Talk:Kiini

Neutrality

The article, as of this version, is written with a presumption of guilt against Ms Irgit even though, as far as I can tell from the sources, Ms Ferrarini has not yet won her case against Ms Irgit. For neutrality, I propose to rewrite the article without any presumption of guilt on any part. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no "presumption of guilt against Irgit", the article is a reflection of the sources. If you feel that its unbalanced or missing something, you should definitely contribute to the entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, when you said a rewrite, you meant it. I think you've removed a lot of important content with this edit. If you'd done it piecemeal it would be easier to adjust. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bangabandhu: Yes, when I said the article had a problem with neutrality, I wasn't kidding. Despite your claims that "there's no 'presumption of guilt'", the lead sentence Turkish American entrepreneur Ipek Irgit took the idea of the swimwear during a visit to Brazil and claimed copyright on the design. is a de facto presumption of guilt. While this allegation is the central point of Ferrarini's lawsuit against Irgit, the fact that the lawsuit has not yet been decided indicates that we cannot state this as a fact. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's no longer the lead sentence. The one you highlight is supported by the reference. From the source, there's no doubt that she took the idea from a "striking bikini" she purchased in Brazil on vacation. What's in dispute is if she violated copyright.Bangabandhu (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that The New York Times believes that she took the idea. And I suspect the courts will probably agree. But until they actually do agree, I would not call the matter settled. At best, we can say that The New York Times reports that she took it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to caveat everything reported in the NYT with NYT reports. That's the whole point of references. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Level of detail

I think this is too detailed - Sally Wu, a colleague of Irgit's in the production of the kiini, told The New York Times that Irgit feared that the discovery process of those lawsuits would reveal that Irgit had not actually designed the kiini. (Irgit denies Wu's claim.) The discovery process never proceeded, and Irgit and Victoria's Secret settled their suit out of court. I could be convinced that it belongs, but I don't think the entry should get into that level of detail. It's not a newspaper article and there are references for readers who want to learn more. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The level of detail is needed to indicate the nature of the allegations against Irgit. Since lawsuits are still pending, it is necessary to detail why the allegations have arisen and to detail (for neutrality) that Irgit denies the claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think its possible to fairly represent the competing claims without detailing the minutiae of discovery. The entry doesn't need to introduce Wu, what she said during her subpoena, etc. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Trademarks and Facts

The current state of the article indicates that "The Kiini" is a design that was created by Maria Solange Ferrarini. The articles cited do not reflect this notion, nor do trademark filings or copyright filings.

Kiini is a trademark, and company name, not a design. The origin of the crocheted bikini designs sold by Kiini (the company) are currently under dispute in the courts.

It is worth noting that Maria Solange Ferrarini's copyright was only filed in June of 2018, under her own name: Ferrarini Bikini. She has never referred to her designs under the name Kiini, and the only crocheted bikinis sold in the world known as a "kiini" bikini, are sold by Kiini (the company).

The lead section and entire premise surrounding the content on this page is extremely misrepresentative of these facts. My recent edits were for the sake of neutrality and to indicate that Kiini itself is a company and a trademark. The article alleges that "The Kiini" is a design, owned by Ferrarini, which is inaccurate. The origin of the designs themselves are currently under litigation, and have not been ruled on, which is why it makes sense to reference these cases on the page.

That said, I feel that this misrepresentation of what "Kiini" actually is presents a problematic bias, presumes guilt, and actually ignores the reality of the trademarks and copyrights owned by the respective parties. Alexslater86 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about how you're interepreting the sources? You're right that there is a company called Kiini, (actually, Kiini LLC) founded by Ipek. There's also the crocheted swimwear - that's the subject of this article. The LLC is, itself, not notable. But the swimwear - created by Ferragini - is. The article does and should reflect that. Your comments make me think that the article should make a stronger distinction between the two. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, here are some important references, "The lawsuit involves a bikini sold by Kiini, a brand that was brought to market in June 2013 by Ipek Irgit." "Some people took to Instagram to register criticism of Kiini after the lawsuit drew attention."

"In June 2013, Kiini had its launch party at a buzzy restaurant owned by Mr. Becker." "A year later, in April 2018, Kiini filed another federal lawsuit, this time in the Southern District of New York, against Neiman Marcus and two swimwear companies." "Kiini’s litigiousness brought Ms. Irgit unwanted attention..."

There are dozens more, but I'm pulling quotes from the articles you used as the foundation of this page. The subject of the articles is in fact the company, and Ipek Irgit by proxy, telling a story of how a design may or may not have been taken, repurposed, popularized etc. The article alleges that the original designer is Maria Solange Ferrarini, though she has never referred to them as a/the "Kiini." Kiini has always been a trademark of the company/founder of Kiini LLC, and the name and term was popularized by said company/founder.

It's very clear that this Wiki article misrepresents what "Kiini" actually is, because the subjects in the sources are overwhelmingly "Kiini" the company, with few references to the design under that name. When the design is referred to as "a Kiini" or "the Kiini," it is solely in the context and paradigm of "A bikini produced by Kiini [the company]," similar to how one might ask "Did you bring the Taco Bell?" to a friend, referring to the food made by the company of the same name, in this case.

In all of the legal documentation available online (please do a search as they cannot be hotlinked), Ferrarini's design is referred to as "Ferrarini Bikini" and not "Kiini," nor would she ever refer to her design as such. She has never claimed the name or term and in fact distances herself from it and the founder of Kiini (noted throughout the articles). Another notable quote, "On the elastic, in marker, was a phone number, the words “Trancoso, B.A.” and the signature of Solange Ferrarini." Ferrarini clearly has always branded her designs under her name, not Kiini, and her copyright was only filed for a year ago.

Furthermore, you can do a search for "Kiini lookalikes" and variations on the term, which was coined by Irgit and has only been used to refer to crocheted bikini designs since Kiini's (the company) entry to the marketplace. If your intent in creating this article was to shed light on the situation, referring to "Kiini" as a design and not a business entity/trademark, and then misattributing it by name to Maria Solange Ferrarini is simply not accurate. Any deeper inspection into the matter will reveal that.

This article would be better served under Ferrarini's copyright filing name, "Ferrarini Bikini," and much of the content within the article would be relevant there. "Kiini" simply is not a design nor is it used to refer to a general design concept beyond the items sold by Kiini LLC, it is a company and trademark, and this article misconstrues these facts.Alexslater86 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

In the examples above, all relevant, they're referencing Kiini LLC, the company, not the crocheted bikini. Its not the swimwear that was having the party or suing lookalikes, but the company Kiini LLC. The article is about the crocheted bikini, of which the Kiini LLC version is one version and not the first.

Its not quite equivalent to Taco Bell, its more like someone saying, do you have a xerox? That could refer to the Xerox-branded photocopier, or just any photocopier. There's similar ambiguity over "google" which is synonymous with searching on the internet, but could also refer to the company.

I think there are a few ways forward with the page. It could be renamed "crocheted bikini" or "crocheted swimwear" with a discussion of the various versions and their origin. Kiini and Kiini LLC could redirect there. Another, perhaps extreme option would be to delete the page entirely. Keeping it could require a level of wordsmithing and legal detail that I don't think its in the best interest of my or other editors time. I'm open to other alternatives. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I honestly feel that given the facts of the matter, and content, this page should not be attributed to "Kiini." If you feel it has a place on Wikipedia, moving it to "crocheted bikini" is also a steep challenge because this concept has been around for decades. Kiini's concept was not the first, but Ferrarini's take was not the first either. Given the whole ambiguity and one-sidedness of the articles as well (e.g. glossing over the status of proceedings, little to no substantiation made public by Rosman, etc.), it's a challenge to do each side justice. I believe the page should be deleted in light of all of these realities, and the potential harm it does to both entities. How do we go about this? Alexslater86 (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a tedious process. Check WP:AFD Bangabandhu (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As the original author, can you not nominate it for speedy deletion given the conversation we've had thus far? Does it need to go through further discussion?Alexslater86 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If I were going to invest more time in this, it would be changing it to "crocheted bikini" or something similar. I'm still hopeful that another editor might weigh in.Bangabandhu (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interim, leaving it as is does a disservice to both Ferrarini (whom the existing article aims to attribute the most credit and shine the best light on) and Kiini the company, regardless of your views on whether or not they are culpable for what the NY Times et al allege, because one simply cannot create an equivalency between the word "Kiini" and "crochet bikinis," which the article does. I am happy to help with editing, but I strongly feel that given the details delineated above the page is more damaging/misrepresentative than it is informational. I'd also be amiss if I didn't indicate—of course this is not an attack on your work with the original conception of the page, rather it is a critique of what this page consists up in light of the parties and facts involved. Alexslater86 (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to delete the page, you should take the steps to make that happen. I won't contest it. If you want to edit the page, I support changing it to "crocheted bikini" and discussing the competing versions and claims. Other editors may have different views. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite. There's no point in discussing deletion here, because it will not lead to any action. If you think this should be deleted, rather than renamed or some other action that doesn't involve an administrator, just create a deletion discussion following the procedure described at WP:AFD and put your comments there. If you find it difficult to create a deletion discussion then I am happy to do so for you - my only involvement here has been to recognise that this is not an uncontroversial deletion candidate as required for deletion via WP:PROD without discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References