Talk:American Eagle Outfitters

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pebbles-310 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hershey2024.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are criticizing the Sweeney campaign?

If an advertising campaign was being "criticized" for having an obese model, a black model, or a gay couple, Wikipedia would say immediately who it was who was criticizing it. However, here we just have "many social media users" criticizing it. The Bud Light campaign that nearly killed the brand and attracted months of negative publicity is not listed as a "controversy", but something from this week that has apparently boosted sales is a "controversy".

I know Wikipedia can only reflect the sources, but this is a symptom of how just repeating what media outlets say means that we fall into their summer silly season of culture war issues and saving money by making whole articles off random people's tweets and opinions. Is this going to be important in one year's time, WP:10YT? Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should have paid any attention to it, but here we are. Psychloppos (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how an american clothing brand promoting whiteness, coincidentally at the same time the united states has seen an unprecedented rise in white supremacy, and it being endorsed by a sitting president who's rethoric and policies have been describes as fascist by reliable academic sources is frivolous. At best American Eagle's ad would be silly, at any other time. But things don't exist in a vacuum. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not promoting whiteness. She objectively has good genes. She had a promo with Ford, where she fixes a car. A video recently surfacedof her firing a handgun with impressive speed and accuracy. She's also just downright attractive. If she was black, it wouldn't matter. If she was asian, it wouldn't matter. All American Eagle said was that she's pretty and good at other things. 100.16.162.233 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Objectively good genes"? That doesn't exist bud, not according to evolutionary theory who should be the judges of genes in any case. "attractive" is a social construct, watch the ladies considered attractive in the renaissance and today they would be the "ugly chicks". All of this has nothing of objective anyways as it is a politically motivated ad campaign, not a peer reviewed natural science article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.82.28.253 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive cutdown

@BootsED, I do get cutting down the section on the backlash to the ad but removing details about how Trump and Vance praised the campaign seems excessive. It is notable that the POTUS and the Republican party are rushing to the defense of a single television advertisement, which presidents are usually not known to do. It should be included in some form. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should also mention the fact that some media reported about the "backlash" (giving it undue importance) before Conservatives reacted to it. Psychloppos (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and put back much of what had been excised, though in a relatively condensed form, whilst keeping BootsED's additions. I also added a source from Euronews that gives an approximative chronology of how the controversy started (making no mention of conservative reactions - the article was published on July 29). Removing details about how the controversy started, and reactions from Trump and Vance was just counterproductive IMHO. The President and VP of the United States reacting to a controversy about a jeans ad is pretty significant per se, even when said controversy is frighteningly stupid. Psychloppos (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The quotes of random TikTokers and politicians making politicized statements bashing liberals and Democrats do not enhance viewers understanding of the "controversy". Several of the sources added are opinion pieces and need to be removed, as they violate Wikipedia policy on original research per WP:PRIMARY.
We need to keep in mind this page should be written in a summary style. Quotations would belong on a specific page about the controversy itself, however, since that page has been deleted, this excessive information is not relevant or due for a page about American Eagle Outfitters. Just because the President or VP says something, doesn't mean it must be included on a page. BootsED (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add the two hidden comments on the Sydney Sweeney page for further referrence:
Reliable sources state that the reported "backlash" is mostly a creation of conservative and far-right media. Do not mention eugenics or white supremacy in the article without a RFC or overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Thank you. This has been discussed in detail on there and there's a general agreement not to mention it.
Do not include eugenics, white supremacy, or mentions to far-right ideologies such as neo-fascism or neo-Nazism per WP: BLP. The alleged controversy has been widely described by news agencies, commentators, and journalists as wildly exaggerated. BootsED (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the opinion pieces that were being used in violation of WP:PRIMARY. I've also removed quotes from TikTok and Twitter users per WP:SENSATIONAL and failing notability guidelines. BootsED (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll further add, I could find no source that wasn't an opinion piece that described the response as a "meltdown". The remaining article from Fortune uses this term in the headline, but this can't be used per WP:HEADLINES. Reading the body, this word is used in a sarcastic, partisan quote from former Fox News host Megyn Kelly and thus shouldn't be used in Wikivoice. Per MOS:WTW, I've removed this and replaced it with "wokeness", which is supported by RS for its use. BootsED (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the hidden comments are accurate or relevant. IMHO they will also have to go from the Sydney Sweeney article.
I strongly object to your removal of the mentions of the media's treatment of the controversy. That was crucial in amplifying it beyond measure and it amouns to removing reliable sources. We're not talking "random tiktokers" here. Though initial controversy did come from random nobodies on social media, it was later amplified by people with an actual audience (mentioning DasGupta's viral video is pretty important) and most of all, by the media: The Guardian and CNN chose to give visibility to this ridiculous controversy by interviewing actual academics who supported the accusations. This is very relevant information and it should be mentioned to show how this unfortunate controversy developed.
Removing this source, this one and this one is just damaging to the content. As a reminder, I find the controversy inept and the whole affair very unsavory so I have no wish to amplify it. However, it should be summarized accuraretly without censoring any aspects.
As for replacing "meltdown" with "wokeness", I'm ok with that as it's pretty accurate (though "meltdown" is also a pretty good description of the negative reactions on social media, or even of the academics' comments). Psychloppos (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Assambrew and Some1: I think I'm having a problem here as BootsED wants to remove all mention of the media amplifying the controversy before conservative commentators took advantage of it. Any idea of how we might find a good middle ground here ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bowing out at this point, good luck guys. Assambrew (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I recommend using Wikipedia:Third opinion if necessary. Some1 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much of an opinion on how much of the other backlash should be included here, but the sitting US president and White House jumping to the defense of a single television advertisement should be automatically notable, especially when they don't usually do this. Pretty sure there wasn't a single time Joe Biden ever directly commented on an advertisement during his entire presidency. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HadesTTW: I agree, that's definitely notable per se.
As for the media reporting on the controversy and making it more important than it was (and should have been) I insist that it should be included. The sources I added are not "opinion pieces" but major media (The Guardian, CNN) asking "experts" for their opinion about that commercial. The fact that the so-called "experts"' opinions were pretty extreme should also be taken into account. We shouldn't obfuscate the fact that after being started by a small number of social media accounts, it was amplified beyond measure before the conservatives even reacted. See also the MSNBC source added by Erasmus1463. (please note that, while an opinion piece and therefore a primary source, it was "reputably published" and can therefore be used in context.) Psychloppos (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for asking for third opinions, maybe other users who commented on the Sydney Sweeney article would be interested on whether or not mentioning the media's role in the controversy ? Psychloppos (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept the additions but removed the one bit that said it was described as "Nazi propaganda". Maybe my Google translate is bad but the source used to say that only cites one person on the internet who said so, which isn't notable enough to mention that "social media" said so. I further clarified the research from the NYT source to describe how the majority of left-leaning criticism as only arose after a minority of the criticism was amplified by the right, which actually tied in nicely to the sentence mentioning Sayantani DasGupta and how "Criticism was amplified by a viral video". I think this should satisfy everyone now. BootsED (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also expanded on Hannah Holland's MSNBC opinion article to mention her critique of the ad as intentionally controversial and part of AE's strategy as a meme stock. However, I'm not sure this source is noteworthy enough to mention on its own, as Hannah Holland is just a producer at MSNBC and not an expert in any relevant field. We might as well post an opinion piece from a Fox News host and they would have the same credibility as Hannah Holland. I'd support removing this source. BootsED (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose removing this source. We may speculate on Hannah Holland's or MSNBC's motivations, but the fact that a mainstream and definitely not "conservative" media like MSNBC chooses to publish such a piece is very significant. If anything, it shows that the left-wing media bears a responsibility in spreading this inane controversy, probably even more so than their right-wing equivalents. If the left-wing media really jumped on the bandwagon after the right-wing media began inflating the controversy (something I have yet to see an example of despite what the NYT says), then this is gross incompetence on their part.
As for the mention of "Nazi propaganda", I think we should restore the quote since it was reported by the media not as a relevant analysis but as probably the most outrageous claim in the whole affair. We are dealing with a ridiculous story, so we should be prepared to report ridiculous statements. I'm ok with the rest. Psychloppos (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots to unpack in your statement. You first say the left bears more responsibility for spreading the controversy than the right-wing, even though there is no reliable source that says this. Wikipedia goes off of what reliable sources say, not what we think. We have a reliable source that explicitly states that left-wing commentary only began substantially after it was publicized by the right. The edits made to this page clearly state how a few minor voices on social media were picked up and publicized by the right, and then afterwards some more prominent left-wing voices joined in, but that the majority of prominent Democrats and progressives did not engage in the controversy. This is all explicitly stated by multiple sources. If you have reliable sources that suggest otherwise, please feel free to present them. Otherwise, we need to go on what the sources say whether we believe they are correct or not. BootsED (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, prominent Democrats have something else to do, thank goodness. That's why it was ridiculous of the media (and that includes left-wing media, not just "the right") to amplify that. Psychloppos (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an edit where I removed all the individual quotes and simply quoted NBC and USA Today who described the criticism of all the people we quoted individually. I think this works and covers what people said without quoting every single one. Bringing the conversation back here from Psychloppos's talk page. BootsED (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said on my talk page I think we have to keep some of the individual quotes (not full quotes, though, as they make the section too unwieldy). It's ok to condense the arguments, but we must not water down the discourse. Some statements were particularly extreme (about a campaign for jeans, of all things) and casual readers must have an accurate vision of that. We must not give the impression that the debate was mild and moderate when it was anything but. Psychloppos (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't include statements only because they're extreme per WP:SENSATIONAL. Also per WP:DUE, minority views should be stated "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" and that "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered". Giving extreme minority views of random social media users top billing violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to include statements -including a mention of the "Nazi" accusations - precisely because the whole controversy was so extreme while it shouldn't have been. Watering down the discourse would be the actual WP:FALSEBALANCE IMHO. My point is that the whole controversy became so prominent precisely because the media were, most unwisely, giving visibility to the most extreme viewpoints. Don't you find it problematic that a supposedly serious media like The Guardian quotes a so-called academic who spouts things like "racialised fantasy of whiteness" ? And yet here we are. I am the first to find this deplorable but we must take it into account. Psychloppos (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to cast aspersions on the media or its bias. If you think a source is biased, you need to take it to the appropriate page and review WP:RSP. Also, I know we have both been rapidly editing this page multiple times but we really need to stop to avoid edit warring. Discuss it here before making more rapid-fire edits, please. BootsED (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your "Nazi" claims, this was attributed to no-name social media users. Secondary sources overwhelmingly describe the criticism as related to sexualization and eugenics, not "Naziism". Mentioning this is thus undue, although I don't think I can persuade you about this. Your edit also conflated the quotes of several individuals into a single sentence and made it sound like multiple said the same thing, which is not the case. Part of this seems to violate policy against scarequotes. BootsED (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole affair was about "scarequotes". I agree that the Nazi comparison was ridiculous, but it was so widely reported by the media (and I agree that it shouldn't have been) that we must take it into account. The fact that it came from some random accounts is irrelevant at that point. We can't describe a subject that is inherently stupid by making it look smarter than it is. Psychloppos (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel if we simply mentioned that it was compared to Nazi propaganda in the context of its eugenics claims? The claim here isn't that the ad was "Nazi propaganda", but that it received some comparison to Nazi propaganda in the context that Nazi propaganda promoted eugenics. I can make this edit if you are amenable to this. BootsED (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the link between eugenics and Nazism is obvious so there's no particular need for an explanation. On the other hand, some people may also have felt like that because Sweeney is White and (dark) blonde so there's also that factor (we're talking absurd comparisons so we can't rule out anything absurd).
I'd say the article is clear enough about this: we can leave it as it is without lengthening the text. Psychloppos (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the connection is clear as I have explained previously. I would like to make that connection clear. This will not greatly lengthen the section. Are you amenable to this change? BootsED (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not clear ? Maybe I'm too much of a nerd but the connexion between Nazim and eugenics seems absolutely obvious to me. Anyway, it might be best if you posted here the version that you have in mind. (I'll have a look at it tomorrow) Psychloppos (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Some social media users compared the ad to Nazi eugenic propaganda that promoted a blue-eyed, blonde-haired race." BootsED (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure that's useful, but we could say "Some social media users compared the ad to Nazi propaganda about the Aryan race". Everybody knows what the "master race" promoted by the Nazis looked like, so we might as well keep it short. Psychloppos (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Nazi propaganda that supports Lebensraum in territories of the Soviet Union? Is it Nazi propaganda in terms of killing all Jewish people? Is it Nazi propaganda in regard to its linguistic, artistic, and dramatic composition and styling? Or is it Nazi propaganda in terms of its support of a blue eyed, blonde haired master race? It's obviously the last option, as sources state. So we need to make it specific, otherwise "Nazi propaganda" could be referring to any of those other descriptions I mentioned. It may be obvious to us because we are familiar with the subject. We have to assume a reader is not. BootsED (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the context, that seems pretty obvious. Nobody would connect Sydney Sweeney with invading the Soviet Union or the Jewish genocide (at least I hope so). I see what you mean, though, but we should still keep it short. Psychloppos (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you find it problematic that a supposedly serious media like The Guardian quotes a so-called academic who spouts things like "racialised fantasy of whiteness"?
Tell me you're not an academic without telling me you're not an academic. You are not qualified to evaluate academic terminology by appealing to your own ignorance of it. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments at the end of the section below. Psychloppos (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Psychloppos, you've recently made several edits to the page that remove important context from the article, such as removing the statement that not all researchers agree with the criticism or only agreed to varying degrees per the used source. This distinction is vitally important, and its removal is misleading. Your comments describing the academics as "lunatic charlatans" below and prior comments saying you deliberately want to show their "extreme" statements makes me seriously question whether or not you are engaged in advocacy. BootsED (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED: I trimmed the section because FMSky had tagged it as too long, to which I agreed. It had become way too long and some parts were just unnecessary.
Advocacy for what ? For jeans or for Sydney Sweeney ? Yes, I do believe that some academics behaved like lunatic charlatans and that is my right. I quoted them because their statements showed that this controversy has gone entirely out of proportion for a freaking jeans campaign. That is not advocacy, but a fact. These statements may be put back in the "quote" section of the sources, but for now I have kept them out for length reasons. Psychloppos (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know this section is controversial. So after a stable version is reached as a result of much discussion between us, you decide that as soon as one person engages in drive by tagging, this justifies you removing the majority of content I added that you have repeatedly expressed disagreement with while preserving your own edits? BootsED (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think this changes much in the content. The paragraphs basically tell the same thing as before. And unless I'm mistaken, I also trimmed some of the things I had added myself. As a sidenote, some of it had been removed without me noticing, so I can't say that the previous version is one I really agreed with either. You might of course discuss with FMSky over the section's content but I tend to agree with him that it had become too bloated (and I'm saying this as someone who tends to write too long). Psychloppos (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe it is too bloated, why did you not remove the trivia mention of sorority girls starting a recruitment pledge based on the ad, or the excessively long Trump quotes? Instead, 90% of your cuts were my edits that you have removed or said you disagreed with in the past. Discuss before removing content. I very much disagree, as important context and the meaning of sources cited have been changed by your edit, which altered content as well as removing it. BootsED (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the sorority girls trivia. I have just removed it. As for the content I had previously removed (whether yours or mine), IMHO it did not bring much to the article which says the same thing overall now.
@FMSky: I see that you tagged the section again. Could you let us know what you would like to see removed ? I am be the first to say that this controversy is idiotic, but unfortunately we have to explain what went on and that implies detailing the issue a bit. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: sorry, I had initially pinged you in another section by mistake. If you wish to discuss your proposed changes, it would be better to do it here. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
idk, it just needs to be compressed. it cant be the size of the entire history section FMSky (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have extensively explained my reasoning for my edits above, expounding upon how they adequately described and summarized your extensive quotes and the breadth of the controversy using reliable, secondary sources. You have not provided any reasoning for removing them other than "IMHO it did not bring much to the article". I agreed that the page was too long, and cutting out the extensive quotes you wanted to include reduced the size of the page. If you want to go further, I still stand by my reasoning for removing the Trump and Vance quotes from the page which you have repeatedly said you do not want to do. Apparently, after I left the page for a few days and someone said it was too long, you suddenly agreed with them and removed most of my additions without any discussion, altered sentences while keeping trivia around sorority girls (that you did not remove until I pointed them out), and kept your extensive Trump and Vance quotes.
Your new edits have changed the meaning of existing sources by removing any nuance, such as removing mention that academics who criticized the ads only agreed to varying degrees, not that they simply agreed with the criticism. Your prior comments calling them "lunatic charlatans", your casting doubt on the reliability of reputable sources, and your saying you want to showcase extreme statements from academics and social media users for simply being extreme, makes it really hard for me to believe you are simply engaging in trimming when the statements you trimmed provided context and a summary-level overview of the controversy and pointing out that such "extreme" statements came from a minority of users. BootsED (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, keep cool. The current version says that "several" of the academics and experts interviewed agreed with the criticism. As a reminder, several means "not all". I had chosen quotes that were quite extreme because they showed that the controversy had been extreme. And keep in mind that these people's statements made up for much of what was reported by The Guardian and CNN. Watering down the content is not helpful. As far as I'm concerned, the section as it is does not need to be particularly longer (unless - God forbid - the controversy starts over). Psychloppos (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: Some effort had already been made to condense it and I just removed further content. Please let us know if there are other details you think we could trim down. Thanks Psychloppos (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured by the right?

The Sydney Sweeney controversy section contains contradicting statements. On the one hand it presents clear evidence that the ad has been controversial, with criticism of the ad coming from high quality academic sources, but in the next paragraph this is immediately ignored, in favor of the claim that the outrage is manufactured by the right and that "both sides" are overreacting. So which one is it? 46.97.170.26 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no academic sources used to describe criticism of the campaign, but statements by some academics. Both statements are accurate, as statements by some academics came after the controversy was promoted by the right. Before the right promoted it, it was not a major controversy that academics bothered responding to press. BootsED (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "the right promoted the controversy" is rather odd way of putting it, and makes it sound like the controversy is some fringe lunacy that the right is using to promote a political strawman. This is not true, as academics were quick to point out that the ads were in fact problematic, and the concerns over them are valid. It's more accurate to say that the right amplified the least convincing voices in order to prime. Most people would look at these ads and feel uncomfortable, if not for the right's efforts to turn this into a culture war battleground, and prime people with the "correct opinion". Academics didn't respond simply because the right made this an issue. They responded because the right were successfully gaslighting a large number of people to spread their conspiracy theories about "woke outrage mobs" (whatever the hell those are). 46.97.170.26 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As shown by the sources, the outrage was "manufactured by the right" only to some extent: that is, during the very first few days when right-wing commentators helped stoke reactions by actual left-wing social media users (which had initially been quite limited). The right certainly did not inspire the comments by the latter (unless they're fake accounts) nor the reactions of left-wing medias, nor did it force academics to make those insane comments. The right also took advantage from the controversy afterwards, by adroitly exploiting its ridiculousness: but that does not amount to "manufacturing" it. Psychloppos (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of terms like "ridiculousness" implies that the backlash American Eagles got for these ads is ridiculous. It's not. The criticism is valid, as much as the right wants to frame it as "crazy leftists getting triggered over nothing". The right "forced" the hand of academics in the sense that the right painting the criticism in a ridiculous light put academics in a position where they needed to come forward to debunk the narrative (i.e. the narrative pushed by the right about silly leftist outrage) and educate the public on why the backlash is 100% justified. There's way too much focus on "both sides" of the "internet culture war" acting in a "ridiculous" manner, and not enough focus on the fact that American Eagles has indeed screwed up or worse, are intentionally pandering to the far right. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism is valid only insofar as it exists, much like the flat Earth theory. I'm afraid that all these academics did was prove the conservatives' point. What we have here is an unfortunate example of academics behaving like lunatic charlatans. This is not the first time nor the last.
Anyway, regardless of our personal opinions on this matter, what we should do is presenting it in a neutral and factual way, which is what the current version is trying to do, though it can certainly be improved. If we ever have any reliable source showing that American Eagle is "intentionally pandering to the far right", it will certainly be reported here. IMHO, this is the best we can do right now. Psychloppos (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not qualified to judge whether the ads were promoting whiteness and eugenics. The academics you just labeled "lunatic charlatans" very much are. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Yeah, right, sure. If your goal is to prove conservatives right, you're doing a pretty good job. Now, I hate reminding this but Wikipedia is not a forum. Psychloppos (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who uses this talk page as a forum, with your continued making of disparaging statements about academics who are qualified experts in a field that you explicitly refuse to take seriously. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, I am the one who added the statements from those academics in the first place. Whether or not I find them accurate - and I most certainly don't - is irrelevant. What matters is the context they can bring to this article. I suggest we leave it at that. Psychloppos (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC

From what I can tell, MSNBC's summary of the content of the criticism the Sydney Sweeney ad received is a high quality one. Is there a reason why it's banished into a footnote, with the only mention in the body of the article being reduced to "MSNBC supported the backlash"? I wanted to explain this above, but I'm getting the feeling that the section focuses more on trying to convince the reader that the controversy was irrelevant and exaggerated, over presenting the actual arguments. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because everything MSNBC said has already been said in the "Sydney Sweeney ad campaign" section, and anything more than the fact they agreed with the backlash is redundant. Dandykong1 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split out Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans

I am aware of the previous AFD, but I think the discussion around the topic has proven that it meets WP:SUSTAINED. Even months after the original campaign launched, articles keep being written about it. I don't think discussion about this campaign is stopping anytime soon. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose this, though due to the AFD you will probably need more support than just mine. Per WP:UNDUE, great pains have been taken here to avoid having a section that would be too bloated. If we have another a separate page again this might allow us to develop the subject.
On the other hand, with hindsight one may think that we don't necessarily need to add more on this matter and that splitting the page would make it more difficult to keep the content under control. I don't have a definitive opinion on this. Psychloppos (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this topic might need another page; criticism and commentary hasn't subsided yet. Most of the disagreement in this talk stems from the fact that there is not enough space to include some major details. A separate page would reduce that complaint. ~2025-36801-86 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I alao think this topic should have its own page ~2025-39069-70 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • also
~2025-39069-70 (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also cast my vote in support of this proposal. As recently as yesterday (!), we still have articles being written in reliable sources - in this case, it seems, due to an interview Sweeney did on December 5th. Re-reading the talk page I here, I also tend to agree that much of the disagreements appear to stem from varying (generally well-sourced) interpretations of the events and the reactions to them, which would benefit from sections of their own. NewBorders (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose When you say "articles keep being written about it", what you actually mean is "in a textbook example of routine churnalism, multiple websites write near-identical articles on the same interview". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, that first round of "churnalism" in the comment you respond to is one that happened back in October-November, whereas I linked to newer articles about a newer interview (still regarding the same topic); so you can argue that generally reliable outlets like the Guardian, the Huffington Post, or Rolling Stone are doing nothing more than engaging in "churnalism" all you want, the fact remains that it meets the definition of SUSTAINED by mere virtue that there are multiple rounds of "churnalism" at play here. NewBorders (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging (Oinkers42). M. Billoo 05:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Eagle_Outfitters