Talk:Dov Charney

NPOV
In looking through this article, it is clear to me that the tone is overtly flattering to Mr. Charney, bordering on self-promotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines#Self-promotion). Even the controversy heading was entitled: 'Sexuality and controversy', which seems to me an attempt to 'sexify' controversy. Apothecia (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that in looking at the other talk here, that there has been some row over this for awhile.Apothecia (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing this article for the last week or so and have trouble seeing what you mean. Until Mr. Charney is proven guilty of the charges against him, there is no other way to word this article. Changing it to a "Controversy" section, however, was a good idea as I imagine new controversies will continue to emerge.

Looking into it further, this meets none of the three requirements for self-promotion:

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

I don't believe there is a consensus with your NPOV tag here at all. Fedordostoy (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC


 * I'm removing the NPOV because although totally in good faith, it's not representative of opinion about the article and the editor didn't include any reasons or support for the claim. The prior 'row' mentioned was in June 2008, the article has been edited dozens upon dozens of times by all sorts of people since then with no complaints. Wikidemon, a Wikipedia administrator, reviewed the article a few days ago and didn't see fit to add the tag. Something like that needs to be sufficiently justified here first, discussed and then put into effect. Plus, as I mentioned before, self-promotion isn't the right criticism anyway. Fedordostoy (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a stupid feminist cunt. Gnarlwhal (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is inculpatory material from reliable sources that has not been included in this article, here would be a good place to put it for discussion. - 203.158.37.9 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Charney is known for his success as an entrepreneur, and passion for simple clothing." I could not find a reference to "passion for simple clothing" in either of the 3 "sources" for this statement. As it stands, this article is clearly written in a favorable fashion and not objective at all.2crudedudes (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assesment and I have tried to make some changes to improve this article as well as the American Apparel article. These two pages seemed to have a lot of fluff. I don't have to time to really improve them. Someone else will need to pick up the ball from here. 207.87.40.22 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has evolved into an advertisement, not a biography. ConradArchguy (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above posters - this page reads like a puff piece for Charney and tries to downplay any evidence of wrongdoing while painting him in the best light possible.172.218.173.161 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing this article for a while and added all the stuff about his lawsuit with AA currently. I see no real problems with NPOV, it neither makes him look good or bad, merely a product of the reliable coverage, firings, allegations, etc. I'd say chill out. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

When you google Dov Charney, the first link that comes up is this article, and the second one is a Guardian piece that describes him as "the man at least as famous for founding American Apparel as he is for being serially accused of sexual harassment." I think that is accurate and that our article--particularly its lead--does not adequately reflect the things that make Dov Charney notable. It does read like it's been put through a PR filter. Nareek (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Pulling out some stuff that could maybe be reworked

 * Widely considered a pioneer in the manufacturing industry, Charney has been recognized as an unconventional leader. This is attributed in large part to his early adoption of socially progressive company policies and American Apparel's provocative, un-retouched ad campaigns

First link is broken and not findable on Wayback Machine. Second sentence is uncited. Third sentence is all about AA's advertising and not at all about his socially progressive policies. Could be reworked, certainly, but doesn't seem to meet BLP guidelines and reads like puffery. Jessamyn (my talk page) 15:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * American Apparel had become the largest T-shirt manufacturer in America. One of only a few clothing companies exporting "Made in the USA" products, it sold about $125 million of domestically manufactured clothing outside of the US

This is copyvio from this article and needs to be rewritten.
 * "advocate for immigration reform"

This was in the document's lede and while it's representative of AA's approach at a single point in time, in keeping with MOS:LEADBIO, I don't think it should be in the lead sentence. Jessamyn (my talk page) 17:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)