Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Consensual?

Untitled

So a lot of the stuff on here about Dov's "libertine" sexuality seemed pretty POV. Noting that he had had "consensual" sexual relationships with employees is a disputed claim as per the line I added regarding the sexual harassment charges filed against him, so I took that line out. (Further, I would ask just how consensual sex can ever be between an employer and an employee... but that's probably here nor there.)

no, its here and there. its basically ignoring the glaring fact that employers have a lot of power over employees. thats why the vast majority of people would probably say it is 'not appropriate', not because of the sexual aspect of it, but because of the inherent possibility of exploitation. there are a lot of things that bosses shouldnt do with employees... because even though 'force' is not there, it is stil like, every employee is thinking 'hmm well i have to make the boss happy or ill get layed off and/or not promoted'.

Models Look Underage

Many, if not most of the models, shown in AA's suggestive advertisements and on AA's soft porn website (reference to the Adult Video News here) look like they are less than 18 years old. Most of them are of age, but some of them are not. AA's web site isn't illegal because AA gets parental consent for models who are minors (I need to put the reference where I found this info here). Nonetheless many people consider suggestive advertisements and soft porn using models that look like minors offensive and socially irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Californian (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Biased Language

The language used under the section for sexual harassment is also very POV and biased. Use of words like "Obviously" to mask biased comments about sexual harrassment. Also suggests that the only kind of sexual harassment is the kind where people are "pressured into sex." Language discounts the severity of "hostile work environment" charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikazebirds (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charges of UNITE corruption

This article is about Dov Charney, not UNITE. If people want to know about UNITE they can click the link. Allegations of their corruption serve only to skew this article in favor of Charney's position and perpetuate his carefully crafted image as a "good" employer. Consequently, I removed the reference. Nspeelman 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charney's Religion and its influences on AA

I do not understand why this was taken out, the references checked out and supported the defined text. It is also significant in the way that it shaped the way Charney ran his business early on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.128.130 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. One of the links (which wasn't a reference anyway, but rather a link to a picture) is dead. The second is a reference to a website that references Charney's name once, does not support the statement "granting interviews to and buying advertisements in Jewish publications" and only provides tangential support for statements about his involvement in the Jewish community by way of unpublished synthesis. Since the first and second reference fail, the last one (which deals solely with Charney offering to sell a book in his store) cannot support the whole paragraph alone and so it was (and will be) taken out. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Background

Any editor may insert information about his parents provided two things, 1. there are several good references and 2. those references are inline and formatted correctly. Read WP:CITE for information on how to format citations correctly. I don't think adding information about his parent's Jewish background is germane to this article, so I would disagree about inserting that line. Since the contributions for 63.119.128.130 are only related to the Jewish background for Dov Charney, I believe that this editor may be violating NPOV, but I will leave that for the community to decide. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break! Whenever a Jew does something important/wonderful, you are the first to screech :"He's a Jew! He's one of us! Mention it!"...but the minute one of your kind do something illegal/questionable, you quietly say: "Oh, we don't need to mention his Jewishness...". Very subtle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the source of his family are being cited from multiple sources. So if you want to claim inaccuracy, that means all 3 sources got it wrong, which is highly unlikely. I think that family and heritage is ultimately defines who we are and how we act, it is something that is encoded in our DNA. I am only attributing to this aspect of content because I find this article lacking his family background. If you take a look at any Wikipedia articles, family and heritage is always included, most of time going back to grandparents and great grandparents. So no, I do not think I am violating NPOV, unless you got something against it.
Also family background and heritage are not points of view, they are facts.

I think you will find it very difficult to paint me as an anti-semite for opposing the inclusion of material that I feel is irrelevant. You have made many previous edits to this encyclopedia which focus on Judaism, and though I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it does expose your bias towards including such material in other articles. It isn't that big of a deal, I merely stated it as my own personal objection to explain why I removed that material. This is also why I'm not currently opposing or removing the information from the article as it stands now. Please read WP:AGF for more information. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are now putting word in my mouth. If I thought you are I would said that you are. This wasn't meant to be anything overwhelming, just simply add his family background and heritage to the content, it just turned out to be much complicated in this case. I do not think I violated anything, as I have already stated, family and heritage is given fact, not something one can change or alter. That is the reason why I put them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.128.130 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another POV attack

Note: please refer to Talk:American Apparel#Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry for some more history on the ongoing and historical WP:POV, WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:MEAT edits to these two articles - Wikidemo (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that yet another editor, User:Igloo1981, with almost no Wikipedia history other than editing American Apparel and Dov Charney[1], has made far-reaching edits to downplay the controversies over sexuality and to portray the two in a more favorable light. Although the edits are generally good from a writing point of view, it's clear they are highly one-sided and POV, simply deleting sourced content that would seem to reflect negatively on the company and its founder, often with misleading edit summaries indicating that the changes are technical in nature.

Perhaps I should have simply reverted the entire edits as POV and suspicious, but there are some useful details added. I've tried to go through the article to restore content that was sourced and relevant, and also restore balance to some other POV changes. We should keep an eye on this editor as a potential WP:SOCK or WP:COI issue, given the history of these articles. Wikidemo (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) ...and moments later, an IP editor with identical editing quirks, attempting to re-introduce some of the same edits on the same grounds [2]. Wikidemo (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - User:Igloo1981, who is looking more and more like part of the sock/meatpuppet gang, has simply reverted (calling me "biased" instead of engaging in any discussion)[3] and is edit warring over these additions. It looks like I'll have to launch an administrative case if this does not stop soon. Wikidemo (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A response to accusations, and a few other notes from a "sockmonkey"

I am an employee of American Apparel. I do not know all of the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I dont even know how to make a proper link or a citation. However, I do know a thing or two about Dov Charney and American Apparel, to the point that I could be considered an expert. Am I biased? Sure. I LOVE my job and my boss is great. Is there a conflict of interest? Maybe. But that's not the issue. The issue for me is that the full story is not being shared on these pages. You can't fairly tell somebody's life story without including the accomplishments along with the failures. Also, while the average person today might be more excited to read about blow jobs than industrial, retail and aesthetic achievements, it's not fair to sensationalize the "interesting" parts and disregard anything else (such as "Marty Bailey has developed a new concept of team manufacturing based on eliminating wasted time in motion...") as "fluff". In fact, I see some of the texts that the WikiPolice insist on leaving as negative, sensational tidbits of fluff themselves. "Charney has also emphasized sexuality in his public persona in order to raise his company's profile; in a similar synergistic manner, Hugh Hefner's profile raised that of the Playboy empire." I read through the editing history and I'm not claiming that all changes made by every editor have been totally without some agenda to shed a positive light on the company. Aside from myself and Danica O'Brien, I have no relation to, no do I know who any of them are. What I'm saying is that in order for any article to be fair and truly encyclopedic, the story must be told completely, without a heavy hand towards any one element. I don't have time or desire to "edit war" with anyone, but I would like to add some information that is completely essential to one getting a proper overview of Dov or the company, and I would appreciate the chance for it to be fairly considered before it's hastily undone. Just because a Wikidemo-type didn't write it doesn't mean that it's not part of the story. Everything I post will have a citation that is of the same or superior quality as the existing ones, and the tone will be no more biased than anything else that is published. I'm using what you have deemed "encyclopedic" as a guideline. I hope you find my edits as constructive and fair. Thank you, Iris —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrisAlonzo (talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive sockpuppetry and COI edits by American Apparel executives were clearly inappropriate. I've done a rewrite in an attempt to scrub the article of this taint, yet improve it and address concerns of article quality and bias. I haven't added much material but did swap a lot of stuff with the American Apparel article - the idea is that the company article should chronicle the history of the company, and this article should be a bio of Charney and go into his personal relationship with the company and company policies. I've tried to eliminate excesses on both sides - on the one hand, self-serving defensive argumentation that tries to justify his actions is just not right for Wikipedia. On the other hand, extensive coverage of relatively trivial sexual behavior was way overstated. It was widely reported and thoroughly sourced so it can be mentioned, but a sentence or two is all that's needed. I hope this is more balanced and fairer to the company, while also keeping up our standards of neutrality, verifiability, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo, I sincerely appreciate your attention to this article, and the balance you want to bring. This is all that we hoped for. Thank you, IrisAlonzo (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New case / new material - discussion

I'm removing the following for discussion. There's probably something in here worth including but as phrased it's somewhat unencyclopedic and has BLP problems. Also, perhaps cases against American Apparel belong in the AA article, not the article about its CEO. I'm not at all against including it, only saying it needs some more work before it's ready to insert. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new (fifth) sexual harassment lawsuit being filed against Charney by a senior employee, Jeneleen Floyd. http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/jewish_hustler_potty_mouth_and_pervert_means_no_offense_20080603/ "Floyd is just the newest member of a rapidly growing sorority, having filed the fifth suit against American Apparel for sexually explicit offenses. Though so far no one has had a jury trial against American Apparel, Charney has freely admitted he uses words like “slut” and “c*nt” around the office, saying that they’re not necessarily meant pejoratively: “some of us love sluts,” he said in a recent deposition. He’s also open about conducting meetings in his underwear and posting pornographic magazine images in his stores."

Agree, clearly it has to go in there but not like that. Hopefully what I put works for the time being. TheRegicider (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think so. I wouldn't categorically oppose an expanded section, if it's written encyclopedically and if there is enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy relevance and weight concerns. On the other hand I'm not in any great hurry to do so. The article already portrays Charney, correctly I think, as a provocative figure whose personal actions have brought success, notoriety, and litigation to the company. I don't think yet another lawsuit changes that significantly. Wikidemo (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made this revision[4] per WP:BLP of a new contribution by the same editor. Although this one is cited to a reliable source, the information itself is not reliable in that its underlying source is an unproven allegation made in a lawsuit. We don't reprint claims made in legal papers. Moreover, it has serious WP:WEIGHT issues - the man has started a clothing empire, is famous, and been sued five times now for sexual harassment. A single one of those suits, just filed, does not deserve a whole paragraph. We already have a paragraph that is quite suitable regarding all of the claims regarding sex-related matters. Wikidemo (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but i disagree. The entry is stating that there is a new lawsuit against Charney...and this is a fact. It IS a case against Charney, and is signifigant in his story as the CEO of his clothing empire. You say..."The article already portrays Charney, correctly I think, as a provocative figure whose personal actions have brought success, notoriety, and litigation to the company. I don't think yet another lawsuit changes that significantly." It sounds as if you are working to massage the image of Charney presented here by putting a positive spin on these matters by using terms such as "provocative figure...bringing success, notoriety... That sounds like POV to me. The Gaurdian is a reliable source, and though the allegations in the case are unproven, the fact that yet another one has appeared is proven, and is signifigant. Birdy-67 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments you quote were made on the talk page, hence there is no spin at all. They are there only make the point I made. I see you have reverted to reinstate the inappropriate material. I have left a warning on your talk page. As I have already explained, we do not repeat unproven allegations like that in the encyclopedia. You have now tried four times to insert the same material, more or less. If you continue edit warring you may be blocked from further editing. Wikidemo (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreeing with Apothecia. The bias in this article needs to be worked on. The pro-Dov Charney tone and "BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!" attitude towards the sexual harassment charges is problematic. This is a serious issue. Gnarlwhal (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]