Talk:Urban Outfitters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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] 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 Wikipedia 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)
Can you say which ones specifically? IronDuke 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I went ahead and added some tags. Note that I'm not saying that the information is false -- but I do think that we should stick to only information for which we have reliable sources. Judging on a quick search at news.google.com, this shouldn't be too difficult to find! --Elonka 23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The ADL is a perfectly good source for this. Look forward to seeing the other sources you dig up. IronDuke 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I have plenty of other projects on my plate right now. But if no one else gets to it, I'll take a stab at reworking the section, sure.  :) --Elonka 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, good luck with all that. I shall certainly take your thoughts into consideration as I edit the article. IronDuke 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)