Jump to content

Talk:American Eagle Outfitters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yumbr9124 (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 14 February 2014 (→‎Middle east???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Labor practices

Can we add a section about AEO's labor practices in its manufacturing or retail areas? AEO pays their workers crap in the United States and probably in the third world too... 69.248.57.12 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work at American Eagle, and I started off at $7.25/hour. The minimum wage in Wisconsin for minors is $5.90, and adults $6.50. Scottn09 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AE actually prides itself in paying their suppliers well, which totally undermines the latest "American Vulture" boycott. AE follows standard and contemporary protocol. Retail starts at minimum wage and goes up based on performance with certain exceptions such as previous experience and whatnot. Quixotic Rick 05:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle shoes are available at Payless Shoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.21.249 (talk • contribs)

That's actually different. The shoes that they sell at American Eagle are different than the ones at Payless.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. (the official company name) has no affiliation with Payless and its "American Eagle" brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.56.35 (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Quixotic Rick 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chairman section of the intro

This paragraph is awkward. It mentions a couple of persons and a family that own a total of 14% of AE. Why is this needed in the intro? It seems like the people who are mentioned in the blurb were the people who added it(mostly schottenstein). I'm sure shareholder info has a place in articles but it throws a wrench into the flow of the intro, especially when considering it is simply for vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.218.58 (talk • contribs)

Attention

I'm going to delete a bunch of stuff because it reeks of bias. Based on that, and the horrible grammatical mistakes, I'm going to say this was either written by an employee of AE or a 15-year old. Or both. Riskbreaker927 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC) American Eagle can not hire under the age of 17, furthermore, to hire an employee who is 17 years of age, we must have a quota of employees in percentage over the age of 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.119.80 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B?

I'm not quite sure why this article received such a high grade. It is not cohesive at all and really doesn't give very much background on the company. If someone had never been to an American Eagle store and they read this article, I'm not quite sure they would have any clue as to what the stores are like. I would try to fix this article but I can't even figure out where to start. Illinois2011 | Talk 00:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, unfortunately there is very little material to reference, it's absurd how little there is out there considering the size of the company and its impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishman76m (talk • contribs) 04:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do something about this?

I removed a lot of things that just don't belong in wikipedia For example, the word "sportyish" does not exist and "sweetly-sexy" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of any sort. It's very clear whoever wrote this article, in addition to having not read a single page of the wikipedia policies, has probably not graduated high school, and is more than likely an employee of American Eagle; the edits discussed on this talk page have almost all been undone, notably the "unreferenced" tag. I put that back in as well. Someone needs to completely redo this article with sourcable information (NONE of it is sourced, but I tried to leave in things that are at least somewhat reasonable so that the article isn't a skeleton and so that it doesn't get immediately undone.)

Someone also needs to keep an eye on whoever is undoing these edits, and perhaps disciplinary action is in order. We need to send out the message that Wikipedia is an encylcopedia - not an advertising outlet for your favorite clothing brand.Riskbreaker927 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

icu

this article needs serious work, it should be as nice as the Abercrombie and Fitch article, and the lawsuit between the companies needs to be covered in addition to a lot of similar content we can us A&F as a model.MY♥INchile 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs work, although I'm not sure that the ICU tag is appropriate. Is there anything in particular besides the A&F lawsuit that should be included in the article? I personally think some items that are currently here should be removed or modified, such as the detailed introduction about the founding and ownership and the extensive information about the Canadian division that was sold off. I don't have any specific additions to the article, though. Perhaps a look at the current management, structure, and size. DonutLover (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article definitely needs some work, it is lacking in many areas. I agree with DonutLover that the founding and ownership information is too lengthy, there is no need for all that. The Canadian division is also questionable, but less so than the overly detailed corporate history; I think it however would be useful in a history section should one be created.Irishman76m (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the moron?

Who is the moron who wrote that revenue for AE is $23 Billion. Did you just pull that out of your ass? How has no one done anything about this especially since there is no sources. AE's revenue for 2008 was 3.055 Billion. http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/AEO.aspx?source=ifltnvsnq0000004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdamon203 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Aerie

There is currently no section devoted to their Aerie sub-brand of intimates and lounge-wear, one needs to be added as it is a significant part of their business. I also would be for a separate page being created for Aerie seeing as rival company A&F's Gilley Hicks has a page devoted to it. I see no reason why the Aerie brand should not have the same. 76.95.151.5 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a section on Aerie. It was short, but I don't know if there was any reason to remove it or not. This is the edit that removed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Eagle_Outfitters&diff=263021124&oldid=262938205
If you want to write an article on aerie, you are welcome to do so. I was not able to find a significant amount of information on aerie to be able to write a complete article. DonutLover (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like you I was unable to find much information on it, so for now I am just going to add a section. Also I have noticed that there is no section heading for the paragraph on the acquisition and later selling of Bluenotes, so unless anyone has any objections I will add that as well.Irishman76m (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Store" section

This section has been removed twice over the past week. There are two problems with the version I removed: - It was filled with WP:POV ("bright, airy, attractive") - The sentences about music in the stores were nonsense. 30 dB isn't audible beyond a few inches, and 80 db is like being in the front row of a concert. - The section on scents needs a citation or three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonutLover (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it several additional times now. I've tried to find verifiable information in this area, but I can't write anything other than conjecture based on the AEO stores I have personally been in. DonutLover (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is relatively little cite-able information is probably the main reason that this article isn't better than it is, information is very hard to come by, most of the stuff that turns up in searches is regurgitations of their corporate fact-sheet. Incredible considering how well this company is doing and how popular it is as a brand. Very shoddy PR work on their part I suppose.Irishman76m (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an employee and there will be no change in our music systems nor the volume —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.119.80 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision is much less objectionable. Thanks to 99.233.242.43. DonutLover (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please upload the company's sign?--Friends007 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Eagle_Outfitters&oldid=595490087"