 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Insolvency
editThis article should not be written in past tense. Escada still IS a fashion brand etc. Is is merely undergoing a restructuring (cf. GM, which IS also still a auto manufacturer, even though it went thru Chapter 11 recently) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.37.84 (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
External Link
editIs there a reason for the external link to escada-campaign.org? The article is neither for nor against the use of fur, the link is simply a POV push. Umn student 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you following me around on Wikipedia?
YES THERE IS!
Your right "The article is neither for nor against the use of fur", but this organization has a campaign against Escada and I feel it would be worth putting that in at least as a link. What would be inappropriate would be to quote them about Escada and use that as a main source but putting in a link about a campaign against a company, COME ON. Carniv 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just because they have a campaign against the company doesn't make it that relevant or necessary to post here. As far as I can tell, the campaign consists of a single person who made a webpage. If it's actually a large, relevant campaign, making an "Escada Campaign" article may be appropriate, with links to it from here. However, since the website is only POV, there is no other information relating to the campaign in the article, and we have no information about the campaign, including the link isn't necessary. I could probably find campaigns against half the articles in Wikipedia. If we included all of the links, this would become an activist site rather than an encyclopedia. Umn student 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Campaign
editCarniv, your link (as I previously mentioned) is a POV and unreliable source, therefore cannot be used in the article for citations of the nature you want. Umn student 17:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If this is such a large campaign and is well known, try to find the info in a better source. For this, a well-known newspaper would probably be best. Umn student 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, please check these links out:
http://www.arkangelweb.org/international/general/20071006escada.php http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84536 http://zivot.hr/index.en.php?id=407
If you look at the Burberry article, they have the PETA campaign, the Peta blog, and this: http://www.catwalkqueen.tv/2006/09/peta_protest_at.html article. That is WAY less then the links I provided. Carniv 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are quite a few differences between the two. First, PETA is well-known nationally and is an organization, while the "Escada Campaign" is not really an organization or group, just a website requesting action by other groups. As for the other articles, I'm not familiar with arkangelweb, but the others are not reliable sources. The Burberry article mentions attention from larger media outlets, has a section about the fur controversy, and is mentioned in a Wikinews article. This 'campaign' does not really meet the notability requirements from what I've seen so far. Umn student 02:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I found the International Anti-Fur Coalition website : http://www.antifurcoalition.org/?p=members. It says A) that the Escada campaign is there's, and B) that IDA is involved (under members section) which I feel is a big organization. In addition, I found an article from a fashion magazine: http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/textile-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=43573 that talks about the Escada campaign. Carniv (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Escada logo.png
edit
Image:Escada 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.
