Talk:The North Face

message: 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)
thread_title: The North Face Guru

message: 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)
thread_title: Logo

message: 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)
thread_title: Theft

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "North Face" redirect vs. "The North Face" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lawsuit with SouthButt-section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Death of founder

message: The current store counts are outdated.  Retail store count should be 63.  Apriestofgix (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a source? Meatsgains (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Are you manually counting all 63 stores in the link you provided? Meatsgains (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Retail Store Information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 https://www.thenorthface.com/about-us/our-story.html Apriestofgix (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Agreed. That is what sources say, so that is what we are to add. Meatsgains (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the North Face means 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016 

message: 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)
thread_title: Eagle Mt. MN

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

text: https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is an absolutely prudent thing to do. Jessamyn (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  COI? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Done. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  See my response to Teratix below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: yeah, put it over there if it's worth adding! - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article on the kerfluffle 

message: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Founding Date 

message: 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)
replies: text: SpinningCeres 00:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022 

message: 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)
thread_title:  “Flexible tent poles” 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Uyghurs 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Outdoor Gear history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023 

message: — Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change