Talk:David T. Abercrombie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Maryland / Baltimore  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Baltimore task force

a&f tobacco[edit]

did you know A&F sold tobacco? it was sold in a flip top tin can witha paper label/called camp fire mixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Do editors really call this article "biographical" if it does not even mention Abercrombie's family except for that he has died among them? ("Abercrombie lived the remainder of his life in the Adirondacks with his family until his death.") (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the following.[edit]

I am removing the following-More important, the company is frequently referenced as simply Abercrombie. First, who thinks its more important? Why is it more important? There is no source for this and it reads like PR fluff. Actually since Abercrombie and Fitch were sold to the Limited a long time ago, I don't see how David Abercrombie influences the store anymore, compare the old Abercrombie and Fitch to the new store, and his influence is non existent. Also the whole Legacy section reads like it was written by the CEO or someone within the company. This statement is laughable and has no sources and reads like a opinion- Abercrombie & Fitch continues to reference to its original image of its early years with the Abercrombie moose and "sexy" male ruggedness. I'm pretty sure that David Abercrombie did not promote sexy male ruggedness back in 1892 or 1904. The legacy section needs to be rewritten.--BeckiGreen (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Free image[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: Is this the same man? Our article makes no mention of his contributions during World War I but it looks like him, and it seems unlikely that two David Abercrombies were in the same trade. The magazine was published in 1919 which make the (admittedly small) image unquestionably public domain. If so I can upload the extracted image to Commons. See also this article from the Maryland Historical Society; their images are probably the right age but might be unpublished. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Extracted and uploaded: File:David_Abercrombie.png. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It certain looks like the same man. Not as good in quality as the othjer image, and it was no great shakes to begin with. BMK (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that [1] is asustainable edit. Whether Stifle is a "hard core NFCC editor" or not is irrelevant. The old image is unfree unless proven otherwise and NFCC #1 doesn't have any wiggle room. There's a free alternative, full stop. What am I missing? Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Only the obvious. If NFCC #1 is preventing us from using a highly probable free image and/or an image that we're never going to get sued over, then NFCC #1 should be rewritten (it's not a Commandment) or ignored in this case with impunity. This is what I meant when I wrote about people who can't tell the difference between absolute absolutes and relative ones See, we get to do stuff like this because we aren't a state, where absolutes protect people's rights, we're a website building an educational encyclopedia (and the WMF should drop those b.s. subject "books" they sell which can't possible be a profit center, but simply muck up our educational status), which and can afford to take some chances. That the WMF is deathly afraid of lawsuits because their entire house of multiple copyright will probably come crashing down around their feet is understandable, but treating fully equipped intelligent adults like errant children is not the way to go about it. Cut put those without sufficient judgment to edit responsibly: trolls, vadals, socks, puppetmasters, children, idiots, assholes, low-level austists for anything but clearly defined repetitive editing, and high-level autists for anythng requiring the evalualstion of inter-personal relationships. On the other hand open up editing to bona fide experts while keeping fringists at bay, allow intelligent generalists (think of the "synthesisthists" of John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar or Robert Redford's chracter in [[[Seven Days of theCondof(film)Seven hgaractrDat of the Condor]] to have free reign - with sourcing, of course.Wikipedia can be so muuch more tham it it; they simply need to throw away some of the unnecessary baggage,they carry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. I fought and lost the same battle years ago over the Otto Perry images abd again, earlier this year, over the Roger Puta images on Commons. What an asinine situation that was. I've given up fighting the system; I'd rather write stubs on rolling stock. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I found a drawing from the New York Times circa 1917 and I've added it. It's similar in composition to the maybe free original image, and larger than the one depicting him in military dress. Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Beyond My Ken: Views on the new image? I went through back numbers of a couple newspapers yesterday and didn't turn up anything else. I continue to think the original image came from the same source as the current Fitch image, but I can't find anything showing the two men together. Presumably such would date from 1904–1907. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
A link would help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Sorry about that. This is the image: File:David T. Abercrombie joins Baker, Murray and Imbrie.png. It first appeared in the New York Times in 1917. I can't say I've ever seen a company take out an advertisement announcing a new VP, but I suppose Abercrombie's stature was a real marketing boost. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I have taken a quick look at it, but will have to think on how it matches up with the Fitch image, or some other Fitch image. Such is beyond me right at this moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)