Talk:Peter Nygard/Archive 1

Archive 1

The topic of Human Trafficking

Some comments on this section...

The first is that this isn't really a topic about Peter Nygard, it is really Nygard International that's responsible for the outsourcing of manufacturing. That's why I moved it over to Nygard International. A corporation is run by its executives, Nygard is just one of them. An example of this error is in "They sell their clothes exclusively to Peter Nygard, ...", which isn't doubtful, since Nygard is unlikely to buy that much women's clothing, but his company might.

The next point is that there's one primary reference for the entire section (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and one media report of the same article. So while I think it is valid to talk about the report's accusation, just because it is in that one report does not make it a verifiable fact. So statements like "The women were smuggled into Jordan..." provides a level of certainty beyond the assurance of one report.

The tone of the section also isn't "in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement" as per WP:BLP, it pretty much paints him with a guilty brush right away. The size of the section is unbalanced considering the sources and the rest of the article (see WP:UNDUE.

All that said, WP:BLP says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced", so that's the right thing to do here.

Alexthepuffin (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In this case Peter Nygard is directly involved. If you go to the NLC report (http://www.nlcnet.org/reports?id=0035) you will see a photo of Peter Nygard with a man named Kalifa who operates the factory in Jordan. Peter Nygard may never have been to the actual factory, but there he is with the guy running it. Executives rarely actually visit sweatshops overseas. They already know the conditions are deplorable but they don't care.

Plus it should be noted that Peter Nygard is a control freak, this is a well-documented fact and he even admits on his website. He wants everyone to be up to his standards and do exactly what he tells them to do. He has a very hands on approach when dealing with his managers overseas. (Although he prefers to have them visit him, rather them him being forced to globe trot, which is understandable.)

When you consider the existing complaints by staff from Nygard Cay combined with complaints from his L.A. and New York offices it draws some pretty conclusive evidence that he treats his workers quite poorly REGARDLESS of where they are.

Please read the sources before deleting them just because you don't agree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.80.143 (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly an issue that is being coatracked onto the persaon when there is nothing at all to actually associate him with it, the company article is the place for this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Further comment from 99.231.80.143

(I have moved this posting from my own talk page to here, because it is clearly content related  Chzz  ►  18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

You say its been moved to subheading for Nygard International, but its not moved at all. Its completely deleted. Nygard international has only two lines in it:

"Nygård International Nygård apparel manufacturing company was founded in 1967 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. It is now headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. It owns the Tan Jay line.

Peter Nygård's fashion concept retail store opened in Times Square in Manhattan on Friday, November 6, 2009."

And neither of those two lines mention the NLC report of human trafficking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.80.143 (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a section titled "Accusations of Jordanian sweatshops" on Nygard International. --Alexthepuffin (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The documentary

Has anyone been able to watch this documentary or does anyone have an independent reported citation of the content in it? Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that the documentary wouldn't be viewable outside of Canada. I've seen it (as many people in Canada), and I'll find other references that describe the documentary. --Alexthepuffin (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be good to have independant reports. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is all still cited to only this primary link that does not even work unless you are in Canada, are there any independent reports? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of secondary references, these two specifically refer to the past documentary: http://www.tribune242.com/04132010_alnygard_news_pg1 and http://www.tribune242.com/sports/04142010_alnygard_news_pg1 . There are other forward-looking ones from around January when Nygard was trying to block the Fifth Estate production. BTW, I don't think that the documentary's limited geographic access makes it less valuable, but we do need secondary references. --Alexthepuffin (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And I apologize for not actually putting this into the article, but wanted to vet them here first, and I'm short of time but didn't want to lose the momentum. --Alexthepuffin (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. The nassau tribune, is there nothing international? We need to scale this back, especially here I have trimmed some of the content, we need reports so that we can report the reports. The primary is an external link, but not to support content. Thanks, I have added the two citations. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nassau is technically international unless you're in the Bahamas :) What's interesting is that there are many credible stories when Nygard was trying to block production, but few afterwards. That says something about the media's perspective on the topic. The one reference I did find that I cannot include is from Women's Wear Daily (WWD), but I can't see the article without a subscription. --Alexthepuffin (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes your correct of course, I wish I was in Nassau right now, it was real good you found those two. I was only thinking about a big publication that was all but no matter, I adapt and accept. The womans work sub is likely about the labour issues, I would like to read more about this as and when any citations arise. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WWD is actually a fashion trade publication (http://www.wwd.com), which has quite a bit about Nygard as a designer. My local library wouldn't have a subscription to it either. so it is useless. I know exactly one person with connections in the fashion industry, let me check around. --Alexthepuffin (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relatedness of the Peter and the company

According to the documentary, Nygard likes to mix business with pleasure -- this was a first person account. Therefore a link to the main article from the bio page should be present. Also the heading should help anyone looking for the information to find it, currently the heading does not actually describe the content but instead a show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopherkings (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, the edits by Off2riorob have generally attempted to distance acts personally attributed to Peter to his company because he/she has not seen the documentary. So I don't understand exactly how someone who has not seen the actual content has editing control over someone who has... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopherkings (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The documentary is a primary source and should be backed up by reliable secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. The heading should be neutral, which the current one is. It should not suggest guilt or innocence. This is not about editing control, but about adhering to Wikipedia's policies. Off2riorob is trying to present this article from a neutral point of view AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The documentary explains how Peter treats employees. But the Jordanian sweatshop topic is that of his company's outsourcing choice (and probably his COO, not himself). I'm not sure where the other media censorship topics belong. There's also some anti-union campaigns that could go either way. Are we approaching consensus on this? --Alexthepuffin (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We are moving along, my position is that we need to protect the living person (even if he is ****) fill in the blank yourselves. One of my issues here is that we do not attributed blame onto him for things the Nygard company is asccused of, there is I imagine a board of directors and sharholders and suchlike, as such he can not be attributed specific company issues and we need to take care of the weight as regards that, it looks about right now imo. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Nygard International entry seems very mis-weighted on the page. There are plenty of sources providing extra information about his direct influence on the company (good and bad). Crinock (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There used to be Nygard International, and it'd be good to gather enough material for it to have its own. It also helps separate the person from the company. Alexthepuffin (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hollywoods-style parties vs. Playboy mansion style parties

Find any references to what Hollywood lifestyle means? Playboy mansion style parties is much more informative and very close to what his parties are about. Topless models... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopherkings (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Without a reliable reference neither should be used. AIRcorn (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a subjective description, I don't think it should be used. Lots more could be written about Nygard Cay, which could help explain his lifestyle factually. --Alexthepuffin (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is kind of missing from this section, which is, what actually makes this facility objectively worthy of the entry. Taken from the Nygard International page: http://www.usbusiness-review.com/content/view/419/ - this is also a good short description - http://www.privateislandsmag.com/2008/09/peter-nygard-nygard-cay-bahamas/ - Crinock (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

This reference isn't working anymore - http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2430270 - (but it can be found on other sites). Other references I've seen- http://www4.nygard.com/SCF/TheMan.aspx?ID=684&Folder_id=14&Child_id=16 - http://www.bullz-eye.com/interviews/2009/peter_nygard.htm - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53709680.html - http://www.timessquaregossip.com/2009/11/peter-nygard-opens-flagship-nyc-store.html Crinock (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look at this tomorrow, at first glance non eof those cites looks llike a good source for such a commnent, perhaps his company bio link would be but I cant find the content there. I found it but the link is blacklisted...mmm... I see there is a legal dispute over this issue, I wll look more tomorrow. I am considering removing the claim as uncited and for further discussion....yes I will, please discuss here, if a reliable comment can be presented here that is perhaps up to date as well. Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Employee allegations of Abuse

This would be a more accurate heading for the section about employee mistreatment. The Fifth Estate/CBC is just one news agency that has mentioned employee mistreatment. Peter Nygard has been in business for over 43 years now and there are numerous other allegations against him dating back to the 1980s and 1970s, most of which have been settled out of court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.80.143 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We are directed to use neutral header title, please stop editing the article, get a blog and you can add whatever you want and defend yourself from Nygards lawyers. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Awards section

I have some concerns with the awards section that's been put in and out a few times.

First, the section is self-serving. It doesn't present a balanced view of Nygard, particularly when the controversy section is at the tail end. Next, there is just one citation for the entire section, and the article is too glowing to be credible. We can't rely alone on bahamasb2b. Most importantly, as far as I can tell, the reference only talks about one award specifically, the North American Yachting Champion.

This section seems to be an identical copy of what's up at http://corporate.nygard.com/SCF/TheMan.aspx?ID=684&Folder_id=14&Child_id=16 . This smells like self-serving promotion.

Alexthepuffin (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article is not for promotional porposes and the table was excessive. Sometimes less is more.Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again...

I don't think Nygard's awards deserve their own section.

First, they aren't significant on their own. All three are from the University of North Dakota, and I don't think anyone outside of UND recognizes these.

Next, the references are from the organizations that granted the awards. References should be from third parties.

I'm pretty sure the Midiminimaxi one is a direct copy of their press release... it is easy to tell what gets published by Nygard because they all contain the date in the format of "SEP11-01".

I'll edit this to remove the section, and mention the awards in the Early life section.

I moved the last line from Early life to the Nygard international section. I think it makes more sense there. Crinock (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexthepuffin (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, users adding this fluffy stuff need to be careful as not to make the article promotional. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Human aquarium?

What is a human aquarium? Does Nygard keep people in water tanks on his property? Unless we can wikilink something it seems weird to keep this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and tweaked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Crinock (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nygard International

This section still reads kind of clunky. I replaced "It owns the Tan Jay line." with the 'seven products' line. I think this is more complete, but still not polished.

The overall article is unbalanced in how everything is written between sections. Crinock (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Promotional? It's not promotional to say they own 7 lines and list 3. The Nygard International line doesn't make sense in the Early Life section. Okay, it could probably go without the retail stores line. That didn't belong, but the other edits were sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crinock (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A reason this section is clumsy is that the material was moved here when Nygard International got deleted (which I think was a mistake). This article gets a lot of edits that make Nygard look either like a god or a villain. Off2riorob might have been a bit quick in reverting your change. Alexthepuffin (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They were uncited if I remember and without any context, what is notable about it? and were is it cited to? This article is also about the man, his life story, the business article was already deleted as not notable and promotional. I don't want this article going the same way, sometimes less is more and independently cited, we already have a lot of primary content and fluffy promotional citations. Off2riorob (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the Nygard International line to the appropriate section and simply removed the Tan Jay sentence. I agree, per the rules of wikipedia, we have to strike the right chord of balance to keep an article Encylopedic (ie., not a god or villain). My point was the clothing lines was the wiki-argument of what is 'common knowledge'--I had placed their three most common lines. The Tan Jay line was uncited, and I find it hard to believe that this difference is considered promotional. But, all the same, I left it out this time. My point with how the article was written was earlier meant to point out the stylistic differences between the positive, neutral and negative sections. It looks like a ton of sentances thrown together vs. a cohesively written piece. Crinock (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)