Talk:Clinique Information & Talk:Clinique Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)

Fashion portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I like the Clinique liquid facial soap a lot. My mon keeps saying how great my skin looks. she says it looks cleaner than it has in months. She keeps saying how my skin glows.

[edit] Hair Care

I can't seem to find their Hair Care line in stores nor on their website. Has it been discontinued? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Issues

[edit] Originality

What does the section of Originality even have to do with the article? It is only a subjective section implying that Clinique's 3-step system is stolen from Erno Laszlo. Without a source that is a dangerous suggestion to make.

I agree completely. I haven't seen a source yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David229 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Soap

The Section on Soap is incorrect. There is no FDA regulations on soap and there is no assumption that can be made about said soap. Simply because "traditionally" soap was made from animal fat and lye does not have anything to do with Clinique soap unless there is a source saying otherwise. I also was unable to find any information about the finds of the TV show The Shopping Bags relating to Clinique soap. PseudoOgre (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For the person who was asking if the hair products were discontinued, yes the were sadly :(

And for who has been adding the "controversy" part to this page, you have no cited resources so I recommend keeping it off this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.104.164 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the controversy section. It has been tagged for months being biased and unsourced. --96.232.230.92 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I reverted many of the edits and added references. You are free to discuss the brands' merits, and I was neutral enough to offer Clinique's answer to the ingredients in question, but deleting anything that sounds negative makes it seem like Clinique employees are vandalizing this page.

Please keep your opinions neutral and on this page, and refrain from bullying people from posting (as in "I recommend you keep it off this page!"), as:

(1) this isn't your page to make those recommendations

(2) the page had been tagged for months, yet no Wikipedia admin made any replies to your charges (you edited the content yourself); and

(3) language like "...has sadly been discontinued" does not belong in an encyclopedia article.

[edit] Re-write

I spent a lot of time rewriting an article that had been tagged for more than a year. I tried to leave as much in as possible, but if I couldn't source it, I left it out as this is an encycolpedia. Both flattering and unflattering items were deleted from the article, as they could not be referenced. I also added new information on the beginnings of Clinique, which DOES belong here. Heresay on the clarifying lotions or how well they sell shouldn't be here. It isn't an issue of quality, it is an issue of RESPECT for editors and the encyclopedia format.
Hopefully new edits can be discussed here respectfully and not malicously. I am not out to take down Clinique, but this isn't the place to say how much you love the products. And the hair care - why are discontinued products mentioned in an encyclopedia anyways?--99.231.196.195 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and discuss this in a civil manner. I have, in fact, removed almost all of the spammy information in my edits two weeks ago (here). I did not remove the advert tag though as I forgot about it and have now.

As for the tag that has been there for over a year? You're still going to need to find reliable sources for anything controversial that directly deals with Clinique. The sources you used were from the government stating what qualifies as hypo-allergenic and other definitions. These sources do not deal with Clinique specifically and can't be used to include controversy or criticism. Please find sources that meet our expectations and don't violate synthesis.

You also removed valid external links, a ref section, interwiki links, and category tags, which was unacceptable. Adding info is good and encouraged, but not in conjunction with some of the other additions and removals. Please gain consensus before restoring your changes. Thank you. --13² 02:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have since reintroduced your history version as it was better than the previous one. I have also slimmed the product descriptions further. After I post this, I will also reintroduce the intro sentence you wrote (I accidentally skipped over it when comparing the two versions and making any relevant changes).

I have not re-included your controversy inclusions. While I think controversy can, and should, be included, it has to be done so by citing reliable sources that specifically talk about Clinique. All of the sources you used, while most were reliable, did not specifically talk about Clinique. Applying a source to controversy about the company when that source doesn't even talk about that specific company violates WP:SYN and can't be used. All controversy must be cited with Clinique-specific sources. If you can find those, then by all means incorporate it. If you can't, you should use internal links in this article that go the articles for hypo-allergenic/unscented and then source the FDA regulations there. --13² 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)