Talk:Mike Jeffries (CEO)

message: where was he born?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.83.110 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthplace 

message: I read the salon.com interview, and much of this article appears to be copied and pasted from it (choice words removed/altered to avoid immediate removal). So basically this needs a major renovation. And I don't really care about Abercrombie enough to do all that research. So it's a project for someone who has the time and the interest. But it is of relative pertinence, because plagiarism is plagiarism. Bflorsheim (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: When and if someone expands this to a proper Personal Life section, sources note the names of Mr. Jeffreis' "companion" is Matthew Smith (as of Oct 2012)Abercrombie & Fitch boss's jet rules: wear flip-flops and play Phil Collins, The Guardian, 18 October 2012  and he owns three  dogs (Ruby, Trouble and Sammy).Models on Abercrombie jet had rules for underwear, by Sapna Maheshwari, The Age, 19 October 2012  (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal life

message: His political party is currently listed as "Republican," with no citation provided. The only related info I found online were two contributions he allegedly made in 2009 and 2010, $2400 each, to "Fisher for Ohio," supporting a Democratic party Senate candidate in Ohio. This was listed on a site called "Corporation Wiki"; I tried to provide a link, but Wikipedia autocensored the URL for spam or something when I tried submitting this Talk entry.
It seems like Jeffries' party affiliation should be removed until/unless a reliable citation can be provided. 71.238.69.41 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone cares enough to find a reliable source (for either/any party), they are welcome to add it back in. I'm off to bed. Ignatzmice•talk 04:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party - source? 

message: Where did the picture go? I removed the reqphoto tag a while ago because I'm pretty sure there was a picture. Why was it removed? I've added the reqphoto tag again because we definitely need a picture of this very prominent businessman who has helped shape American culture.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Often users upload pix that are not copyright compliant. When this is discovered by reviewers they are deleted. Its likely that's what happened here. I just searched WikiMedia Commons and at present there are no photos of anyone named Mike Jeffries available. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  11:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I came here to find out what exactly is wrong with Mike Jeffries' face and there is no mention of it anywhere.  There must be something out there to explain what's wrong with his face.....he wasn't born this way. 173.52.158.74 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a little ridiculous 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Jeffries (CEO). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116075035/http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/24/jeffries/index.html to http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/24/jeffries/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since this section was mostly deleted in Special:Diff/1182351855/1182352080, I want to shine more light on this topic, because after I restored it Special:Diff/1182363059/1182363205 per WP:BRD, we discuss it now. A couple points:
* Per my restoration edit-comment, it is not WP:UNDUE to summarize the allegations. Simply saying "sex-trafficking" is insufficient to understand the nature of the allegation. The scale of it ie. the number of people involved, the timeframe. It was not merely 2 victims during one year with one victimizer. The seriousness of the allegation is important for understanding the seriousness of the possible consequences for Jeffries, and the notability of the case. The nature of the abuse is likewise notable because it allegedly involved a major abuse of his power as CEO, which has consequences for the company itself, it's investors (millions of people), and the seriousness of the abuse - which again speaks to the notability of the case, why we give it more coverage than 1 or 2 sentences
* The lawsuit allegations are mirrored in a major 2-year-long BBC investigation. It clearly has a lot of evidence behind it, and is not, for example, a lone wolf plaintiff throwing darts hoping for a lucky jury result. Given the BBC report and other sources, it probably already qualifies for a standalone article, much less the minor space we have given it so far. And toss in the Jeffrey Epstein relationship connection, through Les Wexner, a standalone article is probably only a matter of time, given how notable that case was.  
* The paragraph is not excessive. It's not overly long or detailed. The court filing is 128 pages long, with lots of detail.
* The paragraph could not be turned into a newspaper article, where you would expect a lot more detail, it's not newspaper-like coverage. 
* The paragraph is mirrored in the secondary sources, but not all of the detail in the secondary sources is included, only the most important select elements are summarized. 
* The final sentence with Jeffries response is required for BLP purposes. Allegations require space for a response e.g.. I'm not guilty, I deny it, I am guilty etc.. we can assume by default he doesn't believe he is guilty, but we don't know because he responded "no response", so we can't assume anything, thus the response is relevant. And laying out allegations with nothing about the defenses response can leave questions for the reader - where/what is the other POV? -- GreenC 22:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The civil suit happened 24 hours ago and peopel can make any allegations they want in such a filing. This isn't a criminal indictment. We can't spend a ton of ink simply restating what a plaintif accuses. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of that also, and addressed it in the second bullet point. To address more specifically what you said: Civil cases are important they can result in millions or billions in damages which can destroy people's lives, bankrupt them, there's a lot of potential victims here for fines. I don't see being reported 24hrs ago matters, it's reported globally in major outlets, and the allegations won't change with time (in the main). People can and do make allegations all the time, but they don't get this kind of press coverage, and the BBC doesn't do 2-year investigations that mirror the allegations, and big-time lawyers who were involved with Epstein are not involved, etc.. this is not a frivolous case. They didn't put it together after watching the BBC show, if that is your concern, the complaint is very long and detailed, with multiple accusers involved which took a lot of coordination/time. A single paragraph in a sub-sub-section is not a ton of ink. And "simply restating what a plaintiff accuses" is what we do on Wikipedia, summarize more so than restating. It's not every accusation in the 128-page complaint, but is sufficient for understanding the nature, context and scale of the complaint. -- GreenC 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and unless/until this civil lawsuit becomes a major part of his personal story -- and until such allegations are proven to be true -- we don't need to attempt some kind of "both sides" and suggest that his non-comment is somehow also noteworthy. Readers can click the citation to see more details. We don't peddle in gossip and need to adhere with WP:BLP. Restating these kinds of allegations veers towards POV editing. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gossip: casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people. Allegations in a lawsuit are neither casual, or unconstrained. Calling a lawsuit "gossip" is a misunderstanding of what a lawsuit is. This idea that we can't include it until it's been proven "true" (BTW the law doesn't establish truth) is a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, see WP:NOTTRUTH. We report on notable controversies in people's lives. This story is in 100s of news articles and is one of the biggest controversies of his life to this point. It might seem like base gossip to you because it involves sex and drugs and etc.. but that's not a reason to censor information. -- GreenC 04:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to say this is "one of hte biggest controversies of his life" when the suit itself is very WP:RECENT. And obviously I'm not saying we remove all mention. I'm suggesting the briefer mention of it, not the lenghty re-stating what is in the filing. --ZimZalaBim talk 11:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The suit is supported by the results of a 2-year long investigation by a number of investigative journalists in a reliable source, the BBC. To simply ignore the results of that investigation makes no sense. Furthermore the sub-sub-section is not long at all, compared to what we could say, or in comparison to the rest of the article. And to only say "sex-trafficking", leaves so much to the imagination, it does Jeffries a disservice.  -- GreenC 13:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex-trafficking lawsuit 

message: Including this lengthy discussion of his parter seems to really be tangential, and really feels more like an attempt to find as many ways to paint Jeffries in a bad light as possible. The GQ comment is from a style commentary column and not a journlistic effort to report on these fact. This doesn't align with WP:BLP. --ZimZalaBim talk 11:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not lengthy, and to say this is an "attempt to paint Jeffries in a bad light" is bad faith, refrain from doing that, I could say your attempt to delete it from the article is a pro-Jeffries bias or maybe you have a COI? I don't know, right? Bad faith, that's how it works. Gets us no where. Now, if you read the sources this material reflects what the sources say. I can find more sources that say the same things. This is a part of Jeffries public life and biography it's supported in multiple reliable sources. Jeffries has always been controversial during his entire A&F career, it's not our job to smooth it over and make him look better than what the sources report. -- GreenC 13:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith content