Talk:Redbubble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Redbubble is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Timing and Dates[edit]

The sources on dates don't sync up. Hosking became CEO of REDBUBBLE in July 2010 (not 2011). The Aconex press release only notes he was then the CEO of REDBUBBLE, not when he became it. I will dig around and find a WP:VS just to get the dates lined up correctly. XcommR (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I was assuming Hosking went from Aconex to ReBuble, but that is an assumption and its quite possible he could have been a senior executive at both companies at the same time. Any sources you can find to sort it out would be appreciated. Thanks for the help. -- KeithbobTalk 02:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Could not only find a WP:PRIMARY, third para of [1] which now says Martin Hosking "has been CEO here (REDBUBBLE) since July 1 2010". Under WP:SELFPUB IMO this would be an acceptable source as no reason for it be inaccurate statement of the facts.XcommR (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Popular Topics and REDBUBBLE[edit]

The section on Trayvon Martin is just one of many examples of how popular, trending topics lead to designs on REDBUBBLE. This was picked up by the WSJ where the site is named alongside others in relation to political campaigns [2] "very political campaign generates its buttons, shirts and trinkets. But this year the merchandising is speedier than ever—and more topical—because of "print-on-demand" companies like Zazzle, CafePress, DeviantArt and RedBubble." But it could be anything. A Tshirt on the death of Bin Laden was front of Drudge Report, something on riots in London in British papers etc. I suggest a generic comment similar to the WSJs and then examples or the article will always be out of date or picky (I am sure there is a WP policy on this but just need to find it_. XcommR (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point but don't understand what you are proposing in terms of content change.-- KeithbobTalk 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering whether a sentence like this might cover it. "Like other sites based on User Generated Content RedBubble has reflected current issues and controversies" [3], [4] [5]. Editors can add to the list or not as they like. By framing in this way it helps overcome the issue of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which we have if we cover each individual case or try to pick which are more important. Clearly editors can choose to draw out and highlight larger issues covered by multiple sources and of more longevity. XcommR (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I like the concept of what you are suggesting but it may need to be a little more than one sentence. I would suggest something like "Some of the artwork that RedBubble makes available through its web platform has from time to time been criticized by the public and members of the press." (this is just a rough draft but you get the idea) And the WIKI principle at play here, for me is WP:UNDUE.-- KeithbobTalk 16:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Concur. Will leave it with you. XcommR (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed DYK on RedBubble[edit]

... that the Australian company RedBubble used to sell baby clothes "featuring pictures of Hitler, Osama bin Laden and serial killers Ivan Milat, Ted Bundy and Charles Manson"? Created/expanded by Keithbob (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 02:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I oppose this DYK and give my reasons at the DYK discussion page. Others should feel free to add their commentshere.-- KeithbobTalk 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

More content?[edit]

This content was removed from Martin Hosking after a BLPN discussion. I'm parking it here and it can be integrated into the article as appropriate.

  • In September 2011, RedBubble was criticised for having pornographic images on baby's clothing.[1] In response to the complaints, Hosking said such sales were against RedBubble guidelines: "The fact that an image can be shown on children's clothing does not mean that it has ever been ordered or produced."[1] After being contacted by the press, RedBubble removed many of the items the same day.[1]-- KeithbobTalk 02:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c "Anger at Porn Images on Baby Clothes". news.com.au. 9 September 2011. Retrieved 3 April 2012. 

Inappropriate Editing[edit]

The user MUWT5 is editing this page without regard to basic WP policies - wp:NPOV, wp:balance. They are trying to create a wp:coatrack for their view of a particular media event related to some content on the Company's website. They have not declared their interest but their singular interest in this topic suggests an undeclared wp:COI They have been repeatedly warned about such behavior on the article Martin Hosking which they have ignored. I will leave it with more experienced editors to resolve.XcommR (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting it's not relevant or somehow biased to reference a cite about the law firm quitting over Hipster Hitler. This incident is relevant to RedBubble because it is a most unusual and notable event for a company's attorneys to publicly quit but probably not Martin Hosking because RedBubble is the client. There are dozens of other cites for this event and I chose The Register because it is so widely read. The law firm incident could do with much more coverage and other cites but other eds can decide this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muwt5 (talkcontribs) 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've tidied up the section a bit. Editing both the new entries by Muwt5 as well as text that I had added earlier. I edited for conciseness and accuracy to the sources that have been presented.-- KeithbobTalk 21:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The article cites 15 reliable sources. Why are you requesting speedy deletion, with no discussion? Something is all backwards here. There are thousands of articles with few or zero sources on the most obscure topics and we have nothing better to do around here than proposed speedy deletion for an article that meets MOS and has 16 citations? Wow... -- KeithbobTalk 02:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If we were to delete the article on RedBubble I think we could add to the list the following other companies/websites which are of about the same or lesser scale (check size at Alexa.com) and importance (check by citations) and operate in related areas: Threadless, Spreadshirt Vistaprint. If the article is deleted the biography of Martin Hosking should also be deleted as it cannot remain a wp:coatrack for an issue to do with RedBubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XcommR (talkcontribs) 06:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The nomination for deletion does not seem to be supported by the community.[6] -- KeithbobTalk 23:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

COI[edit]

Since User:XcommR is writing in ways that imply otherwise, it's worth noting that he is in fact Martin Hosking: [7]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity not sure what your point is. I am writing in third person, am not editing the article and have a fully declared WP:COI on my profile and have declared it on numerous occasions. That I choose to write in third person is simply an appropriate voice as a WP editor. My decision not to edit the article is more than required by best WP policy. XcommR (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Bloch Liebler[edit]

This business is known only for one thing. Promotion of NAZI slogans on t-shirts which were condemned by Mark Liebler or Arnold Bloch Liebler and who refused to act further as legal adviser for this company. This episode needs coverage in this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.119.125 ([[User talk:121.44.119.125|talk]]) 04:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Red bubble only relented on selling Hitler and NAZI themed tshirts after 6 months of user and customer fury! 6 months!! If Martin Hosking CEO of Red Bubble is such a believer in "free speech" to defend his right to put these slogans on t-shirts, what about "free speech" to defend the telling of the story of Red Bubble's support for these hate slogans?

Arnold Bloch Liebler refusal to represent Redbubble[edit]

Prominent Melbourne law firm Arnold Bloch Liebler announced in 2011 that it would no longer act for Redbubble because as its senior partner explained it could not represent a business that condoned Nazism. Could a conscientious Wikipedia editor please incorporate this into the profile - there are many newsworthy citations. Elizabethpeel (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In an article about ABL this may be appropriate with the balancing side of the story (as also reported) that Hosking sacked his lawyers for breaching their duties to Redbubble as a client as would be required under WP:WEIGHT. As your contribution to WP is as a WP:SPA I suggest familiarise yourself with WP:POLICYLIST. XcommR (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hoskings and Red Bubble were publicly sacked by ABL as clients of ABL due to their continued promotion of Neo-Nazi slogans on t-shirts. "Xcomm" user has it confused if he thinks Hoskins and Red Bubble were on other side of this equation. Evidence? Eventually Simon Wisenthal Centre became involved and as a result of pressure they brought on him, Hoskings finally dropped the t-shirt slogans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.88 (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Freedom of Speech?[edit]

The thing that's missing here is that Martin Hosking was prepared to take on the so-called "Jewish Lobby" and champion freedom of speech on Hitler or Nazi related topics. Freedom of speech on the Internet is a much bigger thing than a few Fuhrer or Holocaust jokes on tshirts. Martin Hosking is a champion of the freedoms of speech that the Internet allows. The Internet and free speech are more than any lobby group no matter how powerful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.146.2 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)



Some timelines and sources for inclusion

http://extranetevolution.com/2011/06/aconex-chairman-in-hitler-t-shirt-row/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.45.243 (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Time line[edit]

The main article on Wikipedia is written as if the nazi t-shirt slogans and sexualised children's wear were some quickly corrected harmless accident. This is not true. The offending materials were sold on RedBubble for many months until the storm of protest against RedBubble reached a stage of Front Page media newspaper and evening TV news. It is true that Martin Hosking defended the material as "free speech". However, he does not tolerate the speech of those who protested instead deleting their comments and accounts. For some strange reason he is pro- free speech when it comes to saying "Back to the Fuhrer" on a tshirt but against free speech of those complaining about it.

This blog chronicled the story

http://1stangel.co.uk/blog/2011/have-redbubble-gone-too-far/#.UDrrP4lhic0

http://1stangel.co.uk/blog/2011/redbubble-furore-not-over/#.UDrvfIlhic0

1firstangel (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote from law firm[edit]

Hi fellow editors, there seems to be some concern that readers should be clear that RB's law firm quit them because of offensive Hitler images. Therefore I have edited the text to its current version to make that fact perfectly clear. (see below)

  • The Register and The Age, reported that Redbubble's law firm, Arnold Bloch Leibler, had severed their connections with RedBubble because it offered images from the "parody, satire and humor site" Hipster Hitler, on their T-shirts.[1]

I object to the addition of this quote: "We will not act for a company that in effect promotes Nazism, senior partner Mark Leibler told The Sunday Age." because it repeats information already given in the prior sentence. It also violates WP:UNDUE which says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,..." Comments? Discussion? -- KeithbobTalk 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ABL was sacked by Redbubble (not the other way round) this is made clear in the following discussion at minute 26 video. What one source says to the media does not make it verifiable WP:V. The journalist has not independently verified who sacked who. In addition to achieve WP:UNDUE would require you give Redbubble's view about why they sacked ABL and on the material (carried by numerous sources including in the video above) and the consideration being given to the right to free speech. wp:coi XcommR (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Mr Mark Liebler AC is Senior Partner of Arnold Bloch Liebler and one of Australia's most prominent lawyers and most prominent Jews. He has been head of many prominent Australian Jewish organisations. If he says Arnold Bloch Liebler refused to act for Redbubble because it in effect "promoted Nazism" that is an as authoritative statement as one can get on the subject. It is the definitive explanation of why ABL took the extraordinary step of publicly sacking an albeit minor client. Law firms often act for unsavoury people and clients but ABL drew the line at Redbubble because of this issue. It is quite

Is totally misleading to suggest as the Wikipwdia page does now that ABL sacked Redbubble because of "humour and satire" - not at all. It was because Redbubble sold over a period of time and refused to stop selling pro-Nazi slogans on t-shirts. The publicity and pressure that ABL's principled decision brought onto Redbubble and Martin Hosking eventually with other pressure led to Redbubble's decision to stop selling the pro-Nazi slogans on t-shirts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111431Q (talkcontribs) 09:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The only "authoritative statements" on this subject made by organizations actually dealing with the issue where by B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission who said "We are in productive and friendly discussions with Redbubble to work out a solution which balances their right to expression with legitimate concerns about Hipster Hitler.”Jwire and Simon Wiesenthal Centre who said "By being responsive to the concerns raised by artists, the Jewish community and others, they have modeled how conscience and commerce can intersect".SWC. ABL's relationship with Redbubble is conjecture with both sides having different perspectives. Balance should require both, or neither, are covered. Currently the article quotes one perspective and this should be corrected. There is the danger that this article will become a wp:coatrack for discussion about whether Hipster Hitler is a pro-nazi cartoon. At the moment it gives undue prominence to this issue versus, for example, the many awards Redbubble has won and the numerous other articles that have covered the Company. In an article on this issue - if that was needed - it should give equal weight not only to RB's view on the subject but also to that of other voices who had opinions including the authors of the comic JL LP Age XcommR (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I support XcommR's comments that neutrality means equal coverage for both sides of the issue. The articles from The Register and The Age contain many quotes from Hoskins, Liebler and others. So we can't pick one sound bit quote over others. Especially one that is inflammatory and repeats info already stated in the prior sentence. So I am against inclusion of the Leibler quote. However..... 111431Q makes a good point that the current text does not specify that the controversy was over images of Hitler found to be offensive by the Jewish community. So I have amended the article as follows in an effort to find a compromise on this matter. What do you think of this version?
In June 2011 The Register and The Age, reported that RedBubble was offering T-shirts with satirical images of Hitler on them. As a result Arnold Bloch Leibler, a law firm with deep connections in the Australian Jewish community, severed their connections with RedBubble.-- KeithbobTalk 16:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The t-shirts were not "satirical images of Hitler". They were neo-Nazi slogans. A law firm would not publicly sack a client over "satirical images of Hitler". To the extent there was "satire" in the slogans it was mockery of Holocaust victims. What was offensive was the content of the slogans on t-shirts. The fact there was a "Hipster Hitler" cartoon as a source of the slogans on t-shirts was irrelevant. 111431Q (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This does raise an interesting point, Mark Leibler's is entitled to his views on a cartoon - one-eyed as they - but taking the step of making inflammatory, injudicious and prejudicial comments about a client, while serving them is a clear breach of his firm's obligations to that client. An ethical breach even more transparent in that his views were not even shared by Jewish organization responsible for dealing with the issue and quoted above by XcommR. No wonder they were sacked Redbubble. It would be curious to know if Redbubble took further action against them - but not of much moment to this article.121.214.113.191 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Redbubble did not publish a comic or cartoon, it printed and sold t-shirts with slogans on them were regarded as offensive and pro-Hitler. Is there any publication to support the claim that here that Redbubble took action against ABL? 111431Q (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no publication to support the claim of action taken by either Redbubble or ABL. Mark Leibler being quoted once in the press is not a verifiable source wp:source. All it proves, assuming the source is correct, is that the person said what they are quoted as saying. That his view is contradicted by other quotes by Redbubble (cited above) is equally as valid a source. XcommR (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Apostolou, Natalie (3 June 2011) . (Lawyers Dump RedBubble Over Hitler Hiptsters The Register, retrieved April 23 2012

Client publicly sacked by a law firm[edit]

Unless anyone can find one, there is not another example on Wikipedia of a client who has been publicly sacked by their law firm. The reported reasons for the sacking by the lawyers and the reported RedBubble side of the story should both be given prominence in the article. Law firm says "neo-nazi t-shirts" being sold and they cannot continue to act for this client, but client says "just humour and satire" etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.145.44 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt such an article would pass even the most casual interpretation of wp:notability and in particular would fail on the wp:not#journalism which states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.". This is evidenced by the fact that it would fall on the first hurdle of wp:verifiability which requires 'articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. At this stage we simply have quotations from Mark Leibler and a contradictory viewpoint from Redbubble reported in one media article and one interview (both re-quoted in other sources but this does not improve verifiability). The facts of the situation about who sacked who and when and why are not explored by any reliable wp:sources.XcommR (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, that neither Arnold Bloch Leibler or Mark Leibler are covered by WP would contravene the guideline on creating articles related to notability for one issue WP:BLP1E. XcommR (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Is moniker "XcommR"a troll?[edit]

This moniker only edits Wiki articles related to Martin Hosking This moniker is operated by someone who at times has claimed to be Martin Hosking and at other times to be someone else This moniker makes outlandish and unsubstantiated claims aimed to subtly discredit Martin Hosking - e.g. that it was reported that it was Redbubble who sacked ABL, or that ABL and Mr Mark Liebler AC only notable for this incident with Redbubble 111431Q (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just a little bit rich even for a new editor and clear breach of wp:etiquette (for which I gave a polite warning previously). 111431Q is an anonymous Single Purpose Account promoting a single Soapbox agenda with no declaration of conflicts. My comments and contributions have focused on Redbubble recently but have gone beyond that on many instances with contributions to many articles. I have declared a WP:COI and have supported every comment by reference to not only sources but to guidelines (which I have consistently and actively supported). A good place for 111431Q and the other anonymous SPA's who have been recently adding to this talkspace to start to develop their editorial sensibility is the WP:Guidelines. I respectfully suggest they do so before further contributing in this fashion and I wish them well should they choose to contribute positively to the WP project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XcommR (talkcontribs) 02:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If your purpose is other than trolling and subtly discrediting Martin Hosking, how do you explain unsubstantiated assertions like the ones you have been making? Where is the report of Redbubble sacking ABL? How can you seriously suggest that one of the best known law firms in Australia is only notable because they were Redbubble's lawyers? That the same lack of notability applies to Mark Liebler AC? If you are really Martin Hosking and not an anonymous poster, why not post an image of your Driver's License to prove it or drop the claim? 111431Q (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Go to the following video referred to above on a number of occasions where Hosking explicitly "sets the record straight" on these issues (Minute 25 on) and notes "ABL made some comments and we (Redbubble) subsequently sacked them". He talks in general about the issue. Given we are simply talking about what people said his POV in the absence of any third party sources is of equal weight. As for the notability of ABL and Mark Leibler, the point is simple that before you can compose an article about an incident related to them there should be an article about them. This is the point of the WP:BLP1E as it deals with this very issue (eg an article about Obama's drug taking which is unrelated to the fact he is President). It does not relate to their notability or not outside WP (as I suspect you appreciated). Again gaining familiarity with WP Policy will assist you to understand these issues. (I respectively suggest you feel free to open an account, declare your own COI and upload your drivers license before asking established editors to do so). XcommR (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"XcommR" may be an "established editor" of Martin Hosking-related articles but he or she should cease claiming to be Martin Hosking - thats just trolling. The video cited is not a serious source of anything by any definition. YouTube or similar videos are not a credible source of facts. "XcommR" randomly citing WP policy or referencing President Obama does not improve the credibility. I am sorry but I am noy going to continue to "feed the trolls" by responding to "XcommR" any further. The point has been made. 111431Q (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
And 11411Q is acting exactly like a Sockpuppet: making accusations without an account, make strong inflammatory statements, leveling personal attacks and refusing to declare a COI (despite a clear personal issue with Hosking) but to be honest it is completely irrelevant because the only issue is whether they have anything new to contribute to this article (or anything else on WP). Given the answer is clearly no best we all move on. And yes the video is a verifiable source of what Hosking said no less so than a media article is a source for what someone has said. And of course neither are authoritative sources about the event. XcommR (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Video interviews that are published by reliable sources with no copyright violations can be considered reliable sources. From what I have seen so far the video referenced by XcommR should be considered as a reliable source. YouTube videos are often disqualified from WP as both sources and external links because they are posted by someone other than the owner and that is a copyright violation that WP cannot support or participate in. Regarding user accounts, I also have concerns when I see IP's or accounts popping up daily, whose sole agenda is to insert or strengthen criticism on a single article or topic. I become especially concerned when I see them talking to and supporting each other on the talk page. Lastly, I would caution editors involved here that with the insertion and emphasis of Martin Hosking into the discussion and into the article, certain WP:BLP policy considerations may apply, thereby holding that content to an even higher standard for neutral and balanced representation of reliable sources that does not violate WP:UNDUE weight which creates bias. -- KeithbobTalk 19:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, we are all anonymous editors here with Wiki user names. Speculation about the identity of another Wikipedia editor is a serious offense that will result in an immediate blockage of one's account. Please read WP:OUTING before making an further speculation or making any comments about any Wikipedia users real life identity. This page is for discussion of article content. If you have issues with another user such as personal attacks etc. please post your concerns at WP:ANI. Thank you for remaining civil and limiting your comments to discussion of content only per WP:TALK. Thanks and Peace!-- KeithbobTalk 21:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Clarification understood. The User XcommR has made the unsubstantiated claim to be Martin Hosking. Anyone can open an account and claim to be any person. Is there an offense to say you are a real life person? 111431Q (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a diff for this assertion by XcommR.-- KeithbobTalk 12:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Bloch Leibler explanation[edit]

Arnold Bloch Leibler explain twice why they sacked Redbubble as a client

On May 24 as soon as ABL became aware of Redbubble selling the merchandise and after Martin Hosking refused to stop selling the offensive merchandise. This was first reported in Jewish news services and then in many other media outlets, e.g. Redbubble's products are described by Mark Leibler as "pro-Hitler merchandise"

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/05/30/3087923/law-firm-severs-ties-with-hipster-hitler http://www.startupsmart.com.au/management/legal-matters/2011-05-27/law-firm-cuts-ties-with-redbubble-over-hitler-t-shirt-controversy.html http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/30/hipster-hitler-sends-redbubbles-law-firm-fleeing/

Then again two weeks later on June 5 when Martin Hosking finally relented and stopped selling the offensive products, Mark Leibler explains why ABL would not represent this client in case there was any doubt because Redbubble "in effect supporting Nazism"

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dont-mention-the-war-artists-reminded-that-hitlers-no-joke-20110604-1fmdf.html

The praise from SWC for the decision in the end to cease selling the offensive products came long after ABL had taken its stand and refused to represent Martin Hosking and Redbubble in their selling of these products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.153.236 (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And indeed Martin Hosking explains why he sacked ABL for their comments about a client they were then serving in clear breach of their duty of care to clients. He also explains in the articles cited about the conversations being had with the various Jewish organizations. ABLs view on the material is considerably less authoritative than that held by the organizations with which Redbubble was directly dealing and who gave their verdicts. 203,I suggest you become familiar with the basic WP guideline of Balance before suggesting one-sided edits. Also note being quoted in the media does not make the comment an authoritative source as lots of folks are quoted about lots of things. Again I suggest you familiarize yourself with this policy. XcommR (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I will say that all these issues have been covered ad nauseum including in the discussion above. If the various anonymous Single Purpose Accounts have a genuine interest in improving WP rather than simply standing on Soapboxes then I suggest they post new material and perhaps to demonstrate their bona fides try to suggest sections to this article (or any other article) that have a genuine Neutral Point of View and are unrelated to the agenda they are trying to push.XcommR (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
you missed saying that on June 15 RedBubble was on the front page of the highest circulation newspaper in Australia the Melbourne Herald Sun. There is a screen shot of the Herald Sun news story about Hitler and Osama bin Laden on baby suits in this link as well as links to dozens of other news stories that covered the story. It took these extreme measures to get Martin Hosking to back down on selling this revolting stuff. The very next day he was also out on his ear from his corporate role at as chairman of Aconex - see the 'update' and links at end of the article.

http://tatumwulff.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/blowing-whistle-on-redbubbles-serial.html?m=1 The verfiable news links in this article should be used for the main Wiki article. 1firstangel (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Enough already I too was involved in the campaign from the beginning in November 2010 to get Hipster Hitler tshirts off Redbubble. I too was disgusted by the use of "free speech" as a justification by Martin Hosking for selling nazi slogans on tshirts....while at the same time he deleted criticism and closed accounts of people complaining about those tshirts! Yes...it was pretty stupid of him to try to justify tshirt sales as being "art". I too was deeply saddened by his refusal to listen to the overwhelming opinion of the community against Redbubble selling tastless hate propoganda on tshirts. Yes....it just got worse and worse with the porn and violence sold on baby clothes. Yes....he refused to listen the community about those too until it was too late. But....when is enough "enough"? Redbubble and Martin Hosking have already been dragged through the mud in the media for their mistakes so but there comes a time to leave alone? Redbubble has moved on...time for us all to do the same. I am against Wikipedia articles to keep dragging up all this past, it just damages the innocent victims in all this... who are the loyal members of Redbubble to have their friends and buyers read about this old cra* again recycled on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.160.226 (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article should not try to rewrite history as marketing spin. Arnold Bloch Leibler quit as Redbubble's lawyers because Redbubble was selling what they considered to be "pro-Hitler merchandise" "reinvigorating Nazism" and "in effect supporting Nazism". This is tough criticism coming from one's former attorneys and was central to the story of Redbubble's eventual decision to drop the merchandise. 1firstangel (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Millions of Palestinians have been driven from their homes and murdered. Now Israel is threatening to attack Iran. All you people worry about are some t-shirts, plluheaasee!! Bring back Hipster Hitler! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.69.63 (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Law firms with the ethics of Arnold Bloch Leibler who refused to try to defend the indefensible client are very rare. Defending the most extremely in the wrong clients is a national past time in the US. Maybe Australian lawyers could teach a thing or too about ethics. OJ Simpson defense lawyers hard to find Down Under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontonio (talkcontribs) 18:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Two controversies[edit]

The article should be edited to make clear that were actually two separate controversies that got Redbubble into the news.

The first was one about Hipster Hitler t-shirts and Arnold Bloch Leibler. They were not satirical images of Hitler on the t-shirts, that's wrong, they were t-shirts with slogans drawn from the comic strip such as DEATH CAMP FOR CUTIE, THREE REICHS AND YOU ARE OUT, BACK TO THE FUHRER

The second controversy was about violence and porn being sold on children's and baby clothing.

There was no relation between the controversies except that in the end Redbubble reversed its stance and stopped selling the offending t-shirts and clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UberBubbler (talkcontribs) 10:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems a pretty strong effort on the part of some Wikipedia editors to censor out of the article what the tshirts actually said. I suppose the reality of what these tshirts said is pretty damaging and so there are some who want to try and airbrush them out of history now. Some of the porn and rape on children's clothing tshirts were totally atrocious. Sadly it's pretty obvious that Redbubble was just seeking to make a name for itself and build a profile based on these tshirts as the POD website where "anything goes" and anything can be printed and sold. For every member lost from Redbubble over this, probably two were gained from the publicity as the community was dragged into the gutter. Tenzign (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

recent edit by user XcommR[edit]

User XcommR has made the claim to be Martin Hosking and should not be editing the article. The user XcommR has edited the article and removed good faith edits to make it factually incorrect which is vandalism. If there are specific things in the article as it stands that need revision, the user XcommR can point them out and cite the verifiable sources for those suggested revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.97.181 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the most famous thing this company one thing...They were sacked by their own lawyers Arnold Block Leibler for in effect promoting Nazism? How is this missed in the main article? In the age of Donald Trump such things can thrive but shouldn't this main claim to fame at least be reported main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.166.207 (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)