellah (talkcontribs) 04:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I also noted this. Schumacher never had a sponsorship with Nike and in fact was sponsored by rival companies Adidas and Puma. If it is seen on this page again please remove it. It is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dog fighting

I removed the section about their spokesperson completely. Firstly, the section said that Nike had been criticized for their response, yet the CNN article just said they suspended him. Secondly, the issue is only peripherally related to Nike. Criticisms are plentiful of this company, but I think this section was reaching. shotwell 21:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed information about Vick and dog fighting. This time there was no source. I think the information is irrelevant. It doesn't involve Nike directly. Does anyone disagree with this? shotwell 07:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why the issue shouldn't be mentioned in the article - whatever you want to think, it did create controversy. People are boycotting it ( which is an admittedly biased source). It has been in the news lately (,0,2687343.story). I am going to add it in. Rm999 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason is undue weight. Nike is a multibillion dollar, thirty year old, international corporation. This Vick scandal is a small event that will pass from public discourse as soon as some other minor celebrity is the subject of a scandal. If Nike had been abusing the dogs, then sure, we'd have something notable on our hands. We are devoting an entire section to a barely notable and weakly related controversy on the grounds of one protest and a hastily constructed boycott webpage. shotwell 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Shotwell. The dogfighting scandal is not directly related to Nike, only to an athlete they sponsor. I don't think Nike can (nor should) answer for their athletes decisions. Besides, Vick's contract was signed before all this came out. Anyway, a mention about it in the controversy section would do just fine, I think. Something like "Nike is being subject of protest and boycott because Michael Vick, one of its sponsored athletes, is alleged* being related to dog fights." *alleged would be there until the trial has ended. What do you think? AndreGB 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, my guess is that in 10 years the Vick thing will be all but forgotten. On the other hand, this is true with most events; as time goes on they become less relevant. I would argue that Wikipedia would be half its size if the benchmark for inclusion was "will people care in 10 years?" What is Wikipedia's official take on this? Right now it's relevant to Nike - is that enough for inclusion? I don't know.
I tried to keep the section about Nike and not Vick. It's not about the controversy surrounding dog fighting, it's about the controversy surrounding Nike's decision to keep its contract with him. I also tried to keep it short because I agree that in the grand scheme of things it is insignificant from Nike's perspective. I like AndreGB's compromise, as long as the event is framed in a way that it makes sense to someone who doesn't know about the Vick case to begin with (this is what would keep it encyclopedic). Rm999 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a good compromise but I'm not immediately sure how to write it in a such a way as to give it proper context (as you describe). Your version is pretty concise. One criterion for notability is that it not be temporary, but this guideline pertains to article topics and not their content. shotwell 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Where is Nike's history? I've noticed that all of its history has been removed from the article (which became quite small actually). AndreGB 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, seriously, don't you think Nike's history is important? How it began, their founders, their first products, and so on? I can't tell that accurately myself, but I remember it was present on past versions of this article. AndreGB 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is broken without a history section. It's all parroted Nike hate with no context. Migaila 11:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


The article begins by telling me to pronounce Nike as "nie-kee". While I'm aware that this is probably the standard pronunciation in the US, as a citizen of England I've only ever heard it pronounced "niek". Should the article be changed to reflect this? —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:24:58, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Hm, even in "England" saying "nigh-kee" is pretty common - it's probably half and half —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing Problems. Backwards Text.

I clicked edit because there was a weird circle above the first line, and everthing within the page was backwards! All of the text was backwards! Can anyone explain this? --Lesserm 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Only the first line was backwards for me, but still very weird. Looks like I fixed it, but still can't explain it. -- Satori Son 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


More history is needed, but certainly the blurb about Steve Prefontaine in 1978 under the current history section should be omitted. Steve died in 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


"In 1978, Blue Ribbon Sports renamed itself to Nike after the Greek goddess and sponsored runner Steve Prefontaine." Prefontaine was dead in 1978. Rm999 10:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Soccer teams with kits section

I don't think this section adds anything to the article, and beyond that, it's uncited. Any objections to removing the section? -Pete 03:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an extremely good idea. Knowing what teams Nike sponsors illuminates nothing substantial about the corporation, and serves mainly as PR-like fill. VanTucky Talk 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, the fact that Nike is one of the "big two" (the other being adidas) of the kit manufacturers in world football is extremely important. Nike is first and foremost a sportswear manufacturer, and football is the world's most popular sport. The fact that Nike is the sponsor of Manchester United, Arsenal, Inter, Juventus, Barcelona, Club America, the US, Brazilian, Dutch, and Portuguese national teams, as well as many more of the world's leading teams and also the fact that it supplies the balls used in the Premier League and La Liga as well as others shows how important Nike is to this sport. Also, Nike recently purchased Umbro, which is one of the other most famous clothing manufacturers in the world, and is the manufacturer of the England national team's kit, as well as many other clubs and countries. In addition, a list of other teams that are sponsored by Nike would also be welcome, but Nike does not produce the uniforms for the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, or any other major sports league. Grant.alpaugh 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, and most important, you have no reliable sources backing that information. Second: Wikipedia is not a list of random facts strung together. It is already made clear that they are the world's largest supplier of sport's kits, so a complete list is undesirable. VanTucky Talk 06:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think that two previous posts was a "consensus." Please don't edit again to remove without reaching an actual consensus, ie my argument against the information being removed being included in the talk page for more than 5 minutes, and then more than the two people who made one sentence statements supporting the removal of the section responding. In an effort to try to slim down the profile of the section I reformatted it so that it doesn't take up 40% of the article's scrolling space. If there is an actual consensus reached then fine, by all means remove the section. Grant.alpaugh 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It should not be in the article, maybe if properly sourced as a List of national teams sponsored by Nike, but not in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please also read Help:Edit summary. Aboutmovies 06:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Grant, you need to understand that the burden of proof rests on you to source your information and convince others that it is fit for inclusion before adding it if it is contested. Three editors agreeing that the info is unsuitable and one constantly reverting without any source material is not a consensus to include. VanTucky Talk 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you cannot describe me as the one that is "constantly editing the article" because I've edited it exactly as much as you have in the last few minutes. Secondly, all I am saying is that the section was included in the article for a good period of time and after two once sentence comments was removed. All I am asking for is that a legitimate discussion take place between more than two people who disagree before anyone claims "consensus" and edits the article. While this is happening I made changes to the section so that it takes up less of a profile in the article. Grant.alpaugh 06:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You have now violated the 3 revert rule. I strongly suggest you revert yourself before you are blocked. VanTucky Talk 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is so important to you that you aren't willing to actually engage in a discussion about it's content? I offered a solution that will actually attempt to reach a consensus. Can we at least try that for about five minutes before you start threatening my banishment? Grant.alpaugh 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You were warned about the three revert rule, there was a purpose for that. There is a purpose for the 3RR. Please take the time to read the policies/guidelines that other editors point out to you, then go back to editing articles. The 3RR is to prevent was is happening here, an edit war. I doubt this article is that important to VanTucky, and it certainly isn't to me if you check my edit history. We are asking you to discuss here, and respect the community, which currently has a count of 3-1 in favor of keeping the info out. Aboutmovies 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you can't respond to my insistence that we actually have a discussion. Rather than just quote wikipedia policy at length, why don't you respond to my request that we have a discussion, so we can stop just have a discussion about having a discussion? Neither of you has answered my argument that you falsely claimed a consensus about the removal of the section and in the span of 15 minutes have repeatedly threatened me with a ban for editing the article back to the way it was for several days. I changed the section to trim it down. I said that if more than one or two people actually engage in the discussion we can remove the content. All I'm asking for is an actual discussion. Grant.alpaugh 07:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Aboutmovies is correct. When multiple users object to content, it is your obligation to discuss it thoroughly and - as a newcomer here - to read the applicable policies we have cited. If you disagree, that's fine. But you need to reach a conclusion with us before you add contested material back into the article. That's the Wikipedia way of consensus decision making. Again, please revert yourself so that we can continue the discussion. Otherwise you may be blocked. VanTucky Talk 07:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(unident) What you see above is a discussion. We pointed out that the content does not fit into the guidelines of what we include in the encyclopedia, thus we don't think it belongs. If you would like to go change the policies/guidelines, go for it. Sorry its so brief, but between the three of us we have around 40,000 edits so we have a feel for what is allowed and not, and can work through easy issues like this quickly. We work together regularly so we know the arguements, and you have not made any sort of compelling argument to overcome previously developed policies. Aboutmovies 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you think three people constitute a consensus is positively ridiculous. Can we all just cool it a little and allow more than half an hour go by so that more than three people can engage in this discussion. We're not dealing with missiles governor so please cool down the banishment threats. This doesn't need to be decided in the next half hour, and it certainly shouldn't be decided by just the three of us. Let's wait for more than three people to get involved. Also, please, even if its just to humor me, respond to something I actually say in your next post before endlessly repeating stock information about the three revert rule. Please. Grant.alpaugh 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, you make your lack of comprehension obvious. A block for violation of 3RR is not a permanent "banishment". And it's not a threat, because we are not administrators and do not get to make the decision. It's a helpful hint. You have violated the rule, so it would be in your best interest to revert yourself. But to the issue: You may want to read about what Wikipedia is not. Any content, especially rambling lists of indiscriminate information, that is unverified is subject to removal. If the point of an encyclopedia is to provide essential knowledge as clearly and accurately as possible, and the article already makes clear that Nike is the foremost manufacturer of sports equipment, then a complete list of all teams with Nike kits is unnecessary. VanTucky Talk 07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is it that you have said? You mean that Nike endorses lots of teams. Well, yes, and that was countered by the fact that they are the "world's largest supplier of sport's kits" covers the topic for Wikipedia standards. Maybe mention in prose format a couple teams, but that's it. For instance, see Microsoft and show me where there is a list of clients. That article is FA class, which means that's the best we have and what we want to emulate. If you will read the canned items, you will understand the arguments better. PS, three people is about as heavy of traffic as it gets. You may notice the reply you made above (the edit where you made a personal attack that I warned you about) is two years old. Aboutmovies 07:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
A comparison to adidas would be more pertinant, and if you'll notice the article contains a similar section. Grant.alpaugh 08:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No. That article is B class, which means no formal review has been done. If it went to GA it would have those sections removed. The reason it is being left out is based on style issues. Read the manual of style, or find some FA class articles on business that have a list similar to the one you are trying to include. Aboutmovies 08:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that no more than four of us will express any interest for some time. So, we have to do the best we can, among the four of us, to come up with the resolution most in compliance with the letter and sense of WP policy and guideline. Of course others can always join in, but thus far, they haven't. So let's not make any decisions based on what others "might" have to say.

As I see it, there's a point I may have missed with my initial comment, which may actually be pertinent: perhaps Nike sponsors lots of soccer teams, to the exclusion of other sports.

If that's so, and if it's notable, it will be stated concisely by some reliable source. I would think that stating that fact directly in a sentence or two, and citing a source, would be sufficient to capture this point about the company. What I don't see, is how a huge list helps any purpose whatsoever.

I'm open to hearing what you have to say, Grant. What do you think of what I said? -Pete 10:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for his response, he's been given a 24h block. VanTucky Talk 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Pete, I thinks that's what we've all (minus grant) been implying. Its not the substance of the content, its how its presented. Listing every team they sponsor just doesn't work, let alone in list format. It works better if it is done how you say, in a sentence or two, maybe even with a mention of a few of the more prominent sponsorships. Maybe a total for each sport. Plus the fact that they sponsor a lot of colleges needs to be worked in as well. As I mentioned before (this is meant for grant), the entire list might work itself into a seperate list article, but that's the closest it would come to inclusion. Aboutmovies 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Other than the usual, concrete reasons of verifiability and unsightliness, there are other reasons for not including lists like these. In the work that various PR firms have done on how to make Wikipedia articles more favorable to your company (that I've read), one of the biggest things they advocate is creating a lot of fill content about products and sponsorships (rather than about the company itself). Assuming good faith with Grant - who is probably just a soccer fan - there has been quite a bit of activity from Nike IP addresses that shows up on WikiScanner if you bother to look. Normally I wouldn't care much for policing an article like this, but the amount of whitewashing that went on in the scanner edits I saw was shocking. I think we need to be careful to keep the article balanced. VanTucky Talk 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikiscanner? That must be part of the warrantless wiretap program, huh? -Pete 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Now you're on the list Pete. I'd watch what you say about the subversive organizations you belong to... VanTucky Talk 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears the "list" already existed, and is now linked in the article undersponsorships. Hopefully that will keep this out of the main article. Aboutmovies 08:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Greek Origin

Does Nike in any way stem from the attic Greek word (spelled nu iota kappa epsilon) for victory? (If it does, should it be included maybe in the intro of the article?) Gagueci (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's right in the intro: "The company takes its name from Nike, the Greek goddess of victory." --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that. Alright then. Good. Gagueci (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)