Talk:Lululemon Athletica/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wilson's remark on sheerness 2013
My understanding from news reports at the time was that Wilson reluctantly stepped down after he had said in an interview that there was no sheerness problem, but that some women should not wear yoga pants, or words to that effect. Basically, it isn't the pants, it's the fat girls. According to Vancouver news at the time, this was seen as insensitive and was damaging the company's image. Why was this not mentioned in the article? Is Wikipedia basically an advertising medium and articles are redacted and expurgated according to the company's wishes? (63.142.161.9 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC))
Lululemon murder
Doesn't the recent murder at the Lululemon Athletica store in Bethesda, Maryland, merit mention in this article? It's a very high-profile case. Here is one Washington Post article: Nothing in Lululemon suspect’s past suggests she could have done what police allege. Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC))
- I agree; I've added a paragraph about the murder case, attempting to be brief. I've been somewhat surprised nobody's tried to add it so far, or start a separate article about it, as far as I can tell. A pre-emptive defense for including some mention of this case in this article: It was extremely well-covered in the Washington, DC, area, and virtually every local headline about the case referred to Lululemon (just look at the citations I've added, or Google News). The Lululemon name is very strongly associated with this case. I have no doubt whatsoever that the coverage of this case, including strong emphasis on the Lululemon connection, dwarfs the coverage of anything else mentioned in the article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, I agree 100%. I was also very surprised that there was no separate article on the murder itself. And equally surprised, given that omission, that there was no mention whatsoever of the murder in this article. I myself would actually start a separate article on the murder itself, if I had more free time. Thanks again! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
I'd never heard of the murder - but I live no where near there so that's not surprising. I wouldn't start the article with it though - this is a company not an event, the company did not cause the event, and the event is localized while the company is global. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.196.57 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- This section was blanked by a single edit ip user back in Novemeber, so I restored it today. This case was better cited than anything else on the page, it involved two employees and happened on company property. This generally reliable source (written two years after the incident) points out the impact of the case on the company's corporate culture. If anyone wants its removal, they'll have to make a case based on policy here on the talk page. BusterD (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I originally removed this section because it tells us nothing about Lululemon. It refers to a crime that took place on the company premises, but this could just as easily have happened in a branch of another chain, in which case it would be the Wal-Mart murder, or the Old Navy murder, or the American Apparel murder, or whatever. Is there a claim that there is something specific about Lululemon or their employees which is relevant here? Does it tell us anything about the company apart from the fact that it was the location of a gruesome murder? I can see nothing. It's not even an important news story outside the local area, and therefore does not warrant a mention as news. As to the suggestion that it had an impact on the company's corporate culture, the article cited suggests only that the policy on staff locking up at the end of the day changed. Is that really newsworthy? The cited article suggests they lost interest after a while, and in any case none of this is actually mentioned in the Wikipedia article. None of this really belongs in an article about a commercial organisation, but if should go anywhere, that would be in a trivia section.--Rbreen (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then there's the following quote: "In that moment, it seemed inevitable. As educators, we were pressed to be our best selves, treat life like a party, and never give up on greatness. If you were unhappy, angry, paranoid, just tell a different story. The idea that you could shape reality to look however you wanted suddenly seemed dangerous, easily abused, especially among my Type A co-workers, who exercised and worked and exercised and worked and ate so little that it was not really a surprise that someone, eventually, snapped." [italics mine] The author flatly states that based on her observation, the corporate culture of Lululemon made such an act of physical lashing out "inevitable". To my reading the premise of the article is that the constant pushing, pushing, pushing of the the management culture might eventually cause any overstressed person to crack: they treated us like this, and that was the inevitable result. Does seem like a significant addition to the article. I'd prefer the section stay in, and I'd like to measure consensus before removing it. BusterD (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- And this quote: "You'd start to think, "These things happen." But they don't. Women rarely bludgeon each other to death. When they do, there's usually more at stake than a pair of allegedly stolen yoga pants. Looking back on the incident, I can't help but remember the hysterical, highly feminized air I breathed at Lululemon, an alternate universe with its own opaque value system and ominous doublespeak." from Lululemon's Cult Culture: Get Fit or Die Trying published at HuffPost in August 2013, and ""It's the first time I've heard of anyone almost directly using the techniques of cults and applying them to their business," Douglas Atkin, author of The Culting of Brands, once told Fast Company." from You Really Do Have To 'Drink The Kool-Aid' To Succeed At Lululemon. "Drink the Kool-Aid" says Business Insider. Just like a famous cult which committed mass suicide. So I guess the murder didn't have anything to do with the Lululemon corporate culture? There's lots of RS which says the murder was a result of the 'opaque value system and ominous doublespeak'. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then there's the following quote: "In that moment, it seemed inevitable. As educators, we were pressed to be our best selves, treat life like a party, and never give up on greatness. If you were unhappy, angry, paranoid, just tell a different story. The idea that you could shape reality to look however you wanted suddenly seemed dangerous, easily abused, especially among my Type A co-workers, who exercised and worked and exercised and worked and ate so little that it was not really a surprise that someone, eventually, snapped." [italics mine] The author flatly states that based on her observation, the corporate culture of Lululemon made such an act of physical lashing out "inevitable". To my reading the premise of the article is that the constant pushing, pushing, pushing of the the management culture might eventually cause any overstressed person to crack: they treated us like this, and that was the inevitable result. Does seem like a significant addition to the article. I'd prefer the section stay in, and I'd like to measure consensus before removing it. BusterD (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I originally removed this section because it tells us nothing about Lululemon. It refers to a crime that took place on the company premises, but this could just as easily have happened in a branch of another chain, in which case it would be the Wal-Mart murder, or the Old Navy murder, or the American Apparel murder, or whatever. Is there a claim that there is something specific about Lululemon or their employees which is relevant here? Does it tell us anything about the company apart from the fact that it was the location of a gruesome murder? I can see nothing. It's not even an important news story outside the local area, and therefore does not warrant a mention as news. As to the suggestion that it had an impact on the company's corporate culture, the article cited suggests only that the policy on staff locking up at the end of the day changed. Is that really newsworthy? The cited article suggests they lost interest after a while, and in any case none of this is actually mentioned in the Wikipedia article. None of this really belongs in an article about a commercial organisation, but if should go anywhere, that would be in a trivia section.--Rbreen (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I still see no reason why the current text on the murder is in the article. The point you mention - claims by two former workers that the murder was in some way the product of the company culture - is a separate issue. There certainly seems to be plenty of criticism of the Lululemon approach, and this is an issue which ought to be reflected in the article (and so far, is not). But the connection to the murder is tenuous, and not brought out in the current text. Neither of the ex-workers who have written about the case appear to have any actual connection with, or knowledge of, the people or event. They are merely speculating that it was inevitable in some way, based on their own experiences of working in a different branch. Is there any real evidence of this from sources who were involved with the case? Is there anything in the books about the case that refer to this? --Rbreen (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Rbreen, BusterD, I have removed the section. I see no reason whatsoever that this should be in--nothing in that text has anything relevant to the company. I like HuffPo as much as the next guy or gal, but "hysterical, highly feminized air", yeah, that's an opinion. To include this much detail is little more than blackballing the company. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rbreen, BusterD, Drmies, while I agree there was too much emphasis on the Lululemon murder (ie a whole paragraph) I think it deserves a sentence in the article because it was (1) so unusual -- over 300+ stab wounds, plus a cover-up (2) received huge media attention for an extended period of time (3) not including even a sentence about it looks like Wikipedia trying to do a cover-up (4) it probably does say something about the company culture -- offhand, I don't know of any other retailers or chains where something like that happened; my own experience (limited) with a manager in my hometown suggested a sort of underlying venality which extends from management on down (5) it would not be fair to people considering working there not to have this bit of information, so they can make up their own minds about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't actually edited this page much. After reading the Salon Magazine article I referenced in my comments above, I first read this article and was surprised to find that an ip editor had blanked the (extremely well-cited -- Washington Post, Wash Times, CBS News, NBC Washington--no Huffington Post citations) section a month earlier, so I restored it. Like many company pages, this article seems to have a series of ip supporters who come along on a regular basis and purge the article of non-positive stuff. After reinserting the section I did some due diligence to justify to myself the section had legs upon which to stand. There are two books entirely devoted to this subject and numerous articles, many from sources which would pass IRS by any reading. There exist so many and such rich sources the murder could easily pass GNG and EVENT, warranting inclusion as its own article. All that stated, I tend to agree with both editors above that the section is unduly long. I can respect positions of editors with established editing credentials more easily than I can an ip editor who suddenly appears to slice out any negative comments. If the section comes out entirely, I'll be writing a new article on the murder and linking it back to this page; the perpetrator has just in the last month been denied a new trial. COMMONNAME would tend to indicate the new location should be Lululemon murder. I would be amenable to a much shorter paragraph. Dozens of high quality sources seem to indicate the Lululemon corporate culture had something to do with the terrible events of that evening. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- On relooking at my edits I noticed that it was User:Rbreen that first removed the section. After one ip editor restored it, at that point an unassociated ip blanked it. On rereading my comments above, I must admit I hold a bias against apparent undisclosed COI editors hiding behind ip addresses. I see a lot of such editing. I have no such feeling about Rbreen who appears to do good work inside that editor's field. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer, I don't think Wikipedia was invented to make people aware of what happened near the building they work at. They probably know anyway. Look, you made a very decent edit back a couple of months ago, when this article was indeed a PR piece (I tried to figure who was responsible for that but it wasn't that easy, though I found one or two candidates). But this murder has nothing to do with the company itself, unless some evidence is presented (here on the talk page) that it does. How many stab wounds and whatever may be relevant for a possible article on the murder, but I doubt that we can name that article for the company, even if some newspaper/blog articles do. That we're suppressing something that should be in hereis really not a valid suggestion--and I cannot allow this article to be turned into a hatchet piece anymore than we should have it as a puff piece. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, adding a single sentence about a highly publicized murder (there's even a book about it here -- and check out [this source saying it was the most publicized murder of the year) at the store does not constitute a "hatchet piece". The murder happened at a lululemon store; it did not happen at a McDonald's or Abercrombie & Fitch. To exclude it, on the basis of the company having "nothing to do" with the murder, is essentially original research, one of us inserting our opinion that the murder and the store are unconnected. That said, a single sentence will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Tomwsulcer. It might actually be difficult to put the entire incident into a single sentence. I'd be interested in hearing what others think. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I could write it in a single (short) sentence.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm interested in reading a draft here to see what Drmies and Rbreen would say about it. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it can be done in one sentence: all you need to do is take these two sentences and insert a semi-colon. I still don't see anything that makes this a Lululemon murder. Tomwsulcer, I take objection to your attempt at a reversal here, as I am "excluding" that Lululemon had something to do with the murder. Well, it has nothing to do with the murder except that it was an ordinary employee killing another in the parking lot. We also don't include shootings at schoolyards and stuff like that. Your reading of what here constitutes OR is, well, unjustified. And yes, I have serious problems with all this, since what we had was completely excessive: it took up 1/4 of the article. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- The media dubbed it, again and again, the Lululemon murder. That is where the event happened in terms of location; the event happened between two Lululemon employees, one murdering the other, in the store itself. By circumstance, they're all linked, so trying to disassociate Lululemon from the event is us trying to pull apart two terms that the media has linked. But I agree, as I said before, it deserves only one short sentence, no more.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad, please have a look at this. Thanks, and thanks Tom, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- The media dubbed it, again and again, the Lululemon murder. That is where the event happened in terms of location; the event happened between two Lululemon employees, one murdering the other, in the store itself. By circumstance, they're all linked, so trying to disassociate Lululemon from the event is us trying to pull apart two terms that the media has linked. But I agree, as I said before, it deserves only one short sentence, no more.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it can be done in one sentence: all you need to do is take these two sentences and insert a semi-colon. I still don't see anything that makes this a Lululemon murder. Tomwsulcer, I take objection to your attempt at a reversal here, as I am "excluding" that Lululemon had something to do with the murder. Well, it has nothing to do with the murder except that it was an ordinary employee killing another in the parking lot. We also don't include shootings at schoolyards and stuff like that. Your reading of what here constitutes OR is, well, unjustified. And yes, I have serious problems with all this, since what we had was completely excessive: it took up 1/4 of the article. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm interested in reading a draft here to see what Drmies and Rbreen would say about it. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I could write it in a single (short) sentence.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Tomwsulcer. It might actually be difficult to put the entire incident into a single sentence. I'd be interested in hearing what others think. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, adding a single sentence about a highly publicized murder (there's even a book about it here -- and check out [this source saying it was the most publicized murder of the year) at the store does not constitute a "hatchet piece". The murder happened at a lululemon store; it did not happen at a McDonald's or Abercrombie & Fitch. To exclude it, on the basis of the company having "nothing to do" with the murder, is essentially original research, one of us inserting our opinion that the murder and the store are unconnected. That said, a single sentence will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer, I don't think Wikipedia was invented to make people aware of what happened near the building they work at. They probably know anyway. Look, you made a very decent edit back a couple of months ago, when this article was indeed a PR piece (I tried to figure who was responsible for that but it wasn't that easy, though I found one or two candidates). But this murder has nothing to do with the company itself, unless some evidence is presented (here on the talk page) that it does. How many stab wounds and whatever may be relevant for a possible article on the murder, but I doubt that we can name that article for the company, even if some newspaper/blog articles do. That we're suppressing something that should be in hereis really not a valid suggestion--and I cannot allow this article to be turned into a hatchet piece anymore than we should have it as a puff piece. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- On relooking at my edits I noticed that it was User:Rbreen that first removed the section. After one ip editor restored it, at that point an unassociated ip blanked it. On rereading my comments above, I must admit I hold a bias against apparent undisclosed COI editors hiding behind ip addresses. I see a lot of such editing. I have no such feeling about Rbreen who appears to do good work inside that editor's field. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't actually edited this page much. After reading the Salon Magazine article I referenced in my comments above, I first read this article and was surprised to find that an ip editor had blanked the (extremely well-cited -- Washington Post, Wash Times, CBS News, NBC Washington--no Huffington Post citations) section a month earlier, so I restored it. Like many company pages, this article seems to have a series of ip supporters who come along on a regular basis and purge the article of non-positive stuff. After reinserting the section I did some due diligence to justify to myself the section had legs upon which to stand. There are two books entirely devoted to this subject and numerous articles, many from sources which would pass IRS by any reading. There exist so many and such rich sources the murder could easily pass GNG and EVENT, warranting inclusion as its own article. All that stated, I tend to agree with both editors above that the section is unduly long. I can respect positions of editors with established editing credentials more easily than I can an ip editor who suddenly appears to slice out any negative comments. If the section comes out entirely, I'll be writing a new article on the murder and linking it back to this page; the perpetrator has just in the last month been denied a new trial. COMMONNAME would tend to indicate the new location should be Lululemon murder. I would be amenable to a much shorter paragraph. Dozens of high quality sources seem to indicate the Lululemon corporate culture had something to do with the terrible events of that evening. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
I have not been on this page in many months. (I just double checked. It's been since November 2011.) And, by chance, I just came back to this article today. Why is the "Lululemon Murder" incident completely removed from the article? I am reinserting it. To keep this information out violates NPOV. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- If we whittle the murder to one sentence (which I think is proper and which most of us here agree about) I don't think it needs to have its own Lululemon murder section heading. My two cents...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think that the whole "Lululemon Murder" merits its own separate article, which I intend to create. At that point, I am fine with it being a mere one or two sentences in this article, with a "For the main article, see Lululemon Murder" tag included in that section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes there should be an article on it, plus a {{Further|Lululemon murder}} link on this article after the one-sentence.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think that the whole "Lululemon Murder" merits its own separate article, which I intend to create. At that point, I am fine with it being a mere one or two sentences in this article, with a "For the main article, see Lululemon Murder" tag included in that section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will start the article, at least as a stub, very soon. Probably today. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. See Lululemon murder. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed back the statement in this article - "intense media coverage" is unsourced OR and "so-called Lululemon Murder" is weasel-like and unsourced. The source provided here does not call it the "Lululemon Murder", and of the sources in Lululemon murder only one possibly refers to it that way (in the title, as "Second Week of Testimony in Lululemon Murder Trial"). None of the other sources in that article use the term "Lululemon Murder". --Tgeairn (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Joseph A. Spadaro: I see your edits since my trim, and that seems to have addressed some of this. Also, it looks like the more recent local reporting on Norwood's appeal is using the "Lululemon Murder" title. Seems like lazy clickbait reporting to me, but that's not in my pay grade to say. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just added in several sources to the claims, as well. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-neutral tone of article
Sorry I'm a newbie to editing Wiki articles, but this whole article seems to be overly negative and not objective. 95% of the content bashes on the company. I learn nothing about the company except all the negatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:A006:B871:ABFA:F55B:307E (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Improvements
I've added some headings and tried to reword parts that read more like an advertisement...and I'm going to add some more about the corporate philosophy and the manifesto. -jen, 4 April 2006
This is a weird, brief and very negative article. Didn't there used to be more history to the company on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.212.67 (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)