Talk:Prada Female Discrimination Case

Bias

This article is very POV written from the prospective of Rina Bovrisse, the plaintiff, who lost the legal proceedings. It is full of statements and claims that are not supported by the citations. Such as:

• Prada Group admitted to sexual harassment…
• “Sexual harassment and discrimination is confirmed,”
• Statements and claims by Bovrisse are not attributed to her but are presented as facts in the voice of Wikipedia.
• Celebrities names, Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore and Nicole Kidman were added to imply support.

Hence I reverted material and added POV tag.Cheers.Grahamboat (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

106.188.116.119 reverted my edits without any discussion here. I reverted back. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted again. A third revert will result in a violation of 3RR. Please do not revert without discussing your reasons on the | TALK PAGE. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at Grahamboat's first two points and like him, can't find anything in the sources that supports the text. The article is still in bad shape. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As Mendaliv wrote on WP:EAR the article needs a fundamental rewrite but the worst bits of it are gone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed two comments not supported by the references. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice edit, Mendaliv, exactly what this article needed. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This articles is in serious need of editing or should be removed. Not a neutral POV and obviously very one sided. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Abuse

This is so obviously done by those involved with Rina Bovrisse. I looked up the IPs and everything shows that they are making a mockery of Wikipedia by using this for their litigious agenda. Shame on them. I'm looking into their other entries and handles too. This a wide reaching abuse that needs to be stopped. The entry will be nominated for deletion and I'm sure the culprits, who have ignored addressing the issues flagged, only have their abusive agenda and not the legitimacy of Wikipedia in mind.--WatchingContent (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposing proposed deletion

WatchingContent, I have removed the deletion template you placed today. The references alone show that this was a "newsworthy" case (I realise that newsworthy does not equal notable) so I do not think it qualifies for a "prod" deletion. There may be serious issues that need to be addressed via an AFD or merger discussion though. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

AtHomeIn神戸, opposition should be your vote, this has been proposed for more than one person to decide. This entry has so many violations of Wikipedia guidelines, plus these handles that have contributed, all clearly show abuse. I am putting it back. If you oppose, please vote, do not remove.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the procedure for WP:PROD is that anyone, perhaps with the exception of banned users, can contest the proposed deletion simply by removing the template. Once the template has been removed it isn't permitted to be restored. The next step is to go to WP:AFD. A bit annoying, I understand, but that's just how the process works. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Title change?

The current title and article stating the title does not seem to match. Which title are we using?--G.A.Mann1994 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The actual case is called, Prada Female Discrimination Case which is labeled on the court documents at Tokyo Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaz1966e (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Page review

The page received significant updates. Can the current issues be reviewed? DelhiFrance (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)