Talk:Lonely (fashion label)

Time to start a controversies section?

Hi all, after the work by David Farrier and Zoe Walker Ahwa, I think it is time to set up this section and record some of what was said in the article. Realitylink (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that the stuff that has come out today needs to be capture, looking at the update now, way to much has been added that it's taken over the article. Unless someone else wants to edit it, I might have a look later when I can but it needs to be edited down! It doesn't need all the extra information like peoples quotes. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 05:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tried to just present what does seem to have some justification but have no issue if some of the direct quotes are removed or re-worded. I would just add, that it has taken over the article because it barely existed! Does it possibly mean that this is not really notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article? Let's see what comes out of discussing the piece in the magazine. I certainly don't think this is a 'looking at both sides' thing; they have been pretty explicit about the conspiracy theories and related stuff and probably need to acknowledge that they have spread misinformation that could have had harmful outcomes. Thanks for coming to the Talk page. It is important for us editors to do this more often. Realitylink (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the page didn't have much original and I also wondered if it actually is notable and if should Prod it. I do agree it's not a both sides thing when publicly posted stuff and backed up by a number of people. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to put it up for deletion, I don't think the company is notable. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 08:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if anybody is able to improve the page. Realitylink (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I specifically registered to respond about this specific topic because I find it genuinely dangerous to the drama-free zone of Wikipedia. I want to preface with these statements: I am not as familiar with Wikipedia protocol as you are, conspiracy theories are bad news, science is truth, and a significant portion of the world is currently down-spiraling. I wish to understand how the article as it is exists with the The Five Pillars of Wikipedia as outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines

How is this article "written from a neutral point of view," from my own experience how is it that "anyone can use, edit, and distribute," and I was genuinely called a dick by another editor so also "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility" is being mentioned even, and "Wikipedia has no firm rules." But honestly it's just been a really weird occurrence for me and I want to focus on: How is this article "written from a neutral point of view," as in how does this article not contribute to the massive amount of internet drama, and how does it help provide a safe place for a neutral perspective? Why is it, here, on Wikipedia, so important to leverage this perceptive? Again: I've regifted and posted here in order to have a reasonable conversation this. My intention is to be reasonable and to be frank the interests of this company do not concern me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInternetPandemic (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think the section could be cut down if the page survives, however I can not support significant content removal by a WP:Single-purpose account that clearly has a bone to pick. For that reason I will revert your edit and await consensus.--Pokelova (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say this is a single-purpose account. It is accurate to say this is my first interaction with the Wikipedia community. It is inaccurate to say that I have a bone to pick. It is accurate to say that my interaction with the Wikipedia community has not been favorable.

The edits made will be explained here:

1) Screenshots of founder Steve Fergusson's personal Facebook page appeared to support conspiracy theories about climate change, that Jacinda Ardern is a "transsexual elite cabalist" and that the Christchurch terror attacks was a false flag planned by Ardern. When questioned about these posts, Helene Morris, claimed that Fergusson's page had been "hacked...[and he]...has since deleted it."

This is ad hominem.

2) Morris said that she and Fergusson didn't fully support the lockdown for COVID-19, but that the company had nothing to do with their personal views.

This is redundant.

3) A co-founder of the business and former head of marketing, said that on many occasions she had raised issues with the owners about what she said was "an incredibly toxic work environment...[and how she saw staff, including herself]... bullied, manipulated and abused."

This will be be reinserted for the sake of attempting to satisfy the Wikipedia community.

4) Several of the staff expressed their concerns that the owners were not taking COVID seriously, and in spite of raising issues of health and safety, there was little response that could assure them of the safety of people coming into their stores or the people working there. Staff were told that there was no need for customers to sign in as it was a "breach of their privacy." Staff were also informed that there was no need for them to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), and hand sanitizer was removed from a store. In June 2020, thirteen staff members signed a letter to Fergusson and Morris expressing their concerns. Staff received a reply from the owners that said they took the concerns seriously but acknowledged there may have been a lack of clarity around social distancing and they were looking to nominate a health and safety representative.

Here the second edited part is repeated. This is simply inflated and can be made concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInternetPandemic (talk • contribs) 10:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Your account was created with the sole purpose of editing this article, from an IP that has only edited this article. Poorly, I might add. I'd say that fits the bill. What you said is ad hominem is not ad hominem and what you said is redundant is not redundant. I will revert you again.--Pokelova (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I said I specifically made this account in response to this specific article, which does not mean I made this account solely for this. I consider it redundant for the COVID problem to appear in two sections. I do not see how referring to the private social media account of the owner could not be seen as ad hominem.

You guys have more gas for this than me, I'll give you that. I immediately began by saying who I was and that I wanted to work within reason, but that has not proven itself possible. I do not wish to devote myself to this any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6789:D600:7830:211E:5356:E434 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, there are two things going on here. The section I wrote about the Farrier article probably did need more editing and perhaps not a section on its own. I had no issues with the changes that were made. Just a couple of things on that from my perspective though. I think the article had enough reasonable 'evidence' that the views of the owners were at the very least, controversial, and possibly dangerous. As for the ad hominem thing, I didn't feel that it was directed against a person - don't we have to own our social media posts? - more I felt, directed at the 'position' held, and in this article that was as an influencer in the world of fashion and employer. That does carry social responsibility with it, and I felt this needed to be recorded. Potential controversy is touched on earlier in the page with the references to self-injury scars so noting that the owners hold conspiratorial views is not that far out of alignment with what was happening in the page. It wasn't intentional, but it just happened that the owners had the last 'word' in a sense in what I posted! That was stated, not questioned. I didn't see what I put as a discussion piece per se; it was nothing more than stating a concept that seemed legitimately presented in the Farrier article. I stand to be corrected on that though, so no problem. The second thing is whether the whole page should even be there. It runs close to being advertising - possibly not totally at that point - but does begin to unpack some of the philosophy behind the brand. The section I added highlighted just showed how little else there was on the page. Realitylink (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the reasonable reply, Realitylink. I want to make clear that what happened was I heard about the article, went to Wikipedia, and was disappointed to find the Wikipedia page a regurgitation of the article. Both you, Realitylink, and NZFC have been dubious about the nature of this section in general, though its deletion was votoed owing to a Wikipedia contributor having written a Forbes article referenced in an earlier segment. This just really shouldn't be the feeling coming from Wikipedia. Again, from the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, discussed in their policies and guidelines, does this section posses what is to me the most important pillar: "written from a neutral point of view." It should be noted that at all times the article is linked in the reference section: Wikipedia should be the place of neutrality. It should be, because otherwise it's just like the rest of the internet. This isn't my first time making edits at Wikipedia it's just my first time experiencing this type of behavior. As I said, I am not making further attempts to edit the section owing to the degree of intensity it entails. That intensity does not need to exist at Wikipedia either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInternetPandemic (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I won't do any more editing on the page as I guess the decision needs to be made if it stays or not. If it stays, my thinking is that there still needs to be a Controversy section - not to create negativity, more to just state stance/ positions if you like, that a subject of the article stands for. And I am talking about the 'brand' here. A controversy section should probably include the earlier mentioned points and what I added, radically edited to a couple of sentences. I tried to monitor my bias and stick to what the article said (with, as noted above) some evidence, but take the point that it was too long. What do others think? A final thought from me...the brand does trade on a profile that is somewhat contentious, so isn't it good that this is just stated and referenced? Conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are both challenged on Wikipedia. The brand's image does situate itself in these areas...If the page stays with those shortened items re controversies, where does it go in terms of being improved? That is really the big question I reckon. Not sure who makes the decision. Realitylink (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A brand? Contentious? Does the word "neutral" signify nothing? It took me a minute, in front of everyone, to realize this is a heavily codified community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:C144:BB00:4D19:770E:3A62:3B90 (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems there is no consensus so far with regard to the page possibly being deleted. In the interests of arriving at a decision, I will edit my post under the heading Controversy as because of its volume it may be a distraction from focusing on whether or not the topic meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability to warrant its own article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability My point is that, regardless of what I added, the article per se needs to be considered. I will also remove the section heading Controversy at this stage. If the page is retained, it may be appropriate to reinstate that heading to include the issues raised in the journal article and the two preceding items about self-harm and body image. If retained, the article needs to be improved. At the moment it is mostly an advertisement, with the only substance ironically being the controversial aspects, which sit, I would suggest, uncomfortably under the section headed Brand values and principles. I offer these ideas in good faith. Realitylink 20:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)