Talk:Jim Jannard

Personal planes
I'm sorry, I cannot see a need for a rivet-by-rivet run-down on his personal planes that was at least equal in length to the rest of the article. Correspondingly I have removed it from the text. Please discuss the importance of this here on the talk page before adding it again. &mdash; BillCtalk 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: September 2013 edits
I'm posting the edit summary here as it was a bit too long to post in the header. I've kept the sourced material regarding Oakley in the 1980's. I removed the material regarding Red Camera as the sources have posted a correction stating his continued involvement with the company. I removed material about his family as it does not significantly add to the context of the article. I also removed the material regarding his house purchase as I am uncertain about the reliability of two of the sources and the WSJ only mentions the purchase of one property and its through an LLC associated with him. I don't feel that this is as concrete as it should be. However, should more reliable sources be posted, I wouldn't be opposed to its inclusion. Mike V •  Talk  23:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is commonplace to have spousal information in bios whether they add value or not. I don't see why an exception should be made here. For the moment, I'll leave it alone, but I'd like to re-add it. Where's the source for the 14 grandchildren, and how does that add any more value than the removed personal material?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought is that in the given state of the article, the inclusion of the names of the spouses doesn't add much to the complete understanding of the subject. The subject of the article has asked for the removal of the names, and since his current spouse and his ex doesn't play much of a role in the article, I figured it wouldn't be too much of an issue to remove the names. However, should the personal section be fleshed out to include more content, there could be a fair argument for its inclusion. (To, which I would have no objections.) At the time, I wasn't considering the content about the children and grandchildren. I agree that it would be fair to remove that portion as well. Mike V  •  Talk  22:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, Mike, did Jannard ask through OTRS (I know you're a member). I kinda wondered what attracted you to this article. If it's verified that he wants that information removed, I don't have a problem with leaving it out. The children part is still left over in the infobox. I'll remove it. It doesn't make sense to have it in the infobox and not in the body and, of course, it's not even sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that unless the spouse, children etc. are widely notable, then their names, DOB etc should be left out of the article. We need to respect the privacy of non-famous people who happen to be related to a famous individual. The article subject chose fame, but if those related to the subject have not, then their privacy should be preserved IMO. Also, WP:NPF says: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was requested through OTRS. The ticket number is 2013091310015777. Mike V  •  Talk  17:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike, that connects the dots for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this guy a public figure or not? It is not of interest to most about his children or wives. No one really cares but him. He is no longer seen in public. His staff said he has a nervous breakdown.

He has had several lawsuits in business and personal. Suing people for making fun of him. If he is indeed just nothing more than a business man, then why does he even have a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.100.130 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

His company RED, and arguably his sunglasses firm, had a transformative effect on their respective industries. Jannard is significant because his personality was used to market both companies, and because his personality drove both companies (in the same way as e.g. Jobs with Apple and Pixar). That said, I believe this should be merged into the RED article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.50.94 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This poor guy, even his attorney's make fun of him. And now Lance Armstrong. Bad luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.183.2 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits
He has only a few personal ones. One is under appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.183.2 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on James Jannard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091202071146/http://www.fastcompany.com:80/100/2009/jim-jannard to http://www.fastcompany.com/100/2009/jim-jannard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Jannard. 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/20101213091950/http://cityofalhambra.org/community/FamousResidents.html to http://www.cityofalhambra.org/community/FamousResidents.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

An odd way to refer to Jannard's former affiliation with the Mormon church.
"He was not raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Okay, neither was I, by the way. So we have that in common.) That's all which is said about it without further comment or context. Why are we being informed of this negative fact? Even more perplexing is how one of the footnotes sourcing this gratuitous tidbit links to a memoir authored by a UK soccer player, without any apparent relevancy whatsoever. Am I to conclude that Jim Jannard been vandalizing his own Wikipedia article as an act of self obfuscation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:4:E90A:A927:BAA1:2285:168C (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That sentence made no sense to me either. Didn't even recognize its the Mormon church. Came to this talk page hoping to find more information. Ilkkao (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)