Talk:Torrid (clothing retailer)

Initial comments
I'm sorry, but I really have to ask: A plethora of the clothing sold may be considered "hard to find," as they claim that much of their clothing is not mass-produced. What does this mean? If it's actually hard to find, they surely wouldn't be selling a plethora of it. Is "hard to find" a specialized term in fashion, that we should define in the article? Or am I just confused? -FZ 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little editing to clean up the article, remove unsourced statements, and make it conform a little better to Wikipedia standards. It still needs a bit of editing. --Vincentanton 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

advertisement
"The assortment is offered in sizes 12 to 26, with each item put through a rigorous quality control and fit process to ensure the best product for the Torrid customer. Torrid gives the young, plus-size woman a unique opportunity to match the style, excitement and selection available at other fashion apparel retailers." Woohoo, gives the young, plus-sized (fat) women the EXCITEMENT of the UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY. This has advertisment all over it, and would never be found in an encyclopedia worded so. Do not people read encyclopedia's anymore, the non-biased language is a pretty easy concept to grasp. But of course, this must be some sort of corporate meddling because it sounds so biased and "addy"


 * I agree with the above. I don't know where this falls (weasel words? NPOV?) but it definitely reads more as an advertisement than an encyclopedia. Xazy 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has said anything for nearly a month, I removed the aformentioned as well as some other paragraphs that seemed to be advertisements more than encyclopedic material (honestly, does Wikipedia need to tell us how to navigate their website?). Upon further consideration, the whole article reads as an ad more than an informational piece, but I don't know enough about Torrid to rewrite without basically blanking the page. ♪Xazy♪ 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

plus-size = overweight??
Since when does plus sized mean overweight? Take a look at plus-sized model and see if you can even find the word "overweight" on there. I agree that this is NOT an issue of POV, but the fact is that while some torrid customers might be overweight, the implication by saying "plus sized (overweight)" that the two terms mean the same thing is absurd. Rgrizza 01:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The plus-sized model article seems to have a different definition from what most people probably think of. I've personally never seen a model that wasn't either overweight or underweight. the 'Venus de Milo' example is definitely normal-healthy-weight, but normal's a pretty narrow category in female build (having fat as such a large constituent of one's body mass makes one susceptible to over/underweightness, right?)


 * If you want to put a number on when weight tips to being either over- or under-, be my guest. The plus-size model entry reflects the reality of the industry.  If you don't believe the facts, then that's your perogative, but you shouldn't be developing Wiki entries around the topic as your POV lacks objectivity. AntiVanity 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The original Torrid stores did have mostly "hard to find" items of superior quality and wonderfully original designs. The change they made was drastic. The current selection still includes some items that might be considered somewhat "hard to find" for the plus-size shopper, considering that there are a limited number of Torrid stores in the country, and most other plus size clothing dealers do not offer much in the way of music or movie related items. They also sell a decent selection of high quality plus-size versions of designer clothing that can't be found elsewhere. The bulk of Torrid's private-label (store brand)clothing is now similar to what other plus size retailers stock, and sadly, the quality of their private-label merchandise is now far lower now than when they first started up.BB 16:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Marketing pitch
Are Torrid/Hot Topic marketing staff considered a reliable source for this article? (Shelbing 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

References, References, References!
After working on several retail articles, I am seeing some general patterns emerge. I think a standard focus should be employed with most of these retail articles.

1) Name of the store and a brief synopsis of location, size and origin.

2) What do they sell, who do they sell it to, and how much do they make selling it? Wiki links should be used as often as possible.

3) Any divisions within the company of merit.

4) Verifiable appearances in print publications, awards, lawsuits, or other wiki-referenced media: books, music, movies, etc... WITH REFERENCES!!

5) Notable spokespersons, critics, charitable contributions... WITH REFERENCES. "It's widely known," and "most people agree" have no place in these kinds of articles (in my opinion).

6) Company Culture... and this is where it gets tricky. What ultimately appears in this area should give "the essence" or "the flavor" of the retailer, without being editorial, critical or a ringing endorsement.

In a recent edit to this page, I attempted to begin a move toward this structure. I have left out the Company Culture section, but would like to start a dialogue about it. I think it might be appropriate to talk about the plus size controversy, but I can't find any sources to even begin to form a summary. Also, I understand Torrid may sponsor certain events, separate from Hot Topic, but again I am running into a wall finding any of them.

Any information on sources citing Torrid would be greatly appreciated.

--Digitalmischief (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus Sized vs Overweight
It has been proposed that this article refer to the target audience of young women as "overweight" rather than as the article was written, "plus sized." The argument has been that "overweight" is a medical term, and should not be considered offensive.

My input: This isn't a medial article, it's an article about a retail store which would never refer to its customers as "overweight." Also, "overweight" is a medical judgment based on age, frame, heredity and other factors, and can only be determined by a medical doctor. Whereas "plus size" is not dependent on those medical factors, but applies to anyone wearing "plus sized" clothing.

Please list your feedback, and help me make sure that this is not changed to "overweight" without significant community support. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This conversations should be consolodated in one place - but my take is the same here as at Talk:Hot Topic - our source says plus size, we say plus size. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"plus size" is a euphemism, and is subjective. Overweight is objective. The source from salon.com says overweight in the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to cnn, torrid "says it's the first to cater exclusively to overweight teenagers" http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/16/big.clothes/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.157.1.184 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, "overweight" is subjective. "Plus size" is an accurate industry term. It is NOT an euphemism. It is a precisely fashion-industry term. Torrid identifies itself as being for "plus size" teens, not "overweight" teens. See http://community.torrid.com/torrid/customer_service/about_us.asp. Clothing is sold based on SIZE, not WEIGHT, so a "weight" term is irrelevant. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Plus size" lacks a widely accepted definition definition, thus lacks objectivity. Overweight, as it is measured using an Operational definition, most commonly the Body mass index, is, granted, not necessarily entirely objective, but nonetheless is less subjective than the term "plus size". Furthermore, using the website of the company in question is inherently POV. The use of two reputable sources- namely Salon.com and CNN is thus more objective and verifiable as per WP:NPOV and WP:V, and thus more suitable.

Oliver Twisted- Regardless of whether or not this is a medical article, the use of a medical term is nonetheless appropriate, given the common use and understanding of this term outside of medical circles, as well as the fact that it is mentioned by two reputable, neutral sources. Furthermore it can be determined not only by a medical doctor but also by others, given the operational definition which makes it objective rather than a medical "judgment". The very fact that a retail chain would "NEVER" refer to its clients as overweight indicates the that the term overweight is outside of the chain's POV, and thus not using it (at least for the reason stated) would only be giving backing to the chain's POV, thus turning the article somewhat into a quasi-commercial statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is just wrong all the way around. "Plus sized" means that it falls outside of the standard industry size run for women's clothing, which is typically size 4-12. Anything size 4 or below is considered "petite." Anything above a size 12 is considered "plus sized." You wouldn't say that Wet Seal carries clothing geared toward "underweight" women, just as you wouldn't say that Torrid carries clothing geared toward "overweight" women, because you are talking about clothing, not making a medical determination of their body mass index. This isn't an NPOV issue, it is a vocabulary issue. A six foot tall woman may indeed have to wear "plus sized" clothing, as in outside a standard size run. This has nothing to do with her weight. This isn't a store-specific term, it is a retail industry term. Men's stores, for example use the term "Big and Tall" to describe clothing that is size 50 or above, which again refers to the clothing size, not the body mass index. "A plus-size model is a female dress size 14 or higher in North American sizing, 14 or higher in Australian sizing, and 16 or higher in U.K. sizing." -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That logic doesn't hold up. Just because a company avoids a term doesn't make that term somehow automatically valid, and just because a company uses a term doesn't make it INvalid. If Revlon calls its products "makeup," are we to avoid the word "makeup" as part of a POV, or a "commercial statement"? It is an accurate term for what the company makes. Same here, re plus-size fashion. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Salon.com piece uses both "overweight" AND "plus size," so it does not support your contention. Moreover, not only is "overweight" not objective, but there is no evidence that all of Torrid's customers even fall into this category. On the other hand, they all do wear clothing that is designated "plus size," because that is the specific type of clothing that Torrid sells. That fact too makes "plus size" the more accurate term. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another example of a reputable, neutral source writing about fashion: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/fashion/14MANN.html It refers to "plus-size customers," in a piece that mentioned Torrid, Lane Bryant, etc. and never once mentions the term "overweight." But there is no point turning this discussion into an article hunt. Plenty of news articles will use one term or the other, or both. "Common use and understanding of this term outside of medical circles" means that it is no longer being used is a specific medical way, and that makes it a vague description, whereas "plus size" is accurate reference for the specific range of clothing that Torrid produces. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Right so guys, I've slightly reworded the intro to the article to try be less biased in either direction, and to more accurately reflect the referenced article from salon.com.

I've changed the line in question from

"The store offers apparel and accessories for plus-size women and teenage girls sizes 12 - 26. "

to

"The store offers plus sized apparel and accessories for women and teenage girls sizes 12 - 26."

Hopefully this avoids focusing on whether we should call the customers plus size or overwight, and focuses rather on the actual products being sold by Torrid. If anyone has a problem with this change, please let me know here. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Torrid Holdings?
Just saw a reference to Torrid Holdings, Inc (NYSE: CURV), but WP still shows it as Torrid, LLC. Crunchbase shows Torrid/Torrid Holdings still owned by Sycamore Partners, but it's unclear what the legal name of the company is. Google lists CURV as "Torrid Holdings Inc". Not quite sure how to untangle this or find sources. --Astronouth7303 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)