Talk:The North Face

The North Face Guru

I have a sneaking suspicion that "The North Face Guru" section of this article is advertising and/or self-promotion. I feel it should be deleted, but I'll leave it up to y'all to decide. Josehunder (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I consider it interesting and relevant. This kind of article has a lot of gray areas - this seems like one of them - but I am in favor of keeping it. Ratagonia (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like advertising to me. It's essentially that site's "About" page re-written. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But it's a non-profit page, doesn't have a strong commercial interest. The "about" page is the source for the history material, so of course, the wiki text is quite similar to the source. Ratagonia (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think that this is advertising in normal sense. For me as user of Wikipedia, it seems informational and in so far this section can remain - for me. One argument for remaining: There is such a site where the people are talking about counterfeit products and there are white/blacklists for good/bad sellers. As far as the number of products sold on the Internet, not only on eBay, is increasing, it seems that such "community sites" should be named - especially because the number of counterfeit products is rising - and thus not only in the US. -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• EXCELLENT editing on that, Hawkwang. Ratagonia (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo

According to the company's website, the quarter-circle logo is supposed to represent Half Dome in Yosemite National Park.

• Yep... If you look at some pictures here, you'll find some similarity. :P -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a project at Northwestern University Library focusing on Berkeley during the 60s, and I came across an advertisement for an early North Face store on Telegraph in an October, 1969 edition of the Daily Californian. The logo used in the ad was the same logo (or very similar) to the current one, down to the Helvetica typeface and half dome/ "quarter circle" icon. Did a small amount of digging (this isn't exactly in my job description) and couldn't determine where the 1971 date or the designer information came from originally -- just seems to be getting endlessly quoted and recycled as things tend to do on the interwebs. Anyway, thought I'd throw that out there for someone else to obsess over. Alsjakobso (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me look into it and see if I can find a original source stating the correct date. (Current TNF Employee) Apriestofgix (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Theft

In recent years, there has been a high-rate of theft for their products. Muggings have also occured (esp. in DC area). Any way to work this in? --FasilA 02:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You could work it into popular items to steal.

HyVent

I'd like some discussion and comparison of HyVent fabric. --Error (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The South Butt

Is this relevant? A 'parody' company, The South Butt, has turned The North Face's logo upside down and is selling fleeces, etc, this way. TNF has issued TSB with a cease and desist letter, and is threatening to sue. TSB offered to sell the company to TNF for a million dollars. If nothing else, I'd imagine a mention under the counterfeit section would make sense? --SeattleHiker (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seems uncyclopedic - why bother. Not notable, even in this sense. Ratagonia (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few reasons to bother, apart from the obvious one that the article is a stub, and that this is relevant and referencable material for it.

• What seems unencyclopedic about it? I'm guessing you mean the word "butt" in the name, but, Wikipedia has an article titled "How to Eat with your Butt."

• If it's noteworthy and encyclopedic to say that peoples' jackets are being stolen, and (sometimes-)bad counterfeits are being made, then pointing to the existence of a company that counterfeits/parodies only The North Face is very much in line. And it's probably a little more noteworthy/encyclopedic than the other examples, because this case is specific.

• Finally, if that weren't reason enough for this to warrant inclusion, parody is rare at all as a defense in commercial-use cases, all the moreso for trademark cases. That "The South Butt" is in the process of fighting, and has offered to sell the (seemingly) bad-faith trademark to its rightful owner, promises to make this a very notable case.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

--SeattleHiker (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• with inflation... 3 cents. A tiny company, no original products, a few kids with a website and a clever way to draw internet attention to itself... what is notable about it? If the case goes to court (unlikely) and the case is covered by The Real Press (unlikely)... then maybe it would be worth a mention.

Comments from any other editors??? Ratagonia (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As Ratagonia already said - it's notable if it's mentioned in real press - otherwise it's not for sure whether this is not just a gag to gain interest and clicks on the internet. -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"North Face" redirect vs. "The North Face"

Hi there! "North Face" is redirected to this article about a clothing company, which I think is not correct. "North Face" (as explained on the disambiguation page) refers to the most challenging face of a mountin on the northern hemisphere. This gave rise to the name for the clothing company! "The North Face" (with the article) may go directly to the clothing company, but NOT "North Face". I dont know how to change this, but I suggest this should be changed, so that "North Face" leads to a disambiguation page or directly to something like Great_north_faces_of_the_Alps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.211.3 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit with SouthButt-section

I think that keeping the section as far as it may become an informative section in the future. I don't see that it's nonsense that a section should be deleted with given references. -- ReneRomann (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is not germane at this point, per comments in Talk above. Was only one of several legitimate edits summarily reverted by you, an unacceptable approach. (You have summarily reverted *seven* edits of the last 50 on this page.) If the above topic ever becomes relevant, and receives consensus here on the Talk page, it can be appropriately reintroduced. Until that time, the running consensus is that it does not belong. Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How is mentioning that a business is engaged in a trademark lawsuit not relevant to the main article on that company? This lawsuit is especially noteworthy, because unlike Victoria's Secret suing Victor's Little Secret (which Victor won), the defendant's name "South Butt" does not sound remotely like the plaintiff's name "North Face," and is therefore clearly a frivolous lawsuit. The people who keep deleting this information must be employees of the North Face. The comments should be added back and North Face's censors should be banned from posting. Bostoner (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Made in China

Greetings,

I am planning to cite video evidence of the North Face retail store in Uptown Minneapolis selling products that are made in China. I am open to suggestions, thoughts, ideas, criticism etc. --HardwareHate (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what this would be good for. Anyhow it's well known, that TNF produces some of their products in China.

BUT: This can't lead to the point that every product with TNF trademark on it and being labeled as "Made in China" is authentic.

By the way: Many trademarks produce their products in Asian countries (like TNF does, same for Nike, Adidas, Puma...) -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Many trademark brand names have Wiki pages that address the fact that their products are manufactured in China, especially Nike. However, there are Wiki readers like me who may be under the impression that TNF products are Made in America (specifically San Leandro, CA) and become bewildered when, in fact, they are not. Authentic or not, any item made in China (or the like) with an "American" price tag should be clearly labeled and addressed. HardwareHate (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what's the deal. Are you to stupid to read the tags on the item that CLEARLY say "Made in China/El Salvador/Mexico/wherever"? It seems so as you did similar edits (I'd say vandalism edits because it's no deal if it's clearly marked - and it is on both, the original price tag and on the inside labels).

As an european customer, I'm wondering how dumb some americans can be if there are such tags on clothes that say "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE" or any (in my eyes stupid) care instructions for a microwave oven not to use that microwave oven to dry pets...

As I already said: TNF (and other brands) are manufacturing their products in Asia due to smaller production costs. This is widely known and this is no problem as long as the quality is not being dropped.

But the point that you want to emphasize is that any item made in China may be of poor quality. And this is definitely NOT the case. There are fakes around - which use cheapest materials and bad workmanship (e.g. only single-threaded seams instead of double or tripple stiching, using outer shell materials without any kind of water-resistand but breathable coating). And these fakes are the problem.

The "original" products fabricated in Asia use the same high-quality fabrics and workmanship that they'd do if being produced in the United States. Because the costs for the fabrics are the same, the only thing where such brands as TNF can save money are in loan costs. And these costs (especially the price for a worker in Asia doing sewing compared to the price for a worker doing the sewing in the US together with the price for the factory) are the only way to reduce the price for the items being produced.

And as far as the people are not willing to pay the actual price for an item being made in China, they're less willing to pay the price for an item being made in the USA. This in fact is the problem.

Please don't tell me that this is NOT a problem as I see enough people around that like this search for the cheapest item without looking for any kind of quality. And the brands are adressing the mass that like this "cheapest" price politics.

There are only few who are ready to pay 500 to 700 US-$ for a single jacket that'll last for the next 10 years, but the wide mass want's to have the same jacket for 50 US-$. And this CAN'T work.

P.S.: Before you post such nonsense that TNF-items aren't marked where they're produced, you may have a close look to both the TNF-hangtag (even from a faked jacket it's stated below the EAN price code, compare: [1]) and on the inside tags ([2]). There is a definite statement where the items' being made. -- ReneRomann (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said TNF products aren't marked where they're produced. All I'm asking for is the TNF Wiki page to address the fact that their authentic items are manufactured overseas. I was reading the TNF Wiki page and browsing their website before I decided to shop at the local TNF retailer which is when I saw the tags that read "Made in CHINA/TAIWAN etc." If it's true, it's widely known, and it's not a problem because the quality is the same, why not add it to the wiki page? Why does that offend you so much? I understand there is a language barrier here between you and I so if I say "thank you" and it comes across as "party with your dad's penis and choke" in German, I do apologize. I'm having a hard time understanding much of what you write, but I'm trying to work with you here. DO NOT PERSONALLY ATTACK ME. Thank you. HardwareHate (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange that despite the 'Net, instant comms., when Americans discover something heretofore unknown to them, they gotta believe it's unknown to everyone. It's true of our politicos, as anyone can see.

In fact, The North Face was founded during a period of intense enthusiasm by outdoorsy types for Chinese "duck down" as the premier insulator. After trade with China opened up in the early 70s, duck down became a commoner commodity, but my The North Face sleeping bag, c. 1971, is lined with duck down & set me back $50 back then. It's still comfy, but it's not any more labeled Made in China than the John Deere farm equipment is labeled Made in Belgium, although it is! BubbleDine (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Many TNF products are produced in South America as well, not just China. There are also some products that are produced in America . It seems that trying to mark every products distinction is not needed. Apriestofgix (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think where a companies products are made should be included as part of the basic information about any company that makes things. The fact that it's in China, or wherever, is not that important, unless (as alleged) the product has "Made in USA" on the label, and then if there's RS to support it, that fact should be included.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Death of founder

I recently added the death of North Face's founder, Douglas Tompkins to the History section but it was removed soon after by DASonnenfeld. Wanted to hear what what users thought about whether or not the content is notable enough to include. I mean he was the founder of the company, what I added was only a brief mention, and by no means was I pushing WP:MEMORIAL. Meatsgains (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Meatsgains, Thank you for your note and contributions to Wikipedia. Tompkins' death is covered well in the biographical article about him. The question here is, Does it tell the reader anything notable about the subject of this article, The North Face, Inc.? Even as short as it was, the sentence seemed out of place, especially given his long separation from the firm. Now if he had been CEO, active in the company and his death had thrown the firm into a successional dilemma, then yes, it could be relevant. But that was not the case. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Understandable. Because Tompkins was no longer associated with North Face (I just realized for awhile too) then it does not directly effect the company. Thanks for the response. Meatsgains (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Retail Store Information

The current store counts are outdated. Retail store count should be 63. Apriestofgix (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? Meatsgains (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Current TNF Employee as well as aggregating the stores here. https://www.thenorthface.com/utility/store-locator.html Apriestofgix (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Apriestofgix: Are you manually counting all 63 stores in the link you provided? Meatsgains (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What the North Face means

The only citation for what "The North Face" means is some generic statement about how the north face of mountains are generally the coldest, hardest, etc... and the notation goes to Thenorthface.com. This is nothing more than a self promotion and believe the line should be removed altogether due to lack of actual citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophex (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The North Face of a mountain is usually the hardest part to climb. Therefore the name is a call to that, and how TNF will help you conquer The North Face Apriestofgix (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's nothing but another marketing line Apriestofgix. Do you work for The North Face? "Generally speaking" does not indicate any facts, and citing the company website as a source (and not even any kind of direct link to anything on the website that explains the name) is just plain old advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophex (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The source is here, just click on the first link under the Company Background section. The company specifically explains "Why is the company called The North Face". Additional sources are not need to support this information. It is not marketing it is fact. Meatsgains (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

When did "Generally accepted" become synanymous with "fact"? Aerophex (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a fact because the company states that is why they are called The North Face. Its not that difficult. Meatsgains (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure it could be a marketing ploy, sure it could be any number of things. However TNF chooses to say that is their inspiration for their name. THAT much is fact. You can disagree with TNFs source material, but Wikipedia is not here to validate the validity of primary sources. If you have a problem with it, contact TNF. Apriestofgix (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. That is what sources say, so that is what we are to add. Meatsgains (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Could somebody change the headquarters from "[Alameda, California]" to "[Alameda], [California]" to direct both the city and state as separate articles? Along with the "[United States]" to "[United States|U.S.]"?

71.163.81.242 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Alameda is a DAB and Alameda, California is the specific target (WP:SPECIFICLINK). Also, United States shouldn't be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Eagle Mt. MN

I've removed unsourced statement that the name of the company was arrived at following a hike in Minnesota. According to Wikipedia the founder was focused on mountaineering around the time the company started. Eagle Mt. is a small hill. He had no apparent connection to Minnesota.

I don't know that the unsourced statement is untrue, but it intuitively seems unlikely and it lacks a source.

Badiacrushed (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

COI?

So, seeing as The North Face has apparently been editing their photos into several pages without COI disclosure, I was wondering if there was any evidence that this page was edited by them too? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just in case- I have tagged it due to my suspicions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an absolutely prudent thing to do. Jessamyn (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've got a lot of experience investigating COI and UPE and have reviewed all the page history. I don't see anything to indicate that this article has been edited by COI or UPE editors so will remove the template. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing

I added the controversy to the page after learning of it on the new and thinking it was relevant + had reputable sources. I think I will move the paragraph of the litigation there too next, as I think it is more relevant as a controversy than as "Reputed style accessory". It would be nice to have more opinions as to not be biased against the brand. I will not touch it further however until the news cycle goes off. jynus (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the added section is unencyclopedic and potentially unfair to The North Face. Realistically, this won't be of note or interest 10 years down the line; it might seem a bit petty to (seemingly) use our pull to 'retaliate' for an abuse of our system. I think the section in Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia should probably stay, but the paragraph here shouldn't. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the small size of the article that section was, in my view, UNDUE weight to the event. I have instead changed it to a see also section as I agree it does merit inclusion in the Conflifct-of-interest article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bkatcher: Can I ask why you reverted this without participating in this discussion? Best, Kevin (akaL235 · t · c) 22:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice the discussion. I think we need a couple of sentences in the main article, but I bow to the will over the voters. Bkatcher (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I had originally improved a citation in the removed material, but I do not object to its deletion, because WP:UNDUE may actually be a point here. Maybe a longer article can be written about The North Face, allowing for the existence of a small controversy section as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If this article were fully developed, it would be long enough that I'd say it'd be appropriate to add a sentence or two about the controversy. As it is, mentioning the controversy seems a little WP:UNDUE. But it's a bit of a catch-22, since if we withhold content because it'd be undue while the article is at this stage, it won't get beyond this stage anytime soon. So I'd lean toward including at least one short sentence about the COI editing, but not more than that. - Sdkb (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There are articles in The Guardian, BBC News, and the NYT; I think that most events with three such articles would merit at least a sentence or two. Docentation (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I continue to suggest that See Also allows readers who are interested in this issue to find more information while not tilting the balance of coverage here. We all care about Wikipedia, it's why we're here, but that doesn't mean that this brand's connection to Wikipedia deserves an outsized (UNDUE) place in coverage of the topic.Right now there are 16 sentences in the article. I continue to suggest it is UNDUE to give 11% of the article over to this tempest. This is a clearly notable company for which there is coverage of a variety of topics from highly reliable sources not included in this article right now. For instance all three of those organizations covered the death of founder Tompkins and at least the Guardian and NYT's writeups seem to have encyclopedic detail relevant to this article not included at the moment. When editing about Wikipedia all of us are connected contributors and so I think we should be extra cautious about when and where we include Wikipedia related content in articles nominally unrelated to the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

On topical balance: I don’t think that the present shortness of the article should prevent us from adding material, even if that temporarily gives undue weight to a particular story—otherwise, all edits would have to be very large! As for our connexion to Wikipedia, you are of course correct that we are not disinterested. But I still think that a story that appears in at least ten press articles including three in very mainstream sources would merit a mention in the body of the text. Is your stance that even in a long article two or three sentences would be to excessively cover the matter? Docentation (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Docentation See my response to Teratix below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the COI controversy that is currently on-going notable enough to be included in a "controversies" section of the article? --Hermit ^20xx 13:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Three articles in mainstream press merit at least a mention, especially considering how small the article is at present and the sparseness of sourcing overall. For example, consider the mention of armed robbery of the jackets, which gets two sentences despite only having a single supporting source, or the legal battle with The South Butt which has the same number of sources and yet has a full paragraph dedicated to it. If we were really to be consistent with the application of WP:DUE and remove mention of conflict-of-interest editing, then we would need to cut a significant portion of the rest of the article. – Teratix ₵ 13:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Point well taken. I removed the specific Washington robbery as a mention and added a second reliable source which discussed the trend in general - that article from the Cut likely also has a lot of other detail which could be incorporated into the article. I also added an article I found which mentions this same sort of thing happening 20ish years later in South Korea. This is my general point - there is a lot of coverage from reliable sources about this notable company that is not present at the moment in this article. While it could be argued that even in a well developed article that this Wikipedia contretemps would fail NOTNEWS, I wouldn't really care too much if it weren't for the UNDUE aspect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all extreme recentism. While Wikipedians love regurgitating the news of the day (especially when it's about Wikipedia), is this so important in the history of the company that it warrants its own devoted section? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, folks. And note that coat-rack sections titled "Controversy" likely violate NPOV, and are discouraged per WP:CRITS (an essay, but a damn good one). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Strangerpete: it may be correct to reinstate the section but consensus seems to be either a few sentences or a see also link as opposed to the big section which you restored; @David Gerard: presumably regardless of coverage in sources undue weight is still a consideration? (In this case I happen to agree that it is notable though, but the edit summary understandably doesn’t seem to consider this.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Docentation (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC) and @Strangerpete, David Gerard, and Docentation: SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This seens to me like a small blip in the history of a company. There's no way it should be given it's own section here per WEIGHT regardless of how many newspaper's history. I think it would fit best as a couple of sentences in the history section. See also should only be used temporarily and it is always better to give the reader a summary of what can be found by clicking through to the next article. SmartSE (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49's cut was so far that it literally doesn't say what happened. I've summarised considerably, but now a reader will know what's going on. I'd suggest this is making really quite a lot of RSes, and that material's going to be here for quite a while - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My cut wasn't doing anything more but restoring some version of it while we discuss this here - something I had done at length. So I am surprised to see my edit restoring that short form while we work towards consensus reverted. FWIW my thinking largely aligns with Smartse and so even if we do end up at "include" it should be with-in the history section rather than its own section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard You've been active on these pages so I will again ask why you feel, given this ongoing discussion with multiple editors expressing a range of opinions, entitled to make a substantial change to a section, and to then to reinstate these changes against my revert and repeated discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Because cutting it as much as you did was pretty clearly cutting it way too far, and especially at a time when a lot of people were specifically looking up The North Face on Wikipedia and would have been wondering about this precise event. We are, after all, here to be useful, and we're not in any way short of really high-quality independent third-party RSes on this matter - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever else you guys think about this can we at least avoid publishing versions of that section with typos due to wild-west cuts and edits? Whether it stays or goes, it still needs to be professional. --Ejl389 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel that a few sentences about advertising practices is well deserved given significant media coverage, which is an indication of general interest. Graywalls (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls is this an endorsement of the compromise reached here or a suggestion it's incorrect? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's undue at all. We could forget all together that it was about Wikipedia, and the advertising practices and ethical consideration makes this issue inclusion worthy on their own weight. The only way to really keep due/undue in balance for anything is to add things simultaneously, but that's not really consistently with the way we build articles bit by bit as materials come available. Graywalls (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed text

There seems to be loose consensus here to keep mention of the controversy as brief as possible, leaving more substantial coverage for the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia page. I propose that, rather than keeping it as a separate section, we fold it into the history section and make it a paragraph there, using something like the following for the text:

In May 2019, marketing agency Leo Burnett Tailor Made revealed that they had surreptitiously replaced photos of popular outdoor destinations on Wikipedia with photos featuring North Face products in an attempt to get these products to appear more prominently in search engine results. Following widespread media coverage and criticism from the Wikimedia Foundation, The North Face ended and apologized for the campaign, and the product placement was undone.

Even this much will be WP:UNDUE given that the history section is currently so short, but presumably as this article matures and the history section gets fleshed out, this level of detail will become appropriate in context. Thoughts, everyone? - Sdkb (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think any UNDUE is more that the rest of the history is lacking in notable third-party RS coverage. But that's about the right length of para for this. I think the present text is fine, though - yours cuts more than needs to be cut I think. It's important to keep in mind that there is, for this event, considerable high quality third-party RS coverage - this is actually an important event, if we judge by RS coverage, and that coverage won't go away. If other events overtake it, they can get covered like this in due course. But this appears, from the RS evidence, to actually be a remarkable and noteworthy thing that just happened. If it turns out not to be in a year, we can pump up other stuff to compensate - but I don't see why we should hobble an article that a lot of people are looking at, and you can bet they specifically expect to be informed of this precise event - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• I can support this text as a compromise with it belonging in the history rather than its own section (given concerns about UNDUE and WP:CRITS). I disagree that the reason the history section is short is because of a lack of RS - there are plenty of RS out there to cover the company's history as a whole. I've called out three of them in this discussion, inserted one of them in the article, and found others while browsing around the topic to make sure I wasn't off base with my UNDUE concerns.
  The idea that there is are a lot of readers coming to this article now is a fair one - that's why we should make it easy for them to find more complete coverage at Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#The_North_Face. We are not trying to write a newspaper we're trying to write an encyclopedia and so making sure that our coverage will be enduring - because as this article shows the insertion of an event in the news can linger a long time (see the Washington DC robbery).
  I will say on the "it's getting a lot of attention now" topic that I think it's all the more reason for us to give this appropriate weight. it really bothers me that we've repeatedly expanded coverage which goes against whatever consensus there has been in this discussion. I am outraged by North Face's actions. My outrage doesn't mean shit in terms of what we should be writing an enecylopedia. It bears remembering that basically all of us are connected contributors in this case and so we cannot let our own (justifiable) emotions drive coverage or try to get our readers to understand our outrage. We should, instead, be endeavoring to write a neutral long-lasting article on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "I've called out three of them in this discussion, inserted one of them in the article" - right, so the actual answer is to add the stuff you found, not arbitrarily cut other stuff that's excellently-sourced because you feel it has too many words, or could hypothetically be covered somewhere else in the future - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  David, I'm somewhat frustrated by these responses here. From what I can see, Barkeep has argued (and I agree) that the article in its current state violates UNDUE, a part of NPOV, one of our core content policies. You don't seem to substantially disagree. He's also made an edit to bring the article to an NPOV-compliant state. People here have reverted that edit, restoring the NPOV-noncompliant article. Instead of backing up the edits to give due weight, now you're saying that the only way Barkeep should address the NPOV problems is by himself expanding the rest of an article that presumably he doesn't have the time, energy, and willingness to work on (otherwise, presumably he would have already). That's not how it works – he's a volunteer as much as we are, and right now, the presence of the significant section on the Wikipedia controversy is not NPOV-compliant, as most participants on this talk page seem to agree. We don't get to say that something is fine because we're giving it due weight if we imagine that there's a lot more content on the page. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with the removal of content this well-sourced, as I've noted. I feel the removal is not appropriate. Barkeep claimed there was sourcing for more content; the correct move would indeed then to be to add this claimed content, not to arbitrarily remove well-sourced content while failing to add the content he was claiming there were sources for. And the removal does seem arbitrary, particularly in the circumstances - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think you're mixing up two things I'm saying. Let me attempt to clarify. Thing 1: I am saying that right now I think coverage of this incident is UNDUE owing to the fact that the article is a Start Class article. Thing 2: If the article were more fully developed I would suggest that Sdkb's wording would be correct coverage. So as a compromise I can get behind inclusion of that now in the history section but my first choice remains thing 1. As L235 accurately hypothesizes, as a volunteer I'm uninterested in doing major content creation in this article beyond the better sourcing for the robbery contention I already did . But this in no way undercuts my policy based concerns about what inclusion of the information means. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and implement my proposed text, since the prevailing consensus seems to be that the current text is too much, and since my proposed text has at least been aired here whereas the text in the article does not appear to have any consensus behind it. I think the issue of how to approach WP:UNDUE in less-developed articles is something that merits more general discussion, so I plan to bring it up at the village pump or somewhere when I get a chance. In the meantime, I'd encourage any editors with the inclination to do so to work on expanding the non-Wikipedia controversy parts of this page, as the more content is added there, the less unbalanced the controversy stuff will be in proportion. - Sdkb (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sdkb that looks good to me. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at the pump on the broader issue is here if any of you want to participate. - Sdkb (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is fine. I've added Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#The North Face as a see-also, for the readers coming to this article specifically for this - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That is already linked in the text so shouldn't be in see also per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct! Removed - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The current version looks great to me. Vermont (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that this approach is optimal. A whole section was clearly excessive, but some coverage is a good idea. Docentation (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

[ Just a note that Slate published a piece about this page today which quotes myself, David Gerard, and L235. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

that's a great article! Good thing we were all on our best behaviour ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to a computer right now, but someone should add the Template:Press tag to this talk page. Sdkb (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Separate article on the kerfluffle

Okay, I know that this is a bit far-fetched, but considering post-incident coverage from Slate, PR Week, AdAge, etc, not including the coverage already mentioned above - would this be notable enough for its own article? Juxlos (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe? I'd prefer to see coverage in a longer time-frame than 2 weeks later to demonstrate sustained coverage or some indication that it needs a spin-out from Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#The_North_Face which has, rightly, the far more extensive coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

yeah, put it over there if it's worth adding! - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Founding Date

Hi Everyone,

The North Face was actually founded in 1966, not 1968. Source - TNF Employee and it's also on our website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan5499 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Jordan5499, did the SF Chronicle get the date wrong or does the company simply consider its founding as of its purchase by Klopp. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

Change Prince George County, Virginia to Prince George's County, Maryland.

The referenced Washington Times article (16) cited describes the location of the incident as "Prince George's County" which is in Maryland, and mentions locations like "Capitol Heights" which are in Prince George's County, Maryland. There is no "Prince George's County" in Virginia. 73.128.146.38 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done SpinningCeres 00:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

“Flexible tent poles”

I’ve seen on wiki that Doug Tompkins is credited with designing TNF’s tents using flexible tent poles. In fact, TNFs dome tents, featuring flexible tent poles, were designed by me (Mark Erickson) and Bruce Hamilton and introduced in 1974-5, long after Tompkins’ involvement . 2601:643:8400:9E50:10C8:D87E:B499:61B6 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Uyghurs

How is it possible that No one even mentionned the fact that TNF is deeply involved in using Uyghurs for the making of their products? DesertMaus (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.saveuighur.org/83-companies-linked-to-uighur-forced-labor/ https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-83-major-brands-implicated-in-report-on-forced-labour-of-ethnic-minorities-from-xinjiang-assigned-to-factories-across-provinces-includes-company-responses/ https://actions.sumofus.org/a/just-don-t-do-it DesertMaus (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing redux

@Anarchyte: given the fairly extensive discussion at Talk:The North Face#Wikipedia editing it would only be prudent to maintain the status quo ante until there is some opportunity for further discussion (including of the suggestions above). I’ve therefore reverted, which is not to say that I’ve a firm opinion either way. Docentation (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen the linked discussion. Thanks for letting me know.

I've had a read through and from my understanding, there was at best a very weak consensus to include it. We can now look at it from a four-year-on perspective, and in my opinion this is now (and arguably back then) completely undue. There is not a single article post May 2019 covering the topic and the entire issue boils down to "company tries advertising product; it backfires". We (correctly) don't cover Burger King's OK Google controversy at all, and that's a comparably poorly received advertising campaign. Anarchyte (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, but I’ll ping those from the discussion above who might think differently: @David Gerard, @Sdkb. Docentation (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the scourge of creating inappropriate controversy sections has struck this article. Everything there should be merged into the history section, and there certainly should not be subsections on each individual incident.

The debate in my mind is between having one sentence vs. nothing, with my view hinging on how often The North Face comes up in the news. There certainly hasn't been any enduring coverage, but then again, no one has written a history of the company since 2019 in which it would come up or not, and it did get quite a lot of coverage at the time (e.g. NY Times; it's still the top Google result for Times coverage of the company). The existence of coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia that we can link to is also a small factor in favor of some sort of mention.

A one-sentence mention might look something like this: In 2019, The North Face faced consumer backlash and apologized after its marketing agency surreptitiously added photos featuring its apparel to Wikipedia articles on popular outdoor destinations.

I'd also recommend that whatever we go with, we include a hidden comment to try to stem the pressure toward overcoverage in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think your proposed sentence would be suitable. Would also be better to merge it into the history section. Anarchyte (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there’s consensus here so I’ll make the change now. Docentation (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So I'm not sure it warrants great coverage, but it's a thing that happened and got quite a bit of coverage, and I think rates at least slight mention - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

specifically I think it's OK as is, though if others want to cut it down I won't object particularly - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Outdoor Gear history

• outdoorinov8.com
• Compass: Charting the Evolution of Outdoor Gear
• https://web.archive.org/web/20180207171632/http://www.outdoorinov8.com/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20141008221022/http://www.inov8.au.com/compass/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20120502091817/http://homepage.mac.com/inov8/Compass/
• The History of American Backpacking Gear Pioneers 1935 to the Present at oregonphotos.com

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

This paragraph is repeated, remove the duplicate:

On 15 November 1967, for "Rite of Winter", Steve Miller Blues Band and Jesse Fuller, played, at the Old Stanford Barn, to celebrate, the opening of the second store in the Old Stanford Barn,[10] near the Stanford Shopping Center, near Stanford University.[11] Majortony866 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It seems that that is not really repeated; either someone committed subtle vandalism, or that is correct. Shadow311 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Breadman10 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JAVermont.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)