Talk:Canada Goose (clothing)

Suggesting Charitable efforts section

Hello! I wanted to propose a brief Charitable efforts section draft for the article. This draft doesn't strive to cover every philanthropic endeavor the company has launched. Rather, I've tried to highlight a couple of notable initiatives that received a fair amount of coverage in reputable media outlets. Here is my proposed draft:

In 2019, Canada Goose instituted a program called Project Atigi, through which it has partnered with Inuit seamstresses across Canada to produce jackets and parkas. Proceeds from the sale of this outerwear goes to the Canadian nonprofit organization Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

As the COVID-19 pandemic was developing in March 2020, Canada Goose produced 2.5 million PPE units, which were delivered at cost to provincial and federal governments. In June 2020, the company announced it was donating another 20,000 uniforms to personnel at eight Mount Sinai hospitals in New York.

References

I'll ask User:Leventio if they would like to review, since they were very helpful with a previous request of mine. Other editors are welcome to review as well, if they feel one way or another about my proposal. Thanks! Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Canada Goose Isabella, I just wanted to comment that I've noted your request and will be able to assist in the next few days. That said, if any other editor wants to tackle this, they are more than welcome to. Cheers! Leventio (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Leventio! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help with your review process. Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in response over the past weeks. I don't see any issues with proposal. I suggest renaming the section title to "Social Impact" so the section can be expanded in the future, more broadly speaking. Leventio (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries about the delay, User:Leventio. I really appreciate that you've come back to this. Changing the section title to Social impact is fine with me. If we made that change, would you feel comfortable adding the section draft text to the article? Let me know. And thanks again! Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. With that, I'm fine with the proposed content. I can add this later today, unless you have any additional proposals you want to include. Leventio (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, no further additions from me. Thanks so much, User:Leventio! Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

After a bit of a delay (apologies for all of them), the text has been inserted. Cheers! Leventio (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggest to move “Sustainability and treatment of animals” to new “Criticism” section

I visited this page to learn more about the controversy over Canada Goose’s treatment of animals, but it took me a long time to find the information in the “products” section. I don’t think that information belongs there.

It would be easier for future visitors to find the information if criticism/controversy were in a separate top-level section. I think this could be done while still maintaining a neutral point of view. GaramondQ (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Top level "criticism" sections are typically avoided in most Wiki articles (usually done in the spirit of WP:CRIT). The approach is usually to integrate criticisms into their relevant sections (in this case, use of fur would fall under Products), providing balance throughout the article. Leventio (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the link to WP:CRIT. It makes sense not to put undue weight on negative criticism.

Would a potential compromise be to rename the “Social Impact” section to “Social and Environmental Impact”, and relocate the subsection there? I think that would aid discoverability for readers who want to learn more about the issue from a neutral source. GaramondQ (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I went ahead and moved the subsection into the impact section. Leventio (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting sentence about creative director hiring

Hello again! Returning to this Talk page with a brief request. The company recently hired designer Haider Ackermann as its first creative director, and I was wondering if a line about that could be added to the end of the History section. I'll suggest a sentence and a citation:

In May 2024, Canada Goose appointed Haider Ackermann as its first-ever creative director.

References

I've cited a GQ piece above, but to further confirm that this is a notable development in the company's history, I also have links to a Vogue article and an Elle interview. Because User:Leventio has been quite active on the page lately—thank you, by the way, for all the work you put into that reorganization—I will tag them here. Of course, any other independent editors are welcome to weigh in as well! Thanks, Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Superboilles (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, User:Superboilles! Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting new text for Treatment of animals section

Hello! I'd like to ask about some edits to the Treatment of animals section, to provide a straightforward breakdown of the phase out of fur and to remove some information that is redundant following later updates.

In the first paragraph, there are two sentences that I'd like to ask whether editors would remove:

In 2015, a group called Animal Justice Canada filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau of Canada claiming that the trapping methods used by Canada Goose's coyote fur suppliers were inhumane.

• In 2016, the Competition Bureau dropped this case, so it feels strange to include when it was found to have no legal claim. This source states: "But months later, with no detailed reasons why, the Competition Bureau has dropped the claim, writing in part that "The inquiry has not satisfied the Commissioner that Canada’s (sic) Goose’s representations are false or misleading in a material respect…""

In March 2017, PETA bought 230 shares of the company so it could propose a shareholder resolution at Canada Goose's next annual meeting to "ask them to abandon the cruel use of fur and feathers."

• As PETA suspended their campaign against the company in 2021, and this detail is included in the second paragraph of the section, this sentence about share buying feels unnecessary.

In the second paragraph, I'd like to ask editors to replace the following sentences with some new text that better explains the phasing out of fur by Canada Goose, citing some sources that are much clearer on this issue. Here are the sentences to be replaced:

In June 2021, Canada Goose amended that plan, announcing it would stop using fur entirely by 2022. As of October 2024, Canada Goose continues to use fur. PETA suspended its international campaign against Canada Goose, while still urging the manufacturer not to use goose down in its jackets.

• The first sentence oversimplifies the phase out of fur and the cited New York Post piece doesn't explain the full details of the plan to stop fur use. The second sentence has no citation. For the third sentence, I'm not suggesting fully removing this, but adding something to the start of it to make the timeline clearer on the suspension of PETA's campaign.

Here is my proposed draft to replace them, cited to CNN and Elle Canada:

In June 2021, Canada Goose amended that plan, announcing that it would stop purchasing all fur by the end of that year and end manufacturing with fur by the end of 2022. The company confirmed in 2023 that it had met these goals. After the 2021 announcement, PETA suspended its international campaign against Canada Goose, while still urging the manufacturer not to use goose down in its jackets.

Since I work for Canada Goose, I'm making this suggestion for review by independent editors. Thank you in advance to editors for looking at this, please let me know if there's anything I can help with! Thanks, Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not Done: The material you have requested to be removed is appropriately sourced and historically relevant. It is highly inappropriate for a representative of a company to attempt to reframe such material in a way which is clearly promotional. Axad12 (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, User:Axad12. I sincerely apologize if aspects of the request were inappropriate. Would it be alright to place a more specific request to amend the passage about the company's phasing out of fur? As I pointed out above, one of the claims in that passage doesn’t have a source and the description of the company’s fur phaseout is slightly confusing. That said, I don’t want to overstep my bounds here. Please let me know what you think is best. Again, thank you very much for reviewing. Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I am very surprised by your comments above.

You ask if you should make a 'more specific request', but you have already made a very specific request which has been turned down.

With regard to the element of text (added only very recently) which you observe is unsourced (re: Canada Goose continuing to use fur)...

1) A source [1] was given in the edit summary [2] for that change which appears to demonstrate that Canada Goose do indeed use fur as of Oct 2024. I will shortly add the relevant source to the article. It seems to me that there are a large number of other items on the company website which could also have been used to make the same observation. As a representative of the company are you denying that the unsourced point re: use of fur is correct?

2) It is not reasonable to request the deletion of material added only very recently on the basis that it is unsourced, especially when the claim appears to be correct and sourceable to your own website and you could very easily have instead provided a source confirming the point, rather than attempting to suppress information which appears to be correct.

It is disturbing to see a PR representative at a company apparently trying to whitewash information which they find inconvenient. As I said in my previous response, such activity is highly inappropriate and yet you continue in the same vein.

It seems that your requests here have been made in bad faith and I do not believe it would be at all useful for you to attempt to re-word the relevant section of the article to comply with the wishes of the PR department of the company. Axad12 (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, User:Axad12. I didn't realize that the link to the company retail site was an okay source to use. Thank you for your time. Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)