Talk:Urban Outfitters/Archive 1

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 at his penis, 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)

Controversial products section
When reporting on controversial products, the idea is to report as neutrally as possible what happened. The Erin go ****yourself section wasn't supported with a citation of controversy, the logic in the "old people don't vote" section didn't connect up to a controversy, just a statement about an unrelated political contribution, and several aspects of the "war scarf" section were poorly supported. 842U (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Couple things. On a positive note, there's some good cleanup in the first bit, and you were right about some of the controversies... what we have doesn't support the Erin go and Old People vote stuff enough. Less good is that you made over 50 edits (I think, I didn't count them) many of them very very tiny. This makes it harder to see who has done what and when on the article. Also, a list of bullet points is a) not wiki style and b) just bad editing. Even less good: you gashed out a considerable amount of information about the controversies, and dumbed down the headers. There's no good reason for this, and you should have dsicussed it first. But I do appreciate some of what you did. IronDuke  00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sections like this are inappropriate as this one is currently structured. Many of the sources are special interest groups, the paragraphs are extremely poorly written, the logic in some of the paragraphs is completely missing... and there's nothing in the article as a whole to counterbalance or neutralize the aggressive nature of the information. This is not neutral reporting. Wikipedia has clear guidelines about this matter, and this article section doesn't come close. 842U (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP policies entirely. We don't need a counterbalance. Should we include one if one exists? Yes, absolutely: point me to it and I'll be happy to edit it in myself. But what you're suggesting would make many articles quite... strange. We'd always leave negative stuff out unless there was someone around to speak against it. That's not how any encyclopedia I've ever heard of works (and not how WP works). As to the grafs being poorly written, tell me what you don't like. Perhaps we can work on it together. But again WP:Censoring the information isn't improving the quality of this article any. IronDuke  00:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The section as you prefer it is full of highly suggestive, inflammatory comments lacking support. For example, there doesn't appear to be any support by an independent news source that there was a problem with the ****yourself T-shirt. There is no clear association stated by a reputable, verifiable independent source that there is an association between a T-shirt saying "Voting is for Old People" and a political donation. The entire section is a piece of original research, backed up with footnotes from mostly special interest groups -- conflating such disparate facts as a christmas ornament and the number of deaths in a major urban city. It is not censorship to recognize very poor reporting. What however, is very clear when the list is bullited, calm and assertive, is that Urban Outfitters has a track record of introducing products that are poorly received by special interest groups. 842U (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first two items you referred to are already gone, I removed them per your suggestion. The gun thing was reported on and caused a reaction from UO. That's notable. "Poor reporting?" I don't see how, but it's not our place to judge reporters. And "poorly received by special interest groups" is leading -- misleading, really... or at any rate, that's your opinion and you're entitlted to it, but we're not putting our own opinions in, just what our sources say (and rebuttals where we can find them). IronDuke  03:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Great:
 * The section starts by stating that products have drawn strong condemnation. Condemnation is a loaded word, and by definition is strong.  "Criticism" is neutral and neither amplifies nor minimizes the response.
 * Two headings suggest that Urban marketed more than one item in each category that is controversial. For example, the heading says "Products alleged to be pro-violence."  The section only mentions one product.  Likewise, the heading says "Products alleged to be anti-Christian."  That is not accurate: the sections mentions a single product.
 * The Jesus Dress Up has a complete article all it's own. This isn't an article on Jesus Dress Up nor is it an article on retail products that receive criticism from special interest groups.  Also, why use only special interest group reporting to support these sections?  Can we find Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, San Francisco Chronicle reporting?   It is not censorship to link to that full article and refer to without recounting the information in the article.
 * In the case of the sub-sections "Products Alleged" the subsections are not helpful, each only includes one or two items rather than addressing a subject. It would be more appropriate to have one single section for the section called "Controversial products."
 * The section headings "Product Alleged to be" are poorly worded. They should each be "Allegedly anti-____ products.
 * Wikipedia is for conveying verifiable information: the conflation of the ornament and gun violence may be a reflection of an objection that was raised, but the article isn't a place to recount the specifics of gun violence in Philadlephia. That could be handled with a link.  Also, the reference cited for pulling the ornament does not mention that the "pulling" occurred in reference to any specific death.
 * Would you like to make these changes? (edit: No response, I have made changes.) 842U (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had to step away from WP a bit. I just took a quick peek and it looks pretty good so far. Thanks for your edits. (PS, fixed your sig, hope that was okay) IronDuke  22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The section still has real problems. It is an undue representation of criticism: the Jesus dress up section shouldn't recap here all the info that's in that article: this isn't an article about Jesus dress up. It's an article about UO. The section on the ornament is specious: Urban Outfitters is only headquartered in Philadelphia, Urban marketed the handgun in more than just Philadelphia. The 'Controversial products' section of the article is larger than the rest of the article, and its based on fewer than a dozen products... from a retailer that has probably marketed over the span of time represented, what, several million products? Much of this material belongs in an article on special interest groups responding to products intended as ironic or humorous and received as insensitive. Is there an article on boycotts and protests of retail establishments that can better handle this info? Has the company been praised for how it has handled the eight products? Is this incidence of "controversy" greater than with other retail establishments? Where is the reporting from reliable major reporting sources? 842U (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm confused... did you not yourself make the section longer? (NB: UO is a group that deliberately pushes the envelope in terms of edgy products. That's why they're going to get a big controversy section.) IronDuke  23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I had made the section much shorter. You reverted it, remember? 842U (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course... I meant recently. It's hard to tell from the edit compare, but it looked to me like you had expanded things a bit. Suggestion: write your version on a working userpage, showing how you would change things, or if that's too much of a pain, just enumerate what info you'd like to see taken out, and why. Plan? IronDuke  16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this edit is a concise way of reporting the controversies without re-telling them or amplifying them. As it stands, there is some serious ax-grinding going on, possibly from special-interest groups wishing to have their point of view, which isn't neutral, have the final cast on the company. 842U (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks for your efforts to improve the article. Howevere, gouging out chunks of info is not the way to do it. You'd need a very good reason to make an encyclopedia less informative, and so far you have not provided one. IronDuke  01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia, however, is not to dump information into an article, mot to conflate information that's not genuinely related to the purpose of an article, and not to exploit a company to further the agenda of a narrow group. This section of the article is larger than the remainder of the entire article. 842U (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What narrow group? I see a number of groups represented here. And in terms of "dumping," that's what your non-wiki style compliant listicle is doing. But I'm happy to try to beef up the prose with you. IronDuke  01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 842U -- the links to outside articles are there if people want to follow up. Anything more is editorializing that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Dynamite Dan (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I invite you to look over our relevant policies. Your reasoning, such as it is, has little to do with wiki policy. IronDuke  03:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironduke, thanks for working so hard on the article. Rather than making a blanket invitation to review "our policies,", please cite specifically which policy you're responding to. Others here have valid points:
 * The footnotes contain all the specifics regarding the products in questions; this article does not need to expound and editorialize, and imply. The article can dryly report the facts.
 * This is not an article on controversial products or retail insensitivity.
 * There's no evidence that UO's eight products are more or less egregious than any other retailer.
 * The controversial products section has greater weight within the article than the entire remaining overview of the company.
 * The sources for this section are thin: we're not talking about reputable, vetted sources... we're talking about special interests.

Many, many articles go through this kind of phase, and it is positive to include balancing (i.e., negative) information about UO. However, there is a concerted effort here to make more of these eight products that is warranted. 842U (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ironduke, thanks for working so hard on the article."


 * Thank you. It’s nice to be appreciated.

"Rather than making a blanket invitation to review "our policies,", please cite specifically which policy you're responding to. Others here have valid points"


 * That would take rather a lot of work, remedial work. I don’t have time for it, especially as at least one of the recent accounts is by a famed sock puppeteer of old, who has stalked me more times than I can count. Not your problem, but my (minorly aggravating) one.

"The footnotes contain all the specifics regarding the products in questions; this article does not need to expound and editorialize, and imply. The article can dryly report the facts."


 * That’s just not how we write articles, with bare lists accompanied by footnotes that contain the supporting prose. Nor should it be,

"This is not an article on controversial products or retail insensitivity."


 * Who is saying it was?

"There's no evidence that UO's eight products are more or less egregious than any other retailer."


 * Again, a bit of a non-sequitur. I don’t think anyone has said that they are more or less egregious than other retailers.

"The controversial products section has greater weight within the article than the entire remaining overview of the company."


 * They are known for their controversial products, it’s part of what makes people want to buy their stuff. Naturally, controversial products cause controversy. There’s nothing strange about our noting it.

"The sources for this section are thin: we're not talking about reputable, vetted sources... we're talking about special interests."


 * If you have a specific problem with a specific source, I am all ears.

"Many, many articles go through this kind of phase, and it is positive to include balancing (i.e., negative) information about UO. However, there is a concerted effort here to make more  of these eight products that is warranted."


 * I disagree. IronDuke  22:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but no. Simply cramming disconnected sentences together does not a good encyclopedia entry make. IronDuke  00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eight Product Controversy? Where's the controversy?
Again, the information in the section isn't well-sourced. Of the eight references in the section, half are defunct (currently #'s 5, 7, 8, 11). Of the four remaining sources, there is one special interest groups source (American Family Association) (sorry, doesn't count), one opinion columnist (sorry, doesn't count), one news source in Toronto and The New York Times &mdash; the latter which both mention positive and negative aspects regarding one of the eight products mentioned in the now-re-edited section.

Importantly, for a section that ostensibly shed light on controversy, the section only mentioned the negative perception of eight products, using eight sources, four of which are defunct and two which are poor sources. In order for something to be a controversy, there must be two distinct points of view, by definition. The section never shed light on a single positive aspect of the one product that had actual references (the handgun ornament): e.g. the importance of fashion or humor in life, the intention of the original designer or wearer, the intention of Urban Outfitters (an "ironic way to celebrate the holidays"} or a positive aspect of the company's withdrawal of... that single product.

The section purports to be about a controversial group of eight products. Seven of the eight "controversial products" offered no impartial or even "live" source to support their inclusion in a reference article. The eighth product wasn't reported on in a "pro and con" manner, with balancing points of view, to suggest there was in fact controversy.

In the meantime, I've edited the section to remove reference to controversy, to trim the poorly supported, one-sided text, and to report that the eight items received criticism.

No balance = no controversy. 842U (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)"The section never purports to shed light on any positive aspects of the products, e.g. the importance of humor in life..." That's just strange. If you want to put that on your blog, feel free, but here it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I mean... really? You really want a brief disquisition on the importance of humor in the UO article? Tell you what, if you can find someone representing UO, or defending them, who uses that argument, I'll put it in myself. Your use of it is unpersuasive (and wildly at variance with WP policy and practice). IronDuke  23:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "If this is such a big issue, where does Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, or any of the major press report the "controversy." Okay you got me there. The only sources I have are... oh wait... I think I got one:  New York Times. Know where I dug it up? From the very same article you have in theory read. And NBC isn't a good, national source? And the Seattle PI is a highly respected paper. Did you not know that? And the Miami Herald? The Philadelphia Enquirer? Major papers. Of all the weak arguments you've advanced, that has to have been the easiest one to smash back over the net. Can you stop reverting now?


 * "There is no controversy." I don't know what to say to that. If your English weren't as good as it is, I would say we are dealing with basic reading comprehension difficulties. So I'm stumped.


 * "Where is even a single article that reflects the opposing point of view?" What opposing point of view? Whatever you may mean by that, feel free to out and hunt one up in a reliable source. IronDuke  23:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You really want to quote me on things I chose to edit out of my discussion? You might want to take a look at that. 842U (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You really never wrote what I quote you as having written? IronDuke  23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that I "never wrote" them... it's that it's not what I've chosen to say, after reflection. I reserve the right to reflect and correct myself.

Bottom line, as with the New York Times report on the scarf, there was meaningful reporting in that article about the designers' intention and many of the wearer's viewpoints. These are people who thought positively of the scarf. An article on controversy, by definition must report both sides. The gun was meant ironically &mdash; according to the City News article. The source, City News of Tornonto, knew it had to report that if it were going to report a controversy. Why, because these are reputable, vetted news sources that know what the word controversy means.

No balance = no controversy. By definition. 842U (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry -- I responded (notice the (ec)) to what you had written previously. I'll take a look at the revised version now. IronDuke  23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please hang on a sec. Your points are easily rebutted, and I'm starting with finding the links you said didn't work. IronDuke  23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Again, the information in the section isn't well-sourced. Of the eight references in the section, half are defunct (currently #'s 5, 7, 8, 11)."


 * This statement wasn't true when you made it -- sourcing was actually pretty good. I've replaced or added several references. I'll keep working on 8, but it's a courtesy link anway -- doesn't have to be there at all for the source to stand.


 * "Of the four remaining sources, there is one special interest groups source (American Family Association) (sorry, doesn't count)"


 * Hmmm. They help sponsor the activism, but they have nothing to say about the result? I think not.


 * "one opinion columnist (sorry, doesn't count)"


 * There are roughly 8 million cites from opinion columnists on WP. Are you unilaterally declaring them all invalid?


 * "one news source in Toronto and The New York Times"


 * There are more news sources than this. And I might add, in your unredacted post, you asked for a NYTimes cite. So... you got it. IronDuke  00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Importantly, for a section that ostensibly shed light on controversy, the section only mentioned the negative perception of eight products."


 * Please oh please find some positive reactions to these products. I'll put `em in myself.


 * "In order for something to be a controversy, there must be two distinct points of view..."


 * There are -- UO has a POV (in selling it) and the people who don't like it have an opposing POV. Thus, controversy. When UO stops selling the item, the controversy ends.


 * "The section never shed light on a single positive aspect of the one product that had actual references (the handgun ornament): e.g. the importance of fashion or humor in life, the intention of the original designer or wearer, the intention of Urban Outfitters (an "ironic way to celebrate the holidays"} or a positive aspect of the company's withdrawal of... that single product."


 * I answered this, but I'll say it again: this is your own unique idea about what might be said in defense of these products. It isn't a bad defense either, it's just, we don't get to quote you in the article. If you can find someone in an RS making it (even, gasp, an opinion columnist) by all means include it.


 * "The section purports to be about a controversial group of eight products. Seven of the eight "controversial products" offered no impartial or even "live" source to support their inclusion in a reference article. The eighth product wasn't reported on in a "pro and con" manner, with balancing points of view, to suggest there was in fact controversy."


 * Find the balance, if it exists, and include it. Help. The. Article.


 * "No balance = no controversy."


 * What? Of course that isn't true. IronDuke  00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And again, please see WP:DEADLINK, and note where it says "Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." (Emphasis in original.) IronDuke  22:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

 * Is Urban Outfitters now a women's apparel franchise? 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)

Urban Outfitters is not exclusively a "women's apparel franchise." The brand of stores carries clothing, shoes, and accessories for both genders. A visit to their website http://www.urbanoutfitters.com or any of their stores will clarify your confusion. Although Urban Outfitters does carry much novelty merchandise, their ultimate goal is to provide fashion that is a unique alternative to mainstream which is as this article states, is "funky." The focus for Urban Outfitters is definitely on clothing, not novelty creations.Jzabs (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)jzabs

History
I know the controversies around UO are fun, but I came here more interested in the history than anything else and found very little. This store is widely seen as a 'hipster chain store' - product of the commodification of hipster culture - but it was founded first in 1970! A very interesting thing indeed, but some info on how they went from some kitschy shop in Philadelphia to a large chain store would be cool, as would any changes in their MO since then. If they've essentially just made a small store of novelty items/clothes (like those ones you see in all the hippy parts of town) into a chain store that does the same things, that's a pretty cool fact. K1da42 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked for more general info and couldn't find it -- may be that I didn't look hard enough. If you can find some, please add it. IronDuke  17:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and Verifiability Tag
I have added the Criticism and Verifiability tags to the 'Product Controversies' section, basing this on guidelines outlined in these sections: criticism, neutral point of view, verifiability.


 * From WP:Criticism: criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation.
 * There are no positive evaluations of products to balance the section.


 * From WP:Criticism: Because it may be seen as biased and is often perceived as a negative term, section and article titles should avoid the term "criticism." Alternative terms, such as "evaluation," "review," "critique," or "assessment" have the same meaning as "criticism" without positive or negative implications.
 * The title of the section would more appropriately be titled "Reception" and include awards and positive reviews.


 * From WP:Neutral point of view]. content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.
 * The repeated use of the word "condemn" does not meet this criteria.


 * From WP:Criticism: information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.
 * The information in the section is not incorporated into the article, and is in fact a section of random criticism: there is no effort to integrate the material in a larger overall evaluation of the company.


 * From: WP:Verifiability: a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception.
 * There is no verifiability of this statement:The following year, in 2004 Jesus Dress Up, a game created by artist Normal Bob Smith, drew additional critical response
 * There is no verifiability for this statement: The company reportedly feedback of an estimated 250,000 emails.
 * There is no verifiability for this statement: After the murder of officer Charles Cassidy, the company announced on November 15, 2007 that it would no longer sell the gun-shaped ornament.

I will rework this section to temper the tone of it, eliminate unsourced material, and provide a balanced approach to the material. I will model this after a controversies section that I edited on the [|Augusta National Golf Club 2002 membership controversy]. 842U (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Criticism is an essay. How much weight does any given essay carry? Zero. It's no more meaningful than a comment on a talk page. So, those arguments are easily disposed with. That said, if you want to find more positive stuff about UO's offerings, please go out there and get it. Really. I'll even help, if I can.


 * You really think the word "condemn" violates NPOV? (and by "repeated" you meant "twice," right?) It looks to me like it's used literally thousands of times on this website. But I've changed one instance of it, in the interest of better writing.


 * As for the statements you list as being "unverified," that's... odd, isn't it? There are sources listed after them. What's that you say? A dead link? Right. Did we not already have this discussion up above months ago? A dead link does not mean the information never existed. I mean... seriously? But for you, I've added some more sources/fixed links.


 * Was there anything else? IronDuke  00:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's only more effective to have currently available verifiable references at hand for the reader. It's not necessary for you to add some more sources/fix links "for me." It's good editing &mdash; and on that I'm sure we agree.


 * Fortunately there is no time limit here on discussions. So if we hang in there, maybe we can do better.  It's possible, that taken together, the section slants the facts unnecessarily; making it more an instrument to arouse rather than inform.  But I'm open to other interpretations, ideas and ways of looking at things &mdash; given our implicit agreement to set aside bias and hew to the principals of Wikipedia.  And I'd like to hear more about how this section meets those principals while reporting the subject, and what the advantages are of the section as it stands.


 * Do you feel this is section has a neutral point of view? 842U (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to believe it violates NPOV, though I'm certainly willing to entertain the possbility. The difficulty here is that UO deliberately sells provocative products. Whether that is or is not a good idea, it has the entirely predictable result that (some) people are provoked by them. I'm not sure what exactly should be added to "balance" that, but I remain all ears. IronDuke  23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the problem is that UO sold provocative products, why doesn't the article just say that? UO between 2003 and 2008 was identified as marketing a number of products regarded as deliberately provocative &mdash; religiously, politically, socially or culturally &mdash; by groups whose purpose is to monitor such behavior, including the ADL, etc.  Examples of the products included a, b, c and d.  In other words, a cool, calm, confident assessment that hews to the facts. 842U (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for cool and calm, but not for removing sourced info about a higly relevant facet of UO's business model. Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you. IronDuke  00:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, calm, confident, sticking to the facts. Do we know about six-eight products... or about UO's business model? How did this get to be about UO's "business model?" The article does not mention their business model. Do you want to add that? Do we have backup sources?  Is this something we want imply, but not say outright. Would it be libelous if it's not supported by factual sources?


 * Per your question, no problem with leaving the sources in. The article should identify another relevant aspect of the section: that the groups taking umbrage are themselves in the business of monitoring social, religious and political mis-behavior/insensitivity. As long as we're looking at provocative behavior, let's flesh out their business model as well &mdash; since they are the primary sources of offense, umbrage, activisim, etc.  I see that ADL and AFA both have serious controversies of their own. 842U (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what "we know"; I know that their products are meant to be edgy; did you not know that? If not, would you be willing to do some research into the company before suggesting edits. As for your second suggestion, that seems to be a clear example of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. We don't poison the well by trying to jam in what we think the biases of advocacy groups may be; that's what links are for. IronDuke  03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I know they've marketed products are meant to be edgy. That's in the article, and it's referenced. The problem as you stated isn't edgy. You said "The difficulty here is that UO deliberately sells provocative products" and "I'm all for cool and calm, but not for removing sourced info about a highly relevant facet of UO's business model." That a company has made a dozen products (per the evidence) is quite a bit different than what you suggested; your suggestion is that this is what they do and that it's a highly relevent part of their business model.  What did you mean?  I'm having trouble understanding what you think this part of the article is about, the eight listed products or a gross pattern and a business model?  I understand the eight products were highly relevant to the specific groups that objected to them.  You seem to be suggesting more than that. 842U (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am indeed suggesting more than that. If the products in question were only relevant to groups that had objected, our conversation would be different, and by "different" I mean "would not exist." (Or at least, not in its present form.) Multiple reliable sources also took note of the controversies. That makes them notable. IronDuke  04:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are no longer talking about controversies dealing with 6-8 products. You're talking about UO's business model. And if you are suggesting here that that provocative products were and are a part of UO's business model, the article should say that and have a solid citation.

If the business model thesis can't be supported with specific solid sources, then the article should rightly identify that the behavior was localized. 842U (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They're an edgy company. I think that's clear for anyone who is familiar with their products. Are you telling me you're not? Or you don't see that? And you still haven't answered my question: how is poisoning the well going to help this process? And what, again, is it that you want to be different in this article? IronDuke  03:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think whether or not Urban Outfitters deliberately markets products designed to cause offense should be noted and well sourced within the article. However, seeing as it says in the controversy section that the company has repeatedly denied this allegation, I don't see this being particularly likely or relevant to the discussion at hand. The controversy section appears to be well sourced, and appears to report the facts without any original research or opinions thrown in. However, it's currently in bullet-point form, which is not up to Wikipedia standards. There appears to be enough there to re-write the section into paragraphs, perhaps with a subsection for Reactions from the Jewish Community, seeing as those appear to be rather frequent. Lastly, this debate has been going on for way too long. I found this after looking at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I think if you wanted to continue this discussion you should do it there. That way at least more editors can have a look at the article and this issue can be settled properly. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article used to conform to wiki-style -- you're welcome to restore that. Admin noticeboard is not the place for content discussions though. An RfC would be fine, if there was anything to discuss, not sure there is. IronDuke  17:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Jesus Dress Up magnets.jpg
File:Jesus Dress Up magnets.jpg is used in this article but there is no non-free use rationale to explain why it should be here. If it is to remain here there needs to be a rationale provided on the image page. If there isn't the file may end up being deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The file has a Non-free media use rationale for Jesus Dress Up on it's page: File:Jesus Dress Up magnets.jpg, to wit: "There is no free equivalent of this item, so the image cannot be replaced by a free image." This rationale was updated on 10 Jan 2010. 842U (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. But this isn't the Jesus Dress Up article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MOOKIE LOVES MEN<333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.121.149 (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't get to website today. DDOS attack?
Anyone heard or know anything? 67.233.246.106 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Urban Outfitters. 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.afa.net/press_releases/pr032304.asp

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 11:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer
Urban Outfitters is not exclusively a "women's apparel franchise." The brand of stores carries clothing, shoes, and accessories for both genders. A visit to their website http://www.urbanoutfitters.com or any of their stores will clarify your confusion. Although Urban Outfitters does carry much novelty merchandise, their ultimate goal is to provide fashion that is a unique alternative to mainstream which is as this article states, is "funky." The focus for Urban Outfitters is definitely on clothing, not novelty creations. Jzabs (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)jzab

The focus for Urban Outfitters is on both clothing and novelty creations. I do not think that the fact that they do indeed have novelty creations should be excluded from their focus. (Court hack (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC))

More about the history
Everything in the article seems accurate, however, I would have liked more information on Richard Hayne's, because some consider him controversial. Also, there should be more information about the history because the store has been around since the 70's so I feel like there should be more information surrounding the history, like what it was like back then and how different it was back then than it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.142 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What we should really do is get Judy Wicks' page undeleted, and work on developing it. I believe Richard Hayne has a personal page, if you want more info on him. Centerone (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits requested from Urban Outfitters
Hi,

By way of disclosure, I work at Urban Outfitters. I would like to discuss what I see as two primary issues with the article:

Emphasis: As it stands, the article is mostly a list of criticisms and probably a violation of WP:UNDUE. Rather than debate the truth/falsity of some of these claims, it seems to me that they might be re-evaluated and summarized such that they’re a fair representation of a decades-old company.

Naming: As a part-to-whole matter, the article confuses Urban Outfitters the brand with Urban Outfitters Inc. commonly referred to as "URBN". URBN is a portfolio of global consumer brands comprised of Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, Free People, BHLDN, Terrain and the Vetri Family.

For example:

Urban Outfitters manages five separate brands, including its namesake, Anthropologie, Free People, Terrain, and BHLDN; together, the brands operate over 400 retail locations worldwide.

…is more accurately expressed as:

Urban Outfitters is part of the portfolio of global consumer brands under Urban Outfitters, Inc., (“URBN”) which also includes Anthropologie, BHLDN, Free People, Terrain and the Vetri Family.

Let me know the best way to proceed.–– Oonmcc (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You make good points. I suggest you go ahead and edit away. Be BOLD. EyeTruth (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly we should eventually have separate articles for Urban Outfitters brand & Urban Outfitters company, especially considering the other brands under the company seem to have articles. I personally tend to opt for inclusion of cited controversies, but obviously they must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Centerone (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The list of controversies are just an elaborate list of anything and everything that seems to have happened controversial with its products and needs change. A summary of cited controversies should be enough to follow the standards mentioned in Criticism section advice for WP as it specifically states that this section should not be indiscriminate list of controversies. Being bold and merging now for the sake of neutrality of entity based articles  A m i t  웃  04:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Judy Wicks?
Why does this page not mention and even seems to erase the founding of the company with Dick's first wife, Judy Wicks? That should probably be corrected. I don't know enough of the details myself. Perhaps someone knows a good RS that details it. Centerone (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * May be we can start with a redirect page which redirects to Richard Hayne? and then if there is appropriate content it can be added to create her own page.  A m i t  웃  04:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)