Talk:Coco Chanel

message: I updated the depiction in song section to list Ana Silvera as the singer of Notes from the Opera instead of Annabelle Silvertree who doesn't appear to be an actual singer.  I also updated the youtube link to a link to Ana Silvera's song Notes from the Opera. 
However, listening to the song I'm not sure it is inspired by Chanel's life (as this article states and the Ana Silvera article states).  The song mentions Chanel fashions, but the character in the song doesn't wear Chanel, because it reminds her of her lover's mother.  
I don't know anything about this page, but was reading about Chanel and saw this problem so thought I would fix what I could.   Hope it helps.
Tdferro (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depiction in Song 

message: The Nickname Coco came from her Father because he used to Wake her up screaming "KO-KO-RI-KO and was signing  Qui qu'a vue COCO, COCO? and along came her famous nickname.
:Cocorico is the French equivalent of cock-a-doodle-doo.<BR><B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: some say it was a respectable form of 'cocotte' - per her Times obit. There are several stories 94.197.144.46 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Coco' nickname 

message: The entry states that the German lover she had during WWII was an intelligence agent, but it's unclear whether he was a member of the German intelligence services or worked for the Allies. Its also unclear whether she was aware of this or not. It would be good to clarify. patrickw 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German officer as lover 

message: Did she not design Nazi and SS uniforms? I was told this by a 'historical clothes dealer' -max rspct 14:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Third Reich]] uniforms 

message: Which "Duke of Westminster" was she linked to? The article on this title indicates more than one man held it during her lifetime. I was trying to find out so that I could clarify it in the articles on Wendy and Emery Reves, who later bought a villa the Duke had built for Chanel. Lawikitejana 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Duke of Westminster" unclear 

message: From the research I have found it can be said that she was never in a orphanage and was raised by two aunts in auvergne. From these aunts is where she learned her talent, not from a catholic monastary.
:Please feel free to go right ahead and divulge sources for that research you did.2604:2000:C682:B600:7D2E:4F68:5270:F31E (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates and Orphanage

message: Why is "I am Coco Chanel" remotely interesting as a quote? 86.136.252.60 16:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also "I love myself" seems unlikely? we know you love yourself Sounds like a bit of a dig at her 130.246.132.26 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I removed the insanely large list of quotes, and copied them to wikiquotes. I left the top three. If anyone thinks there should be other quotes on this page, that's fine, but I don't think there should be more than three. risk 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Quotes to Wikiquotes 

message: If Coco was born in 1883, and her sister in 1882, her parents having married in 1880, then how would this make the girls illegitimate? Perhaps the parents married in 1890? Sharkford 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegitimate? 

message: What on earth has happened to the content of this page?  Despite my relative lack of knowledge about Chanel, even I know this is not the correct biography.
Ingvar 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: "In 1913 she opened up her very first shop which sold a range of fashionable raincoats and jackets. Situated in the heart of Brittany it wasn't long before the shop went out of business.With the aid of Balsan and another rich lover Arthur "Boy" Capel (d. 21 December 1919 in a motor accident), Coco was able to acquire the property and financial backing to open her second millinery shop in Deauville. Her hats were worn by celebrated French actresses, which helped to establish her reputation. Chanel introduced in 1913 women’s sportswear at her new boutique in Deauville, France, in the Rue Gounaut-Biron; Martkhe, Countess de Gounaut-Biron, (daughter of American diplomat John George Alexander Leishman) was Chanel's first aristocratic client."
1st shop in 1913 in Brittany.  where in brittany?...a sizeable region.
2nd shop in deauville (but no date of opening)
back to "introduced in 1913...at new boutique in deauville"
doesn't make sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disjointed flow on 1st and 2nd shop 

message: article indicates that little black dress premeired in 3rd-ever edition of playboy.  thus, sometime in the 50s?
3rd issue? or 3rd year?--68.173.2.68 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  need date for "premeire" of little black dress 

message: article indicates her return to fashion world in 1954 was not accepted by Parisians, but that the French applauded her and bought her designs. 
seems disjointed.  difficult to imagine that rest of france was all over her stuff but the parisians snubbed.
recasting of section needed by someone with better knowledge/sources than i.
--68.173.2.68 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  later years 

message: bottom of references indicates
"Maurice Raspberry of saint Louis Missouri and Breon Brown are the official Chanel Models. Kareemah Moment is the Midwest Chanel CEO"
what's this doing in references?  what's it trying to say?--68.173.2.68 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  oddity in "references" 

message: Questions--as I understand it, the Wertheimer family 'owned' Chanel lock and stock; therefore some business history might be an important addition rather than stating blandly that she was 'wealthy.'  As for the German officer, and I always thought it was Walter Schellenberg, so who is Dincklage?  I understand he was a military attache in the German Embassy, which isn't necessarily being a spy.  Since the French government accommodated the German forces in a corridor through France to the Channel ports to guard against a British attack, and Paris was an 'open city,' for whom and on whom would Dincklage have been 'spying'?  The Bolshevik terrorists in Paris who took over and arrested Chanel after the Allies occupied the city? If so, would that be 'spying' or 'Intelligence'?  And in para. 1, who was married to 5 different men?  German officers and officials stayed at the Ritz, but management was in charge of the hotel, with a philosophy, being French, of whoever can pay can stay.  So please clarify why a world renowned French woman in a residential suite at a world renowned French hotel would have any need whatever for 'protection.'  From whom?  72.81.97.152 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As to 'protection,' Chanel was widely known as a collaborator and notorious collaborator Philippe Henriot, a broadcaster on German-controlled Radio Paris during the Occupation, was assasinated in 1944 by members of the French Resistance.<BR><B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections/Additions 

message: ::I have seen her birth year given as 1882. Which is correct?--jeanne (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to her birth certificatehttp://www.genealogiedelouest.com/wa_files/N_20CHASNEL_20Gabrielle_20dite_20Coco_20le_2019_20ao_C3_BBt_201883_20Saumur_2049.JPG she was born in <I>"L'an mil huit cent quatre-vingt-trois,"</I> which is to say the year 1883. (Eighty in French is four [times] twenty, so [one] thousand eight hundred eighty-three.)<BR><B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 1883 or 1882?

message: The article on suntans says that suntans first became fashionable because of her, and I saw the same claim on a radio program recently, but it is mentioned nowhere in this article.--69.149.227.173 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard the same claim as well:  -- Beland (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mention of suntans? 

message: According to the book "Chanel and her world" by Edmonde Charles Roux, the Father was Albert Chanel (With no S). Gabrielle Chanel's birth certificate appears with an "S". Also, the birth certificate shows she was born on AUGUST 20 1883 at 4am.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctc1980 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of her father is Henri-Albert Chasnel, here is her birth certificate , there is no mistake or literal error. Therefore is her real name Gabrielle Chasnel! Also the name "Bonheur" does nowhere exist. --193.154.12.69 (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The spelling discrepancy on the birth certificate is discussed in the article. Multiple sources including many pre-Wikipedia sources cite Bonheur as her middle name, which she clearly assumed. Just because it isn't on her birth certificate does not give you carte blanche to delete it. Also, do not change widely accepted, widely-known spellings in ledes. She called herself Chanel, not Chasnel. It doesn't matter whether her birth certificate says Chasnel, Chanel, or Cha-Cha Nelly. She was Chanel, and she made it extremely clear what name she wanted to be known as. End of story. Mabalu (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear 193.154.12.69: Two things: First: Even if we accept the idea that a spelling-error (or typo, or transcription-error) on a birth-certificate is "binding", (meaning that in SOME sense HER "real" name was "Chasnel",) it wouldn't be retroactively binding to change her FATHER's name. Unless you have her FATHER's birth-certificate showing that they wrote "Chasnel" as HIS last name, you've no business asserting that her FATHER's name was "Chasnel" if your theory is "the birth-certificate is binding". Second: People will SEEK this article using "Chanel". So that's what the title of the article needs to be.2604:2000:C682:B600:7D2E:4F68:5270:F31E (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanel/Chasnel 

message: Before the 1920's, sun tans were thought of as being something only the lower classes did. Then Coco accidentally got a suntan and it caught on like wildfire. To this day, the fad of suntanning is alive and well, even though prior to Coco it was thought of as being completely tasteless. Maybe this fact does not deserve a mention, but it seems important enough to include in the article to me.  See the wikicode for the references to this: The refs immediately preceding this sentence are fully formatted and should be adequate for the addition of her starting the suntan fad. Please feel free to add this to the article if you think it worthwhile of including. Unfortunately, I'm about to head out on long term leave and so cannot edit the article myself. — Eric Herboso 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun tanning 

message: The citations attributed to "Tilar" should be corrected to read "Mazzeo," because it is the custom to cite the author's family name, not given name.HIM Nguyen (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All done.
Cite #26 (Mazzeo.) needs a page number.  A future task.HIM Nguyen (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazzeo, Tilar J. Citations Wrongly Attributed 

message: For the second time, some individual has made changes, usually only by inserting a single word of an inflammatory nature into existing, referenced entries, leading the reader to assume  the entire statement is true. Only yesterday someone edited the section on Chanel's early life to infer that her father sent her out to sell her body upon the death of her mother at age 12,....the word "prostitute" was inserted, and it is not part of the verified information referenced by footnote. This vandal (or vandals, there may be more than one) seems to have an obsession with trashing  Chanel. The documented facts of Chanel's life stand on their own. No one needs to fabricate negative, or sensationalist information. The truth of who Chanel was as a human being is damning enough and needs no embellishment. She was a monster. Hey, you out there...you don't have to make stuff up! Betempte (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coco Chanel page is vandalized again 

message: There seems to be a lot of emphasis in this article on Vaughan's intepretation of Chanel. Whilst I'm sure she wasn't a very nice lady, it's like every other sentence is a Vaughan reference, with a lot of emphasis on her Nazism/anti-semitism/prejudices so this may need to be balanced out with references from other biographers as per Wikipedia guidelines. I also have to note that whilst I'm sure his investigations into her life are sound, Vaughan appears to have an appalling grasp on fashion history and is too credulous regarding Chanel's fashion inventions. If the fashion notes in here represent Vaughan's writing, then he is neither a credible nor a reputable source for the fashion side, worse and sloppier than most fashion journalists! For example, Chanel invented ethnic influences? Easily disproved by a quick Google - I've already quickly cleaned up and referenced that section and need to look into referencing and cleaning up the rest... Mabalu (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps too much bias given to Vaughan interpretation? 

message: I've removed some of the aggrandized wording, which I believe prompted insertion of "text box alert" on the top of this page. I feel the estimation of Chanel’s design career (particularly in the “Legacy” section is adequately represented with inline citations and references; i.e. constituting and  “imparting verifiable information.” Betempte (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Puffing" and "Fluffing" Coco's reputation  

message: Thank you to Mabalu!  We lost one (not very good image) but got a much better one in its place, thanks to your contribution. The new image is sharp, and illustrates the text marvelously. Again, many thanks!    This is for you!  Betempte (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Chanel designs 1917 

message: Could we have some consistency on the address of the Paris boutique, variously 21 rue Cambon vs 31 rue Cambon?  Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Macdonald-ross, thanks for bringing attention to this seeming inconsistency. The entry has been edited to explain this discrepancy in addresses. Chanel sold only her millinery designs at 21 rue Cambon. She later relocated to 31 rue Cambon where she established her couture house. Betempte (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris boutique 

message: This article is, in my opinion, written in a way that is unacceptable for any fact-based encyclopedia. Here is an example of the exaggerated, seemingly fan-written passages, taken just from the lead:
"A woman of French peasant stock, convent bred, Chanel adhered to one constant in her life—a determination to rise above her humble origins. Her indefatigable energy and talent in her chosen trade combined ultimately to achieve both the business success and social prominence she had so striven to realize. Her professional life brought her in contact with the upper echelons of society and personages noteworthy in the arts. She herself became an art patron, supplying funds to support individual artists and their work."
This type of passage might be suitable on a fansite or opinionated biography, but not on a encyclopedia that relies on a neutral viewpoint (especially in articles about specific people). And, as I said, this is just from looking at the lead, the entire article is interspersed with this kind of language. I tagged the article for examination, but it was removed only a few hours later, so I am not sure what to do at this point. Do any other editors have some input? Thanks. Stelpa (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that paragraphs like that are too much, but I think the article is generally fine. It does need a lot of work, but generally, compared to others, it is not as bad as it could be. I personally have little time for being a Chanel fanboy, (being more of a Schiaparelli man) but this article is on my radar due to regular vandalism and non-constructive edits, and I know it needs improving. I removed the tag because I felt it was unfair to flag the whole article, as not all the sections are offending, and it might be seen as an invitation for further vandalism/non-constructive editing. I encourage you to start chopping out the offending bits - in fact, I hope you do, so I don't have to take the rap for it. ;) Mabalu (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I've tweaked the lede now, but the rest of the article would be a much larger task. Mabalu (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, and thank you very much for being mature about the disagreement. I am a bit new to Wikipedia, but as far as I know there is not a method to tag individual sections/pieces of text, which is why I chose to tag the whole article. This article is certainly up to Wikipedia's standards of proper use of the English language and grammatical accuracy and, as you say, certain parts of the article are very well written and without bias, but I was mostly concerned about the parts that were not. I may work on fixing the problem parts of the article as you suggest, hopefully I don't get as bad a rap as you say ;) Thanks again! Stelpa (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tone and neutrality 

message: Sorry, I'm not a Wikipedia regular, so I know I'm not doing this right. However, I wanted to point a few things out:
--There is a comma splice somewhere in the first third of the page. 
--"Vaughn" is consistently misspelled. It should be "Vaughan.""
--Givenchy, not Chanel, pioneered the "little black dress" (through Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's.") It is misleading to give this garment a section on the page attributing it to Chanel, especially with such sparse documentation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.129.205 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to correct you re the little black dress. Chanel predates Givenchy by at least 40 years - she designed her first little black dress in the 1910s, and became known for such dresses in the 1920s. This is easily 40 years before Breakfast at Tiffany's. See . Actually, I would not consider either of them a pioneer of the "little black dress" although Chanel did popularise it - it was simply an uniform being worn by working class French women in the 19th and early 20th century that Chanel picked up on and transformed into poverty luxe. Mabalu (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also corrected the Vaughn/Vaughan misspellings, thank you for flagging this. Couldn't spot the comma splice on a quick scan through, but the page overall DOES need proofreading/copy editing. Mabalu (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points... 

message: I've corrected the misinformation in the paragraph about Diaghilev, the Ballets Russes, Stravinsky, and Chanel.  I've also set the final couple of sentences in "comment" protection as they are clearly inaccurate.  (Diaghilev was not a choreographer; Nijinsky was confined to a mental institution during the period it is suggested Chanel worked with him (!).  In the next day or two, I'll provide corrected information about Chanel's participation as costume designer of Ballets Russes projects.Yankeecook (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanel and Stravinsky 

message: Stelpa has already remarked on the neutrality of the article as a whole, which I would agree with, but one particular sentence in the summary leapt out to me as problematic. Yesterday, I marked the following sentence as not being written from a neutral point of view. It's since been undone by Mabalu, so I decided to elaborate on it here.
I take issue with the characterization of her actions being due to her "highly competitive, opportunistic personality", coupled with the phrasing that it was this personality that "led" to her behavior. For the information that the sentence in presenting, namely the controversy that Chanel generated by her actions, attributing those actions to seemingly positive aspects of her "personality" comes across as apologetic, toning down the serious nature of those actions and skirting past claims of antisemitism. To be fair, the matter is detailed later in the article, but the summary should be held to the highest standards.
I suggest the following change.
Lordcheeto (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with that proposed rewrite. The sentence to which you objected was actually part of a full rewrite of the lede that you would have found even more appalling/POV-y, and one which I remember agonising over/struggling to reword in a way that was both accurate but not biased. She was obviously a very competitive, driven person, either way - everything makes this clear and nobody tries to claim - least of all Chanel herself - that she was anything else. IMO, I don't think being opportunistic/competitive are appealing (or for that matter, unappealing) personality traits - they swing both ways - but each to their own. Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View in Summary 

message: If  Hans Gunther von Dincklage is a baron in the entry for <B>Controversy</B>, shouldn't he also be a baron elsewhere. I noticed the dissimilarity in the first paragraph under <B>World War II</B>.<BR><B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Hans Gunther von Dincklage 

message: Why isn't her association with the Nazis during World War II mentioned in the first paragraph? I added it and it was renewed. In terms of human cost it's at least as relevant as her fashion work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.121.189 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi affiliations 

message: Substituted at 11:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Give us a footnote to a SOURCE on her having $19 BILLION in 1970. According to the page on the Forbes 400, it was first published in 1982, so it's too late, but in the 1982 list there were only 13 billionaires. I was alive in 1970 and I remember a commonly-circulated list of billionaires and it had less than 10 names, people like J. Paul Getty and H.L. Hunt. I don't regard it as credible that Chanel was worth $19 billion in 1970 when there are sites that say that TODAY the COMBINED fortune of her better-compensated Wertheimer partners is $19 billion in TODAY'S money. (It is very suspicious to me that THIS article's assertion of Coco Chanel's net worth at death just HAPPENS (by chance) to match the "$19 billion" asserted value of the Wertheimers' Chanel holdings in TODAY's money). Did someone get sloppy and misread the 2015 value of the Wertheimers' stake as the end-of-life net worth of Coco Chanel? I've seen similar sloppy assertions in taking the combined worth of the Walton heirs TODAY and asserting it as the net worth of Sam Walton when he died long ago. Look at the figures for the Gettys, Hunts, Waltons. I'm going to call "no way" on $118 BILLION in 2015 (when the richest people in the world TODAY have less than $100 billion). It's gotta get a footnote (to a RELIABLE source, not a source that just parrots the misinformation from this Wikipedia article) or its gotta go. I mean, really. Do your homework.2604:2000:C682:B600:7D2E:4F68:5270:F31E (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Billionaire? In 1970?

message: From the Summary: "She is widely regarded as the greatest fashion designer who ever lived, thus making the name of Chanel iconic."
That's a bold statement to leave unattributed - needs some links to sources making this claim for this line to be credible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.251.26 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: References for "greatest ever" sentence

message: The link of the first citation in the reference list is broken. The page cannot be found. This citation is for Chanel's date of birth, and the date she died. Here is a link that can replace the broken link with the same information found. --Kdzyuben (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Reference Link 

message: The woman is a disgrace to humanity let alone France. How can we add this as NPOV? 92.12.137.108 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgrace 

message: I don't know much about Coco Chanel's life, and I found the section in the article on designing for film confusing.  It says she met Samuel Goldwyn in 1921, and that he made her an offer to come to Hollywood twice a year to design for motion pictures.  Then it has an anecdote about her travelling to Hollywood in 1932 and responding to a reporter's question about why she was going there, which seems odd if she had been making the trip twice a year for 10 years. It also seems odd, if she was going to Hollywood in the intervening 10 years, that the only films for which she designed that are mentioned were made in the 1930s. It seems as though either the dating of the meeting with Goldwyn in 1921 is a typo (maybe for 1931?), or there was an unmentioned (10-year?) gap between the meeting and the offer, or between the offer and her accepting it.  Maybe someone who knows more about her could edit to clarify. Lynn25 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designing for film 

message: I have made some edits and plan to post them in a couple days. I wanted to look into some of the facts of Chanel’s early life.  Some were worried that what she claimed later in her life was the true story so I wanted to back it up. Although, every source i found agrees with the article. I found at least four reliable sources that agree with this. This last paragraph does a good job by letting the readers know that she does claim a different story in her later life but that those are only claims. I also made changes to the section that talks about where the “Coco” nickname came from.  I found a video explaining where Coco Chanel really got the “coco” nickname. Many were suspicious about the unclarity of the origin of the nickname before. I also made changes to her later years and the real reactions on her comeback collection. The original article claimed that the french had a venomous reaction to chanel's new collection but they did not necessarily react in a bad way. They did not promote it, but they didn’t go against it. They had a neutral opinion about the line due to their grudge for chanela action during the war. Paigedevans (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edits 

message: My proposal is to trim this section down significantly per WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP. It should be mentioned and merits places in article but it's too long for such short  period in her life. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please gain consensus for your changes first. It looks like you are whitewashing the article in one large sweep. Also please review WP:BRD, and thank you for taking it to the talk page, but to revert before consensus went against the Revert portion. In addition even if it is a short period of her life, the controversy surrounding her actions is great. --VVikingTalkEdits 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I started this to gain consensus, there was no objections. Each of my edits sums up very valid reasons for removal, failed verification being large part and of course simply unproductive student additions (wrong section, repeat of same information, etc). DUE, UNDUE does not support such large section. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because someone didn't respond in < 24 hours doesn't mean you had consensus to whitewash the article. This is my last posting on this article, as I don't really care about her enough to get too involved. I don't like to see editors whitewashing or promoting, which is what your edits look like. If you wish to revert again you will be edit warring. I would recommend opening a WP:RfC to get an actual consensus. VVikingTalkEdits 13:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't care about Coco Chanel, you didn't take time to review my edits and merit of them and you are assuming bad faith contrary to WP:AGF. Since that is the case please self revert. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't care about Coco Chanel, but I do care about the project. I reviewed your edits and found them to be, as I mentioned above, whitewashing of the article. As such I didn't self revert because I felt the edits you have made to be inappropriate and damaging to the project. The onus is on you to convince other editors to accept your changes. VVikingTalkEdits 13:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II 

message: Clearly, there is an issue with some editors not seeing or refusing to see the existing consensus so I will bring this issue up again as a matter of good faith:
It is absolutely valid to brand Chanel as a "Nazi collaborator" in her first paragraph as it reflects an incredibly noteworthy activity of her (see MOS:OPENPARABIO) that obviously influences a reader's perception of her at a glance and provides the full picture that the rest of the article presents in a single sentence. To omit this phrase is intellectual dishonesty - the role of the first paragraph, and by extension the first sentence is to accurately and laconically summarize the article that is then presented in detail in the sections that follow. Obviously, editors do not seem to dispute that Chanel was a Nazi agent (or collaborator) as the section detailing those activities is still present in the article's body. Consensus on the matter has already been reached with no counterarguments presented at all; I welcome the disputing editor (as it seems only a sole editor opposes this change) to present his counter-narrative, because as it stands I see no valid argument not to include this fact in Chanel's opening paragraph. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Chanel's involvement with the Nazis is as notable as her contributions to fashion. As a descriptor, "Nazi collaborator" is every bit as relevant as "fashion designer" & "businesswoman". I see no reason as to why it should be omitted as this could only lead to confusion. Until a counterargument is provided, I believe her Nazi affiliation should be mentioned alongside her role as a fashion designer & businesswoman. ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

text: It is not clear to me how much of Vaughan's allegations can be considered certain, and how much of it is formed by suspicions based on evidence that suggests, but does not directly establish intentional Nazi collaboration. Willingness to deliver a peace overture to Churchill does not strike me as a terribly bad thing; if this was part of a nefarious plan (and how certain is that?), she may not have been aware of it. As the article stands now, this all depends too much on a single source. Her claiming sole ownership of Parfums Chanel is damning enough. In any case, I question that her notability is based on the alleged collaboration, and formulating it as if it is a defining characteristic appears inappropriate to me. We also do not write, "Jeffrey Jones is an American character actor and registered sex offender"; while true, it is not what he is known for, and formulating it that way would not be appropriate.  --Lambiam 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are so worried about the certainty of Chanel's collaboration then perhaps in the spirit of cooperation an "alleged" qualifier (ie. Coco Channel was an [...] alleged Nazi collaborator) could be discussed, but to my knowledge it is not the collaboration itself as much as the depth of it (agent or simple collaborator) that is under any question; that she engaged in collaboration is verifiable. As it pertains to your last argument; I do not see how it is true? Pages for many such celebs such as Harvey Weinstein do mention their status as sex offenders in their first paragraph (sentence) because it is (as previously stated) intellectually dishonest to omit it or relegate it exclusively deeper down the article body. Both Harvey Weinstein and Coco Chanel have achieved relative infamy (posthumous in Chanel's case) due to their deeds in addition to their input as artists or businesspeople; it is equally important to mention these facts as notable as they would often be points of contention in modern discourse regarding them. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

text: If you really think this is the case, the same should be done to Adidas.... Adi Dassler was an actual Nazi. Literally starting the brand to work for Adolf Hitler’s Hitler Youth. Trillfendi (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should; but this is the Coco Chanel talk page. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

text: There's no "existing consensus". A few editors (mostly IP users) attempting to insert (disputed) information does not signify consensus at all. And no, I'm not the only one who have disputed the changes, as seen here and here. Most people associate Chanel with her fashion contributions, not her Nazi affiliations. Unless I'm mistaken, her affiliations (aside from her relationship with von Dincklage) were not made public until 2011 when Vaughan published a book with allegations. Her involvements with Nazis are already covered in the lead section and main body of the article, so it's not like information is being omitted. Plus, the article states that she was never charged as a collaborator—which does not necessarily negate her affiliations, but does not really support the insertion of "Nazi collaborator" in the opening paragraph, either. snapsnap (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fishing out reverts of editors who also refused to participate in a discussion and stuck to their apparent fantasy of an innocent Chanel does not disprove the existence of substantial evidence that she was a collaborator nor does it disprove that a discussion attempt was made and ignored. And yes, of course Chanel wasn't charged with collaboration - most of the evidence to the matter came out (was declassified) long after she died! This isn't the first case of state agents being exposed after their deaths and/or long after the collapse of the involved states - it is quite a common occurrence within the former Eastern Bloc countries. I do not understand where the "IP users attempting to insert disputed information" comes in because they simply used what already exists within the article body and is well sourced and researched - which makes me question whether you had read the article in the first place. A substantial amount of contemporary discussion on Coco involves her collaborationist role and it is necessary for this to be reflected in at least an "alleged Nazi collaborator" in the first sentence for it to accurately summarize the rest of the article. These claims are made in the article body and are major points of notability; it should not be controversial to include these two or three words in the lead sentence and it seems quite childish to me that this is even a point of contention. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt those two editors were trying to defend Chanel's honor. They're under zero obligation to engage in a discussion when the IP users were the ones at fault for trying to insert potentially controversial information to the lead sentence without providing an explanation. The fact that the information already appears in the article body does not necessarily give them a free pass to change the opening paragraph. MOS:ROLEBIO states: "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources [...] emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Fashion is her claim of fame and what the majority of people associate her with. Most sources that discuss her Nazi affiliations are based on Vaughan's book/allegations, and the certainty of those, as Lambiam pointed out, is not quite clear. Adding "alleged Nazi collaborator" is completely out of question, per MOS:ALLEGED. snapsnap (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I care not for the intent of those editors and your particular focus on the IP-based nature of the dissidents seems oddly discriminatory; and to say that there is zero obligation to engage in discussion if one claims "lack of consensus" as cause is frankly ridiculous and somewhat dystopian. Regardless, it is hard to call collaboration "incidental or non-notable" (it is a false equivalence to claim "non-notable" is equal to "not integral to notability") as it is directly provable via Vaughan's book make up a large part if not the majority of modern discourse regarding Chanel herself (brand aside) and it is dishonest to claim otherwise; yes, if we were in the year 2005 this discussion would not be held. Wikipedia is, however, a living and breathing encyclopedia that seeks to represent the contemporary perspective on such personalities; Roman Polanski's first paragraph brands him a fugitive, Weinstein's first sentence brands him a sex offender. You are clearly attempting to muddy the waters as Chanel's collaboration has never been under question and it is acknowledged in reputable sources (such as the NYT; note how nonchalantly these accusations are made, outside of the context of reviewing the book itself) and therefore represents a majority view and it is due. The extent of the collaboration is under question ("agent" or "collaborator"?); the existence thereof is not. And with that, yes, I much very like prefer to drop the "alleged" because the evidence is overwhelming, but it is a concession I was willing to make as per the fact Chanel was never sentenced or charged (therefore fulfilling a valid use of "alleged" as in the link you sent; you do read those, don't you?). This discussion would not be held were Chanel not an icon or beloved; there is clear editorial bias at play here and I wish to end this fantasy once and for all. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

text: It's already in the second paragraph, which is plenty soon enough. It does not belong in the lead sentence. Most other sources don't mention this stuff until further down (biography.com, britannica), so we should not place undue emphasis on it here. - MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how the emphasis is undue as it would be a major point of contention for modern discourse as stated and it serves to accurately summarize the entire contents of the article (fulfilling the pyramid structure of article information), which is not being done right now. The reason it is not mentioned early on in the biographies you mentioned is because biographies are... chronological. As an added mention neither of those are considered by consensus as reliable sources (see Perennial sources) EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I added a new topic before I realized how in depth this thread went. But I am interested in hearing people's thoughts :-) Brownbear52403 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

text: We're not required to renew objections weekly. - MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I reckon some users here are not familiar with how consensus works on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter that other users have attempted to insert the descriptor to the opening sentence when none of them have attempted to justify their edits (aside from a previous discussion) and they all have been reverted. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Most of the responses here oppose the inclusion of the descriptor to the opening sentence, and my position remains unchanged as well. No one is questioning Chanel's affiliations, which are thoroughly discussed in the second paragraph and body of the article. While her involvements with Nazis are discussed by reliable sources, Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski were actually convicted for their offenses, and their cases have received far, far more coverage, so the comparisons don't really work. Honestly, I'd like to hear more outside opinions. snapsnap (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

text: There is clearly more than one. - MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Affiliations - Again 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... (i want to know what it says.) --69.117.50.24 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: I would argue that the opening of the article should list her activities in order of truth and salience. Which (to me, at least) would be, ".... French Nazi agent, designer, and socialite."
I say this because of the gaps in her design career which totaled decades, and the fact that many times she did not make business decisions (a task often left to business partners or her social liaisons). 
I am interested in hearing thoughts from others though. Brownbear52403 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of her activities in the opening line of article 

message: The following sentence seems like a claim that may not be from a point of neutrality:
Churchill's intervention at the end of the war prevented Chanel's punishment for spy collaborations, and ultimately salvaged her legacy.
Is anyone able to explain where the cited source provides such information as an objective fact?
Similarly, I noted this sentence for the same reason:
However, when she moved into the same Hotel Ritz that was housing the German military, her motivations became clear to many.
This implies that her reputation was immediately tarnished upon moving into the Hotel Ritz, which could potentially be an over-reaching claim. Can someone explain how the cited source deduces this claim? Asw128 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for a Few Claims