This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 26 May 2008 (→Edit war: - Recommend that we remove any controversial parts that are unsourced or poorly-sourced). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:19, 26 May 2008 by Elonka (talk | contribs) (→Edit war: - Recommend that we remove any controversial parts that are unsourced or poorly-sourced)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
Question
- Is Urban Outfitters now a women's apparel franhise? I've always been under the impression that it was a store that focused on novelty items, a la Spencer's, but now it seems like they focus exclusively on female clothing.
Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit war
I see that there's a revert war going on with the article, but no corresponding conversation at talk. Can someone please explain what the dispute is about? --Elonka 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The story would be too long for the Misplaced Pages servers to host. Suffice it to say I had a visit from an old stalker. IronDuke 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I took a closer look, and the edit appeared to be in good faith. The section header, "Products alleged to be anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and pro-terror" is pretty strong, and I didn't see that kind of language included in any of the sources that I spot-checked. Then again, I didn't check all of them. Can you please point me at which source uses the "pro-terror" descriptor? Thanks, Elonka 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- What edit appeared to be in good faith? IronDuke 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether the other editor had stalked you, to here or elsewhere, is irrelevant. The edits he was reverting were pretty weird, to say the least. This is an article about a clothing store - we don't need to stuff it with allegations and criticism from the ADL, and then headline those accusations with inflammatory titles. --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- First off, there's no "whether" about it. Second, it most certainly is relevant, though obviously not to you. Third, your edit has noticeably degraded the quality of the article. A bunch of random citations regarding controversies is just sloppy. If you have a different way to phrase the header, I'm all ears. IronDuke 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of or interest in your dispute with that editor. The actual edits in each case are what should be at issue. And I don't think mine have degraded the article - I agree the random cites look a bit sloppy, but in fact I think the whole thing needs re-weighting with either a much smaller "controversies" section, or more basic facts. And adding more, and more specific, headings to the existing controversies section doesn't help with that process. --Nickhh (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's true, if we gut the article, we'll have less need for headers. But I can't think why we would. If you go ahead and read the actual entry, you'll see that UO deliberately pursues edgy/controversial designs. It is by no means out of place to have a full discussion of it (complete with headers, which make the article easier to read). IronDuke 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, controversy around the chain is not something that's filtered through much over here. AFAIK it's just a clothing shop which I've been into a couple of times, in the US and here. But I accept - having done a quick bit of Google research - that like many other corporate entities with a halfway decent PR department it's been accused in some off-mainstream sources of trading on controversy. I'm still not sure this article needs a full on POV "pro-terror etc" sub header though. Sorry I can't be more constructive than that. --Nickhh (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That the store has been involved in controversial merchandise, is well-documented. But per WP:UNDUE, we should be careful as to how much article space we give to the controversies. I also think that we should remove some of the unsourced or poorly-sourced claims about controversy, and just stick to the bits that have been covered in "reliable, third-party, published sources", per WP:RS. --Elonka 23:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, controversy around the chain is not something that's filtered through much over here. AFAIK it's just a clothing shop which I've been into a couple of times, in the US and here. But I accept - having done a quick bit of Google research - that like many other corporate entities with a halfway decent PR department it's been accused in some off-mainstream sources of trading on controversy. I'm still not sure this article needs a full on POV "pro-terror etc" sub header though. Sorry I can't be more constructive than that. --Nickhh (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's true, if we gut the article, we'll have less need for headers. But I can't think why we would. If you go ahead and read the actual entry, you'll see that UO deliberately pursues edgy/controversial designs. It is by no means out of place to have a full discussion of it (complete with headers, which make the article easier to read). IronDuke 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of or interest in your dispute with that editor. The actual edits in each case are what should be at issue. And I don't think mine have degraded the article - I agree the random cites look a bit sloppy, but in fact I think the whole thing needs re-weighting with either a much smaller "controversies" section, or more basic facts. And adding more, and more specific, headings to the existing controversies section doesn't help with that process. --Nickhh (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- First off, there's no "whether" about it. Second, it most certainly is relevant, though obviously not to you. Third, your edit has noticeably degraded the quality of the article. A bunch of random citations regarding controversies is just sloppy. If you have a different way to phrase the header, I'm all ears. IronDuke 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether the other editor had stalked you, to here or elsewhere, is irrelevant. The edits he was reverting were pretty weird, to say the least. This is an article about a clothing store - we don't need to stuff it with allegations and criticism from the ADL, and then headline those accusations with inflammatory titles. --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- What edit appeared to be in good faith? IronDuke 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I took a closer look, and the edit appeared to be in good faith. The section header, "Products alleged to be anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and pro-terror" is pretty strong, and I didn't see that kind of language included in any of the sources that I spot-checked. Then again, I didn't check all of them. Can you please point me at which source uses the "pro-terror" descriptor? Thanks, Elonka 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)