Talk:Daymond John

Date of $300,000 order

It appears the "1994" year cited in the archived ABC.com Shark Tank bio page, for John's first $300,000 order, is inaccurate. Multiple other sources cite "1994".

Suggest we correct current text: "In 1992[12:ABC shark tank bio], or 1994[17:Forbes article], ..." 1. years/citations are reversed. ABC page states 1994 but Forbes cites 1992 2. INC. mag article cosues on the $300k and date is "1992" as with other sources besided ABC archived article. Might the ABC archived citation be incorrect version that was later fixed by ABC, but is not archived? 3. INC. article suggests FUBU section order is inaccurate, citing $100k maternal loan was a result of the $300,000 order for unavailable product rather than send cash to start business. More research needed to clear up this confusion before editing?

Also, should the "Racist?" section of this talk page be removed as graffiti or Wikipedia:Vandalism?

Eturk001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. Yes. I transposed the dates. Fixing now. As for the the other stuff, I'll leave that to other editors to research. Point #2 is speculation so I'm not sure what to do about that. Probably John's new book can set all this straight it someone has it and can cite (with supporting quote, preferably).--Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Who is Brown?

Career section mentions Brown without saying who that is. 73.54.23.44 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit proposal/article rework

Hello all. Per policy regarding editors with COI, I'm proposing changes to this article here; these mainly revolve around fixing formatting problems, expanding upon or adding detail, and adding images to the article. Full disclosure: I have been paid by The Shark Group, who are a client.

Due to the scope of the edit, I've made a sandbox with the full revision here - you can see the full edit difference between the existing page and the draft with this edit summary. Additionally, I've listed all the changes between the pages here individually, with an edit summary, so the proposed edits can be judged individually. Any editor here is welcome to review and accept or reject these revisions in part or whole; if you have any questions, issues, or comments, please let me know and I'll assist in whatever way possible. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

Infobox

• Changed web address to John’s website Edit summary

 Go ahead and make the change. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Early life

• Prose modification: “When John was 16, his mother had a boyfriend, an attorney, whom he considered a stepfather and mentor” to “His parents divorced when he was 16; according to John his mom would later "bring another man in my life who became her boyfriend for a long period of time". John regarded him as his stepfather.” Edit summary

Not done for now I don't fundamentally object to this and the original phrasing isn't great, but I don't really think the quote adds anything that a neutral rephrase doesn't. Also, the phrasing of the source is confusing on whether the divorce or the new boyfriend or both happened when John was 16 ("So, when my mother got divorced from my father, at age 16 she’d bring another man in my life who became her boyfriend for a long period of time"), is there a source that is less ambiguous? Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There definitely is some confusion between sources as to the exact age this happened - I'm not sure if that's due to miscommunication from the interviewer, or from John. I'll see if I can find a better source for this. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Shark Tank

• Added high-quality image of John and the other Sharks of Shark Tank Edit summary

 Go ahead Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Updated the current number of Shark Tank seasons from 13 to 15, with a new citation added to Rotten Tomatoes; the information was previously uncited. Edit summary

 Go ahead Rotten tomatoes isn't a great source though it's better than the nothing that's already there so I'm inclined to let this slide if you can't find a better one. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented; going to try and find a better one shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Updated the number of Emmy awards and nominations to what the source presently says (5 wins, 25 nominations) Edit summary

 Go ahead Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Added detail on federal restraining order granted against the Bakers: A permanent restraining order was later issued against the Bakers by federal judge Robert B. Kugler, who found that they had violated a 2019 settlement agreement. Edit summary

• Added new sentence: As of May 2023, it is the best-selling Shark Tank product of all time, with $1.3 billion in cumulative sales according to Sony Pictures Television. Edit summary

 Go ahead Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Shark Group

• Removed Manhattan location, as the Shark Group is no longer located in New York City. Edit summary

 Go ahead Rusalkii (talk)

 Implemented Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Added awards from Webby and Adweek. Edit summaries

 Go ahead with the Webbt Awards, but not Adweek. Per my rule of thumb for awards, awards are due weight in an article if they have their own wikipedia page or the giving of this award to this person has. significant coverage in several independent reliable source. By this metric, Webby Awards are due weight and

the Adweek award is not. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Webby, not Adweek Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Consulting and speaking

• Expanded on Audible podcast deal with detail from the Deadline source Edit summary

 Not done This deal was signed several years ago. Is there a podcast? If so can we write about it? If not I am inclined to remove this entire sentence until a podcast or actual coverage of anything about it actually exists beyond a few marketese quotes from the producers. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There is at least one Audible podcast (On the Line) as far as I can tell. However, I didn't add mention of them for three reasons - the first is I haven't found any significant coverage of the podcast in reliable sources, the second is I can't actually confirm this is the podcast the deal was for, and the third is I didn't want to directly link to the podcast, as direct website/podcast links is inherently promotional - I try to avoid using direct links at all costs. Basically: media coverage almost exclusively revolves around the announcement of the podcast deal, rather than the resulting podcasts. This could be a section worth trimming. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Career

• Added section on John’s Black Entrepreneurs Day event, cited to reliable sources. Edit summary

Not done for now The tone is rather fluffy and name-droppy. I think the event should be in the article, and the image is fine, but I recommend cutting down a lot on the long list of people and companies. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed the section down to a paragraph - let me know if this is an improvement. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Added high-quality image for Black Entrepreneurs Day [https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User%3AToa_Nidhiki05_%28Work%29%2FDaymond_John&diff=1251521846&oldid=1249391783

Not done for now If section is added after addressing issues above, the image is fine.

Other appearances

• Trimmed television and film appearances to move to filmography section. Replaced existing source for Candlelight Processional with third-party source. Edit summary

 Go ahead with the source. See below for the filmography section. Rusalkii (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented source. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan comments

• Currently, this section has two large block quotes from John. My edit basically just deletes the block quotes here, which aren’t necessary. Edit summary

Not done for now Mixed feelings on this one. I think the first quote is not obviously inappropriate - it's quite short and illustrates what exactly people were backlashing about - for instance, I note the contrast between "respect for other people's religions" and the history of antisemitism - I haven't trawled twitter for the angry comments but I suspect that was relevant. For the second, I think it makes sense to trim, I don't see what the last sentence really adds on top of noting that he deleted his last tweet, but this is a context where the nature of the apology is important.

On the other hand this strongly smells of some internet kerfuffle being blown wildly out of proportion. I don't actually feel equipped to evaluate this. Defaulting to keeping as is, but other editors should feel free to chime in. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition

• Added additional citation to best-sellers list claim. Edit summary

"  Not done claims do not need multiple citations demonstrating the exact same thing unless unusually controversial. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Added Wikilink to the Presidential Ambassadors for Global Entrepreneurship page. Edit summary

 Go ahead

 Implemented Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Philanthropy

• Added information about John’s involvement in several philanthropic initiatives led by Barack and Michelle Obama. Edit summary

Publications/Bibliography

• Updated the “Bibliography” section to include the most recent book; removed the redundant “Publications” section (which was a prose-based duplicate of the “Bibliography” section) Edit summary

 Not done the duplication is bad, but I think it should be resolved in favor of keeping the prose section (with edits, it isn't ideal) rather than just a list. Generally speaking more context in this case is better than a naked list of titles and dates. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can whip up a proper bibliography section. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Relocated bibliography location Edit summary

 Not done

Filmography

• Removed prose mentions of television cameos and appearances from “Other appearances”; added properly-formatted table of film and television appearances. Edit summary

Not done for now do you have sources for this table? Theoretically such lists can be thought of as sourced to the credits of the episodes, but this is not great. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll try and dig up sources for the table. As is, most of the content is already in the non-formatted table; I'll get back to you once I've gathered sources here. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Just finished reworking this. I grabbed sources for most of the appearances; while I do think the film/show itself can be regarded as a reference, I've removed appearances that I couldn't find a good source for; I also consolidated the film appearance into the same table. There are a few I cited to Meteoritic or Rotten Tomatoes, but the majority are sourced to news outlets. Let me know if this works. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I’ve not looked at this edit request in detail, but can I suggest that (re: the early job handing out flyers) it would be preferable to remove reference to it having been for $2 (obviously it would have been for very little money) rather than seeking to update the modern day equivalent of $2 on an annual basis (e.g. from $8.38 in 2023 to $8.68 in 2024, as per the edit). I get that this is a rags to riches story, but I think that that level of detail is just silly.

Also, re: the draft showing the difference between current and proposed versions, there are a lot of places where you have removed large sections of text and then inserted large sections of similar text, thus making it very difficult for volunteers to see exactly what changes have been made unless they compare the two blocks of text word by word. Could you please provide a way for volunteers to easily observe what changes you are proposing? Axad12 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just noted that individual edits are linked separately (which resolves the issue mentioned in paragraph 2 above). Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As a subsidiary point, the COI editor here notes above that they have removed elements of the Louis Farrakhan comments section (which, according to the COI editor, aren’t necessary). It looks to me as though the real reason for the removal is that the COI editor is seeking to minimise coverage of something for which John received criticism.

Much of the rest of the edit seems to be with the intent of maximising positive coverage of John, which I do not necessarily have a problem with as long as it is due. However, seeking to both maximise positive coverage (as due) and minimise negative coverage (as undue) is just promotionalism pure and simple.

I would suggest that the Farrakhan section remains unchanged and not be altered to reflect the wishes of John's paid publicists. Axad12 (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting here - the intent isn’t to remove the section, or to minimize the content. It simply removes two paragraphs of direct quotes from John about the situation. You could argue this is minimizing, but if anything it actually gives less weight to John’s position/perspective here. I simply felt, from a writing perspective, that having two long block quotes from John back to back is kind of weird. It’s ultimately up to other editors to decide which version they prefer.

And yes, the individual edits are included with edit summaries to make it easier to identify what was changed, and for editors to decide how much of the proposal they want to accept. Hopefully that is helpful. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You are a professional PR operative and your requested edit attempted to minimise a section related to negative coverage of your client. There is no need for further discussion on whether that was intentional or not.

Attempting to minimise negative coverage (especially properly sourced and balanced negative coverage) in the way attempted above is an activity that reflects badly on paid editors and is something that I suggest that you refrain from.

However, if there is ever a situation in which you feel that there is a genuine reason to request removal of negative material about a client I would strongly suggest as follows:

1) Include it in a separate COI edit request rather than as a small component of a large and complex request.

And 2) in that separate COI edit request give detailed policy-based reasoning for the logic for the requested removal. That would need to extend significantly beyond suggesting (as you did above) that the material is not necessary. Huge amounts of material in 1,000,000s of Wikipedia articles are not necessary, but that is not even close to a rationale for removal.

Note however that this is not an invitation to resubmit the Farrakhan removal.

Hopefully these notes are of assistance. Axad12 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You’re more than welcome to reject or approve any of these proposals, but jumping straight to assumptions isn’t necessary. If you genuinely think both block quotes (direct pulls of tweets, both of which are already summarized in the accompanying prose) are necessary, just reject that part of the proposal. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If a paid PR professional files an edit request that would remove a significant part of some negative coverage about their client it is a reasonable assumption that they are attempting to minimise negative coverage. That is not a matter of WP:AGF. It is a simple question of how paid COI editing works, as you well know.

If you don't want to place yourself in the company of those of your fellows who operate in that way, I've given some recommendations above on how to request such removals.

Those recommendations will actually increase the likelihood of success in such requests, and the advice was given absolutely free. Take it or leave it, as you like. Axad12 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've partially addressed the requests above - left is the restraining order against the Bakers and the addition of the Obama initiatives, both of which seemed potentially POBish and so required more careful looking into the sources and context than I feel up to at the moment, as well the . Feel free to add everything marked "Go ahead" yourself. I may come back to this and complete the rest, but other editors should feel free to step in as well as my editing lately has been inconsistent. Rusalkii (talk)

Thanks Rusalkii. I've implemented the ones you gave the go-ahead to - for the ones you left feedback on, I've responded, or will respond shortly once I gather more sources. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)