Talk:Sandals Resorts

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


The Controversies section seems a bit large relative to the whole article. And also one sided. A controversy has two sides but this section only states negative things about Sandals. --Wikismile (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means, you should find some reliable sources who agree with Sandals that discrimination against gay men and women is a good thing, and add them to the section. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sandals Resorts is a recurring product placement spot in the American version of The Office." this implies this is paid product placement. A reference is needed. I'm tad sceptical, who would choose to stay in a resort chosen by the Office's fictional dysfunctional boss, Michael Scott? (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

More to the resorts than controversy?[edit]

Surely there is more information on Sandals Resorts than just a controversy?

--James4v8 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


No mention of the Cuban Sandals resorts, e.g. Sandals Hicacos ( Surely this would be interesting & relevant info, given the US embargo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

General Quality is Poor[edit]

There are more issues with this article than any I have stumbled across in Wikipedia in the last couple of years (yes, I may lead a sheltered life wikipedia wise, but I use it a lot, so....).

Beyond the Cuba question needing research (the Sandals reservation page doesn't indicate any Cuba properties, but the link provided in another discussion comment does appear valid), there is simple disagreement within the article itself (16 resorts indicated in one spot, and 15 in another - all this when Sandals reservations site lists only 13 resorts directly under the Sandals brand).

As indicated by another post, the controversy section seems wildly out of proportion with the overall topic, and lends itself to seeming more like an assassination attempt than objective writing. The topic seems valid at a fundemental level, but the disproportionate nature gives a clear tone of "agenda", which is contrary to Wikipedia goals. The topic needs to be kept, but needs to be part of a far more balanced coverage.

I'm just now becoming familiar with the WikiProject Business effort, but I find it sad that this could be rated even a "Start-class" in its current state. I'll have to weigh in at least somewhat when I have a bit more time in the weeks to come.Rob Vieira (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


The leadership section doesn't really make sense as is. IT seems to read as a minibiography of two people without really giving and idea of the org's structure. Not An IP (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)