Talk:Nordstrom

The lede is a summary of the article's text body, I removed the sentence regarding competitors from the lede as this does not appear in the text body. This seems to be a hot button issue (as to the number of edits in the last 24 hours). IMO, comparing this department store against its competitors seems to be a waste of time, as competition changes, is subjective, and it just depends on what source you look at as to who competes with this chain. Discuss the issue here and maybe a consensus may be made as to whether or not to include competitors in the text body and summarized in the lede. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You are technically right all around. It might be useful to discuss competitors, but only with harder sources talking up a competition, like "Coke vs. Pepsi" (and perhaps does exist between some department stores), not merely lists of competitors (although such a list makes sense for the External links section). I was just taking a "in the meantime" approach and insisting on citations for existing content. You will find this kind of content in all the major department store articles, defended by the same IP user. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Competitors have always been discussed among department stores in the main section of their articles here on wikipedia and in general. It's what investors want to know and what buyers want to know. By comparing them to other stores it gives them a more specific understanding of the products sold in and in an easier, quick way. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Stevietheman. Further, it is best to avoid sources picked randomly - the statement should be consistent among sources with only one or two sources cited and included in the text body. Even though competitors are found in other articles, this does not mean it needs to be included in every article. If you need me to point you to policies, guidelines or essays, do let me know. Until consensus is reached here, please do not continue to edit as this may be considered disruptive editing. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Jenimcphersoncow, can the topic of competitors be expanded in the section 2000–present? Rather than one sentence with a list of competitors - are there sources which can provide greater insight into Nordstorm's competitors on a case by case basis? My suggestion would be to expand the topic of competitors on a one by one basis by competitor in the text body based on facts supported by citations, and then to summarize those competitors in one sentence in the lede. See MOS:LEAD.

The issue of including competitors in department store articles isn't personal. Prior to your edit, the competitors sentence in many of the department store articles are constantly changed by editors and frankly are not supported by solid sources. I have doubts JC Penney or Sears is a competitor of Nordstrom based on a number of factors. So expansion of the topic of competitors in the text body and summarized in the lede for some one like me, as a reader, would be extremely helpful. Is this possible? Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think competitors should be in the lead section. Also, the upscale Nordstrom stores have different competitors than the mid-market Nordstrom Rack. While I don't think the list of competitors is necessary at all (a laundry list like that tells you nothing about the company), if it is included it needs to be well-sourced and located elsewhere in the article. Bahooka (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I am in agreement with Bohooka, it really isn't necessary to include a single sentence list of competitors in the article at all. From the sources noted, it seems as if you can fish for the right laundry list of competitors without finding a consistent list of who is a direct competitor of Nordstrom and on what terms. The WSJ source speculates competition in the future between New York stores and Nordstroms in the city of New York - a very localized market. The Market Realist source states from an investment point of view - in the upscale department store category Nordstrom competes with Neiman Marcus Group, Saks Fifth Avenue, Lord & Taylor, and Von Maur - and with other stores although it isn't stated why or whether they are in competition with Nordstrom or Nordstrom Rack stores. These sources can be expanded upon in the text body as they would be in context, however a list just doesn't work as this ventures into original research.

Here is what needs to be expanded upon in the text body - or completely omitted altogether:

• Competitors primarily are Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Bloomingdale's, Kohl's, The Bon-Ton, Von Maur, Boscov's, Dillard's and Belk. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Is there a way to reach a consensus on the notability of February 8 conflict with Donald Trump? Detached from any political viewpoint, this would be the first instance in history where a company in this category, and this particular company, have been mentioned across the news media by non-business press and notable persons many, many times in a single day. It's also the first time that Nordstrom's has ever figured into a national political story. It's also the first time they have ever been attacked directly by the President of the United States. The story is currently on the front page of many newspapers. Uniquely notable in the company's history. A subheading under "the history of the 2000s" seems merited on the basis of the notability of those events. Burying it in the 2000s history gives it equivalence to store openings and cross-promotions and this is an instance where the brand has crossed over into mainstream cultural conversation, which seems truly notable. Particularly since store openings in Puerto Rico, etc. have been given their own major headings. Whatever your stance on the merits of the dispute itself, we must overcome our current events fatigue and call this what it is: a uniquely notable event in the history of the corporation and in brand. Can we start a process towards consensus here? RYPJack (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RYPJack, my biggest problem is this is a news item of the moment(WP:NOTNEWS). This isn't the first time tweets from Trump have attacked or criticized a company - nor probably will it be the last. Weight of the issue in terms of the article's subject must be considered (WP:UNDUE). Since there was a slight tick in the stock price - ending up a gain - and the news is about a sitting President commenting on a company who his daughter does business with - what have we here? Is it about Nordstrom or is it about a President? The initial news reporting may only be the beginning, we need to let this develop and see where it goes before having a separate sub-section which gives more prominence over any other aspect of the article. If there is a lawsuit by either party, then this is significant and would warrant a separate section. I agree it is a notable event - however this article is about Nordstrom. It may be more appropriate in the article on Donald Trump, BTW isn't mentioned nor has been discussed on the DT talk page. Do note, the President's criticism of Boeing isn't even mentioned in the article Boeing. Let's see how this story develops and evaluate this when sources other than primary sources are available. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

However that said, I don't have a problem with renaming the section 2000-present to 2000-2016 (or whatever time period is best) and creating a new sub-section named 2017-present as you are right the 2000-present section is overly long. If the controversy becomes larger (lawsuits, etc) regarding the president and Nordstrom, then an appropriate section will have to be evaluated & created. Cheers again Gmcbjames (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fair and prudent. Parallel event should be on the Boeing page if it's not; it's notable in the history of corporate-gov'mt relations and worth noting in any individual company history as it's noteworthy to have been one of a very few companies so far to be singled out. Also, as the citation from the LA Times notes in the section, this is the first instance where a companies stock shrugged off the mention by POTUS so quickly.^[1]Also notable in the context of the Nordstrom company specifically. I can live without it having a subsection - I understand it's not desirable to potentially politicize page. But this event is certainly noteworthy specifically in the context of Nordstrom's so I don't want this discussion to veer towards deleting the event from the page altogether out of a (very admirable) desire to avoid departing from comm standards by making page a soapbox. Notable is notable, whether it causes the page to become a contested space or not. Will add additional citations as the come on why the event is singularly noteworthy in the specific context of Nordstrom's as an entity in the both the economy and the culture. I appreciate the dialogue. Cheers back. RYPJack (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RYPJack, I agree it is notable and needs to be included. It is fine as is - of course unless the issue grows - and then it will need to be reevaluated. I am a bit surprised other articles are not including tweets which did have an effect - though every article is its own. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I will just reflect the understanding here to some degree. WP:NOTNEWS strongly leads to not have a special section for this matter, yet. And some may argue whether the content should even be there, although I am willing to accept it for now, and monitor. WP:WEIGHT also figures in, and I'm concerned that discussion of the effect on the stock price doesn't really convey any useful information -- we're basically saying this confrontation didn't affect the company's financial position, therefore, why say it at all? Of course, there could be further developments along these lines. The bottom line is this conflict should be kept concise, fitting in with the rest of the retailer's history. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm unable to find another event that placed Nordstrom at the center of national political news, re: WP:WEIGHT The change in stock price is notable in this instance because it broke the trend of the POTUS having a material effect on stock prices (see citation).^[2] This is groundbreaking territory in the history of corporate relations with the executive branch and Nordstrom's involvement is notable within the history of the company. To WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS: Less space is given to this event than to a 2011 store closing in Indianapolis(1 store out of 349 total), which appears to be taken direct from a press release and is unlikely to have the same material effect on reputation and notable prominence in the culture at large-- and which certainly did not cause the company to be discussed widely by public figures and new outlets, as this event did. RYPJack (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right RYPJack in regards to the 2011 store closing. This is a perfect example of a news item which probably doesn't belong in the article. I am sure many editors are struggling on how to include the daily controversies from the administration which seem to have a very short shelf life or else morph into something else. For now, Nordstrom seems to have moved on, while the Ivanka brand ordeal has morphed into Kellyanne Conway with its own sub-section "Ethics violation allegations." You might consider a separate article (if one doesn't exist) on corporate relations with the Trump executive branch. This seems to be a trend and I have read new companies are being formed to handle the executive branch attacks on companies. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the non-contextual comparison to a previous stock price as it has nothing to do with this development, and to compare it to such could also be labeled WP:SYNTH. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nordstrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002723/http://www.startribune.com/business/40262307.html?refer=y to http://www.startribune.com/business/40262307.html?refer=y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The lede has this: {{As of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}, Nordstrom operates 100 stores in 32 U.S. states, and three Canadian provinces since entering the market in 2014.. The year shown will change automatically every January 01, but changes to the number of stores, number of states, and number of Canadian provinces in the article won't be changed without an edit. It's better to have the date reflect the most recent date the numbers were verified. SlowJog (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)