Talk:Stitch 'n Bitch

Tagging this article for speedy deletion

Hello ... I encountered this newly created article while performing New Page Patrol or Counter Vandalism Unit activities ... BTW, I noted from the author's edit summary that it is a recreation after a previous speedy deletion.

In my opinion it lacks sufficient Attribution to satisfy the Notability criteria for Organizations and Companies ...

Having had a single NN book written about the subject does not really satisfy the secondary sources criterion of WP:CORP ... if the book satisfies WP:Notability (books), then perhaps it should have an article, but in this case, the subject of the book is not notable enough for its own article.

The point is that I plan to tag this article with a speedy delete (A7) ... I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the author, Lyrl (talk · contribs), will also comment on their actions here.

Other experienced editors: Please see the protocol defined in What to do if a speedy delete tag is removed and try to keep the speedy delete process from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is

Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!

In other words, announce your intention to tag (flag the author and Discussion pages first), and have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.

Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for this article's author, Lyrl (talk · contribs) ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as an Administrator to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a WP:STUB.

It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)

I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the Speedy Deletion process, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved.

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if administrators have access to the edit history of the previous article, but it was, originally, about the books. I changed the lead to describe the knitting groups, with the books later in the stubby article. And then it was deleted.

After recreation of the article, I noticed in the logs, just a few days before the deletion of the article, a comment about threatened legal action. I remembered legal threats received by knitting groups on Yahoo! (resulting in deletion of those groups since Yahoo!, like many internet companies, acts on all threats to prevent actually lawsuits). Researching last night, I find that several groups had CafePress accounts, which were also deleted after legal threats. I suspect the threat Wikipedia received was also from Sew Nice Sew Easy, and that was a significant factor in deletion of the previous article (which did not mention the sewing company).

I had added a newspaper article describing the dispute to the article about ten minutes before this tag was placed; no comment was made by the tagger on the new format and sourcing, so I don't know his or her views on notability of this new direction for the article. I guess I'll go ahead and try to find more sources on the dispute; hopefully that will satisfy both administrative concerns about notability as well as make the article NPOV enough to prevent more legal threats.

I also greatly appreciate anonymous's handling of this, leaving a note on my talk page and then a lengthy explanation here rather than just tagging the article so it was gone when I woke up this morning. I hardly consider myself a newbie (I've been editing Wikipedia for two years!), but I guess I've acted like one here. Lyrl ^Talk _C 13:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue was not the legal threat, which I handled. The issue was that the article was irrevocably promotional. After not making headway with us, SnB employees simply changed the article to their own prefered version and demanded contact with our lawyers. I'm not sure if you can make it non-promotional, so I'll decline dealing with it right now. alphachimp 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Article history restored. alphachimp 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All the policies

are clear that speedy can only be used under narrow conditions A7 cannot be invoked if there is any assertion of notability. G11 can not be used if there is any reasonable way to save the article. There is no provision for speedy over ATT or unsourced. There is no speedy for COI. If uncontroversial, deletions for insufficient N being asserted or proved or high spam levels or COI go to prod, otherwise to AfD, which is where they will be discussed. Don't try to shortcut the regular ways of doing things. The purpose is that debatable matters can be notified to the general WP community, and not just the people involved over the page itself. The above discussion illustrates the need for it. DGG 00:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it illustrates that more people should be responding to legal inquiries to the Wikimedia Foundation, so that we have a clear directive about what to do when we receive a takedown notice...but that's just my opinion. Obviously, you disagree. alphachimp 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of protection log as source?

It seems relevant to the "Dispute" section of this article that Wikipedia has also received a legal threat. Who sent the letter is not revealed (and I don't think will be, considering that "The contents of emails sent to the OTRS addresses are confidential."), but it still seems relevant to a dispute over the Stitch 'n Bitch mark that someone has threatened Wikipedia. I would like to use the following reference in the article, but especially considering the threatened deletion of this page wanted to bring it up on Talk first:

"Protection log". Wikipedia. 2007-05-09. Retrieved 2007-05-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Note in the restored history how someone, presumably working for SnB, tried to whitewash the article to their preferred version. That, coupled with legal threats, were why I protected. alphachimp 15:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How neat that the edit history is back! I hadn't realized it could be restored after a deletion. Thanks, alphachimp.

That didn't address my question about the appropriateness of using the log as a source for "The internet-based encyclopedia Wikipedia also received a threat of legal action regarding its article by the name "Stitch 'n Bitch". Or of including that or a similar statement in the article at all. Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag on Stoller patent application

I tagged the claim that Stoller's patent was denied for being similar to that of Sew Fast/Sew Easy as needing a citation. This is true, but the only source I've found so far is the Boycott Sew Fast Sew Easy website which is not exactly a neutral source. If this article is going to include a discussion of why Stoller's trademark was denied should also include Stoller's later petition to have SFSE's trademark canceled entirely [1], which is still pending [2]. I would be curious to hear others' opinions on which direction this article should go. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits 7-July 2007

Introduction

The introduction sentence "Stitch 'n Bitch is a disputed trademark in the United States" was changed with an edit summary:

"changes to heading because Stitch n bitch has never been a trademark. Therefore it is inadequate and not true to say a disputed trademark."

To my current understanding, the phrase is not a registered trademark because it is being disputed in an ongoing hearing by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, currently not scheduled to close until December 2007. Additionally, the United States Patent and Trademark Office website lists all four of Stoller's patent applications for the mark "Stitch 'n Bitch" as "Live". (Click on "Search" and then search for the words stitch, bitch at the Trademark Electronic Search System.)

This information is incorrect. The Stitch N Bitch term was refused and has never been a disputed trademark in the United States. The USPTO refused Debbie Stoller's application because it was confusingly similar to Sew Fast Sew Easy's trademark "Stitch & Bitch Cafe". [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.77.123 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 July 2007

Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes like this: ~~~~. The system will automatically put your IP address (or username, if you register) and the date and time of your comment.

If you scroll down on the very USPTO link you pointed me to (this one), to the section entitled "PROSECUTION HISTORY", it says, among other things:

• 2005-07-14 - Final refusal e-mailed
• 2006-08-01 - Reinstatement Granted - Response Received

Yes, you are correct - in 2005, it was refused for being confusingly similar. And then, in 2006, the application was reinstated. So currently, in 2007, it is a disputed trademark. Is there something I'm missing here? Lyrl^Talk _C 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, when the wording of the introduction was changed, the citation was not. The cited Telegraph article supports the statement "Stitch 'n Bitch is a disputed trademark"; it does not support the statement "Stitch 'N Bitch is a term that is confusingly similar to a trademarked brand". When cited material in a Wikipedia article is changed, a new citation needs to be provided.

The above statement is misinformation in the media. It is not a disputed trademark. "Stitch 'N Bitch is a term that is confusingly similar to a trademarked brand". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.77.123 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 July 2007

The term Stitch & Bitch Café is itself a disputed trademark - please see Petition to Cancel for Registration No. 2,596,818 Stitch & Bitch Cafe. We could change the introduction to note this. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "disputed" statement was accurate and more neutral than the "confusingly similar" statement. For now, I have changed it back. If the concern was not just accuracy, but that the registered trademark of Sew Fast/Sew Easy was not in the introduction - how about including all the applied for terms in the sentence? For example:

"The phrases Stitch 'n Bitch, Stitch and Bitch, and Stitch & Bitch are disputed trademarks in the United States."

Lyrl^Talk _C 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Other edits

The provided reference for Sew Fast/Sew Easy's stitch and bitch nights is from 2000, and so does not support the statement that the message board was founded after such nights were hosted. The Village Voice advertisement also does not mention crochet. I've changed the wording of the phrase to match how it is printed in the Village Voice ad, and edited the article to remove the chronological and crochet claims.

The Vogue reference does not support the claim that the original trademark grant applied to instruction manuals. I have changed the reference for that sentence to the actual trademark description from the USPTO so that the reference supports the sentence. I have also edited that sentence to reflect the fact that the original trademark specifies a sewing message board and sewing manuals.

A message was left on my Talk page that included the statement "Though your recent update states that the trademark does not cover products. US law allows the sale of products to support a registered trademark." I myself am almost entirely ignorant of US trademark law - I'm trying with this article to report the claims of each side in the dispute, without implying that either side is "correct". I do find it notable that Sew Fast/Sew Easy has applied for a second trademark specifically for supplies, patterns, manuals, and other products for sewing, knitting, and crochet. I've edited this article to referenced this pending trademark rather than to claim that this usage is not covered. It is confusing to me that Sew Fast/Sew Easy has applied for a product trademark if such usage was covered by its original trademark?

The link to the USPTO status report on Stoller's trademark application only says that the trademark is currently "suspended", not anything about why it was refused in 2005. Since the reference did not support the claim, and I also believe this issue is better gone into depth in the "Dispute" section of this article rather than the "Knitting groups" section, I have removed the phrase "for being confusingly similar to Sew Fast Sew Easy's". I just believe it is inappropriate for the "Knitting groups" section - I would be happy to see it added (with a different source, of course) as part of the "Dispute" section of this article.

In reference to the legal threats against Wikipedia, the phrase "because it is confusingly similar with their brand" was added in front of the reference to the Wikipedia protection log, which (probably mistakenly) implied that the protection log supported this claim. I moved the reference back to the statement it supports (only that there was such a threat, not what its contents were), and tagged the new phrase for a citation. A scanned copy of the letter in question would work, or a documented statement by one of the involved parties, or there are probably other ways to document this I can't think of off the top of my head. It just needs documentation. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Remaining concerns

The statement "On June 11, 2007, Stitch & Bitch Cafe becomes a live space for learning sewing, knitting and crochet within the Sew Fast Sew Easy business" is currently referenced to a blog that says nothing about "June 11, 2007" or a "live space for learning" or, for that matter, "knitting and crochet". The blog mentions only sewing resources, and that the message board now has videos available - is this what the "live space" claim is supposed to mean? That statement should be edited to better reflect the source it is cited to. I have not edited it myself because I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 16-July edits

I have read much of the internet postings and newspaper articles concerning this, and have been asked to help sort things out by a family member who is not a computer expert... I am a computer geek who knows a knitter.

It seems the someone representing Sew Fast Sew Easy gets to state fact, when it is just their "interpretation", not fact. (The do not provide references). Also, because no one knows who I am, I state things as "my opinion" when I believe them to be fact. (They are then deleted. I am being punished for being honest, where SFSE is being rewarded for being dishonest).

Looking through the history, I noticed that a third book, that I didn't know about, was added and then deleted. Why?

Also in the following section, it needs to be clear that the mark that SFSE was granted is not the same as the phrase they were trying to stop people from using. (Cafe being the key difference). It also needs to be made clear that SFSE was granted a mark that related strictly to sewing, not knitting or crochet).

> Sew Fast Sew Easy Policiing Their Trademark > > In fall 2005, Sew Fast Sew Easy took legal action to police its trademark to prevent consumer confusion with products found on the internet. Due to letters claiming trademark > infringement from Sew Fast/Sew Easy's lawyers, knitting groups that had accounts with CafePress, an online merchandise site, were forced to remove all items featuring the > phrase "Stitch 'n Bitch". Local groups that communicated with each other through Yahoo! Groups were similarly forced to remove "Stitch 'n Bitch" from the name and description > of their group.[6] (Most groups changed their name on Yahoo! to SNB.)[7] CafePress and Yahoo! do not evaluate merits of infringement claims, they just protect their interest > by removing disputed content.[6] In 2007, the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia was sent a cease and decist order requesting their company information be posted in the online > encyclopedia since they are the legal trademark owners or have the entire article removed[8] because it is confusingly similar with their brand.[citation needed]

In the above section the title is very subjective. SFSE claims that they are "policing", when they are illegally trying to leverage their nonrelated trademark to "cash in" on the success of the "Stich 'N Bitch" book. Keep in mind that SFSE's mark is for sewing only and contains the work "cafe" which is integral to their mark).

The fact of the matter is that both sides of the dispute will have some difficulty claiming exclusive use of the term, due to the fact that the term predated both trademarks. (See reference regarding WWII... I have been told be someone from that era that this is in fact true.)

One note: I have to say that SFSE's case that they are spinning seems insane. (If you read their claims, they reject the fact that there are any books with "Stitch N' Bitch" as part of the title. They also reject the fact the Ms. Stoller(Stroller?) is a US citizen. They in fact reject many "facts" in their response. (I haven't finished going through all the back and forths yet, but it is definately amusing to read).

Also, what is up with SFSE threatening to sue wikipedia? (SFSE does not own the mark 'Stitch 'n Bitch', so they really can't force Wikipedia to take down the article.)

Also SFSE (I presume) keeps moving themselves to the top of the article, when in fact the knitting groups are the primary originators of the term.. It seems that none of these non-profit knitting groups had the financial resources to mount a counter defense, after SFSE illegally threatened them.)

Also they are illegally marking their products "Stitch & Bitch (TM)" when in fact they don't own the trademark. http://www.sewfastseweasy.com/items/stitch+and+bitch

HelixOne 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More comments on 16-July edits

I have a number of concerns relating to a series of edits (diff) made by 71.247.77.123 and 70.18.50.181. I've listed them below. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Section order

I agree with HelixOne that the knitting groups are the primary users of the term, and should be listed first. I'm open to hearing arguments otherwise. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing information without changing references

The Telegraph article says, "Miss Meyrich... Founded Sew Fast Sew Easy in 1993 and the Stitch'N'Bitch café© in 1997." If this is the reference used, the article text needs to say 1997. If this information is incorrect, then a new reference needs to be found. I'm open to changing the date to 1998 - but we need a new reference. Changing the date without changing the reference mischaracterizes the reference.

The Round Bobbin advertisement was published in 1999 and mentions only sewing. Again, using this reference after a sentence about a 1997 start of groups that included knitting and crochet is a mischaracterization. The information can be changed if a new reference is found, but if the Round Bobbin advertisement is the source, the article needs to talk about a 1999 sewing group.

The link to the Stitch & Bitch line of products only proves that the product line exists. A claim that this product line supports their existing trademark would need a different reference - a statement by a lawyer, for example. The link to the product line can not be used as a reference to support a legal opinion.

The link to the Wikipedia protection log only proves that a legal threat was made. The contents of that communication are not mentioned anywhere in the protection log. A description of the language in this letter to Wikipedia needs to have its own reference.

Similarly, the motives of Sew Fast/Sew Easy in sending cease and desist letters are not mentioned in any of the article's current sources. These motives are good information for the article, but they need a source. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information relevant to article

The date Sew Fast/Sew Easy filed for their second trademark application (a few months before the cease and desist letters began) was removed from this article. I am really confused as to how this is not relevant.

The list of books by Stoller was deleted from the article. The books have their own section (titled "Book") - I believe listing the books at the end of the article is relevant content.

The contact information for the knitting groups was deleted. Again, the knitting groups are one of the topics of this article, so I believe linking to further information on them is relevant.

The blog post providing amateur legal analysis was also deleted from the external links section. While not a reliable source for information in the article itself, I believe the post provides additional background information readers interested in the dispute would find useful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 18-July edits

To my mind, the list of books by the title "Stitch 'N Bitch" is no more promotional than the link to Sew Fast Sew Easy's message board. Both are resources readers of this encyclopedia article can use to learn more about the usage of the phrase "Stitch 'n Bitch". I'm curious what 70.18.50.181 reasoning is behind leaving the SFSE link in place but deleting the Stoller book titles.

I'm bothered that my edits on 17-July were reverted with only the comment "blog and changes made earlier are irrelevant to this trademark". I put a lot of effort into explaining each edit and in making my case here on the talk page. I would appreciate an attempt to find a compromise on these issues rather than simple back-and-forth edits on the article. Lyrl^Talk _C 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 7-August edits

The content of this article is to explain how the term is used. References to blogs about a protest are speculative information. There are not a lot of hard facts on the content of the blogs and should be removed as a resource. Sew Fast Sew Easy's trademark and stoller's copyrighted items are valid resources for wikipedia, but Sew Fast Sew Easy had the trademark in use first so should be on top of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.199.36 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 August 2007

Vogue Knitting and Knit.1 are reliable sources of knitting-related information. The call for a boycott related to the dispute over this term is verified by the magazine references. I do not believe that two sentences acknowledging the existence of this protest are undue weight.

I believe the blog linked to in the "external links" section meets the requirements at Wikipedia:External links. Specifically, I believe it qualifies based on criteria #4 of Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I would like to include an external link to a source that favors the Sew Fast/Sew Easy side of the dispute to balance the blog - please add one if you are aware of such an article or come across one.

Regardless of who did what first, the "Knitting" and "Book series" sections are very short. When a reader first comes to the page, if those two sections are on top, the reader will see both those sections and "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" all on the page at the same time. Because the "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" section is so much longer, if it is on top readers with smaller monitors and/or larger resolution settings will see only the "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" section, and have to scroll down to see the other two sections. Perhaps we could shorten the "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" section by removing the sub-headers? I also think the order of these sections would not seem so important if we could agree on an introduction. I had earlier proposed a first sentence of

"The phrases Stitch 'n Bitch, Stitch and Bitch, and Stitch & Bitch are disputed trademarks in the United States."

I never got feedback on that - what do you think of it?

Wikipedia has a policy of requiring references for all material in the articles. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The 1997 beginning date for "stitch and bitch nights" cannot be included in this article without a reference that specifies 1997.

The label on the SFSE product line has an ampersand, not the word "and". For consistency, I made the section title include ampersands rather than the word "and".

The section on Stoller's trademark actions only describes trademark actions initiated by Stoller. I believe it is appropriate to include her name in the header.

I removed duplication of the synonyms "pending" and "suspended" when referring to Stoller's trademark applications. I also changed the language to match that in the extension request - to me, it reads more formally and encyclopedia-like.

The link to the Chicago knitting group should not be removed. Like the SFSE link, it meets criteria #1 in Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked:"Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."

I'm confused about why the categories were changed. Category:Brand, Category:Notion, and Category:Trademark do not exist - notice how those links are all red. I changed the categories back to ones that actually exist. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 17-August edits

This article will continue to be changed back until either Wikipedia removes this article or Debbie Stoller stops attacking Sew Fast Sew Easy. I support Sew Fast Sew Easy in their endevours to continue using their trademark which they have been using for years until Debbie Stoller decided to sue Sew Fast Sew Easy because she was denied trademark status.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.112.241 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2007

This is a mess

What is this article supposed to be about? The phrase? The trademark? The website? The books? Each seems to be barely notable on its own. Also, Wikipedia protection logs are not an appropriate source for what they are being used to cite in this article. --- RockMFR 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability has been discussed at User talk:68.239.79.82#Tilting @ windmills?. I see this article as about the phrase. The phrase is the title of numerous stitching groups, of a series of books (of which at least two made the New York Times bestseller list), has been trademarked, and is the subject of an ongoing dispute that has received media coverage. If you have suggestions for improving the article, I would be happy to try to work with them. If you think the article shouldn't exist, I guess we'll have to present our cases at AfD and let the community decide.

On the protection log, it's the only source I'm aware of for that bit of information. I did ask before using it (#Use of protection log as source?) Do you think the threat to Wikipedia should not be mentioned in the article at all? Lyrl^Talk _C 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In short, no, the Wikipedia threat should not be included. I think this article can be saved. The thing that is most obviously missing is a good lead paragraph. Without something to explain and summarize the article, I think it would be very difficult for anyone to make sense of this. --- RockMFR 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Stitch 'n Bitch is a phrase that has been used to refer to social knitting groups since at least 1988.[5] A New York-based company first trademarked the term in 2002. The following year saw the publication of the first in a series of best-selling instructional books on knitting all titled with this phrase. Since 2005, the term has been the focus of a trademark dispute between the New York company Sew Fast/Sew Easy and the book author Debbie Stoller.

Lyrl^Talk _C 02:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

A useful reference (link suggestion) to help support/document the colloquial (non-trademark-related, linguistic history only) usage of the term is a volunteer contributed database of examples located here: http://www.cogknition.org/stitchnbitchdb/ Linked site is not a blog, the database is hosted/maintained by a blogger, but that's it). Several of the cites are to books/articles, and many are to "preserved" usenet postings found on GoogleGroups. I leave it to the admins to determine how best to use or position this information. Jauncourt 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't have that sort of content discretion. Once the page is unprotected, everyone will be able to discuss and edit links and other content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

We have more legal threats on OTRS about this, I have suggested that Sew Fast Sew Easy engage here, but I - regrettably - see they have a history of unproductive edits to the article in a misguided effort to promote their POV. --Brianmc 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

T-Shirt image

I was concerned with the recent addition of Image:stitchnbitch_i.jpg to this article, especially considering the image was added immediately after previously disputed changes were again made to the article. I was especially concerned that the image was added to the top of the article (implying it related to the entire article, or to the most important part) instead of to the Sew Fast/Sew Easy section.

Wikipedia does encourage the inclusion of relevant images in most articles. However, it is not obvious to me what value this image adds to this article. The image seems more appropriate for an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. I would be interested to hear what other editors have to say. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the t-shirt is one of many products that endorses the fact that Sew Fast Sew Easy is using their trademark further implying the scope of their brand. If the editors wish, another product can be added but we feel it is necessary since you are allowing Debbie Stoller to promote her books with external links. Would putting many links be the preferred method? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarvin (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The external links are not there to promote anything, they are there to provide readers with more information on the subject of this encyclopedia article. Certain images, or "many links" relating only to Sew Fast/Sew Easy would present an WP:Undue weight issue, in my opinion.

I think a smaller image inside the "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" section of a product that didn't have the word "love" in it would be a good addition to this article. Would that work? Lyrl^Talk _C 01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Images taking over article

Having two medium-sized images on the same sub-section of an article this small really overwhelms the article. I would like to remove one of them. The removed image could be added to Sew Fast Sew Easy. Any opinions on which one to keep and which one to take out? Lyrl^Talk _C 01:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to keep both items in the article. They are both relative as references to content in the article. The bag was approved as proof of products that Sew Fast Sew Easy offers and the second was added as a reference to the opening of the live version of the Stitch & Bitch Cafe.--Ggarvin 15:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: I agree with Lyrl, in that the images overwhelm the article. My biggest concern is that the contents on the right; it seems completely unnecessary to have it there. I'd much rather see the contents on the left, and both images on the right. My recommendation is to move the bag to the top right of the page. This seems like a decent compromise, since both of you get what you want. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blog and cafepress links

I've again removed the links to the This Ain't No Boston Tea Party blog and that for the [www.cafepress.com/stitchandbitch1 "I Love Stitch & Bitch Cafe" products on cafepress], both of which were recently restored.[6][7]

While I acknowledge Lyrl's comment that This Ain't No Boston Tea Party meets the criteria of links to be considered in the external links guideline, the same guideline lists "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" under links normally to be avoided. In short, I don't believe that a blog post which has been described accurately above as "providing amateur legal analysis" written by an self-described PhD student who is identified by first name alone (and here I acknowledge that the copyright is claimed by one Yvonne Kao) cannot be considered to be written by a "recognized authority".

The cafepress link has been removed for an entirely different reason. Returning to the normally to be avoided under the external links guideline, we see: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." The [www.cafepress.com/stitchandbitch1 link in question] is nothing but a sales link. Indeed, it presents no information whatsoever concerning the brand or the seller. With respect, I disagree with the reasoning provided in Ggarvin's edit summary. I know of no Wikipedia guideline or policy stating that such a link might be provided when the products are not located on a seller's site. While I won't comment on whether one link is more valid than another, I know of nothing in Wikipedia that allows for inclusion based on this justification. Victoriagirl 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Stitch and Bitch London and CafePress.com

I've again Stitch and Bitch London. As a Wikipedia article on a social knitting group, as described in the opening sentence, its inclusion is justified. Should other internal links be added and the "See also" list become unwieldy, pruning might be considered. As it is, one link is not too much.

The link to products for sale by Sew Fast Sew Easy through CafePress.com has again be removed for the reasons outlined above. In short, it violates Wikipedia's WP:EL policy. It have replaced the link with the Wikipedia article on CafePress.com. Victoriagirl 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Please note that user:GGarvin is most likely Gregory Garvin, Marketing Manager of Sew Fast Sew Easy. I believe he is attempting to turn this article into an advertisement for his company and its products. RSV 20 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.228.109 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone involved in this article is aware of that, and I hope Mr. Garvin has read WP:COI, but the articles he is currently editing seem to not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. Everyone is welcome to offer criticism of the current form of the article here on the talk page, or to edit the article. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea that I know won't go over well... since SFSE has a service mark, not a trademark, on the term "Stitch & Bitch Cafe," and not on the more generic phrase "Stitch 'n Bitch," why not make a separate Wikipedia article on the phrase "Stitch 'n Bitch Cafe" where all the SFSE information can be centralized, then this page can cover the knitting groups, the book series, and the legal dispute? Zombiersv (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, I prefer one medium-sized article over numerous small or tiny articles. I think it provides more accessible information to Wikipedia's readers. So just on editorial grounds, I would disagree with creating a third article of limited content ("Stitch & Bitch Cafe") when there already exist two highly related articles ("Stitch 'n Bitch" and "Sew Fast Sew Easy"). Lyrl^Talk _C 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

November Changes

I've attempted to flesh out this article with more information, but there seem to be problems with the continued editing. For instance: "Stitch 'n Bitch is a phrase that has been used to refer to social knitting groups since at least World War II, but there is no proof to date." There IS proof, the reference right beside the sentence gives the link to a quote from a book (No Idle Hands: The Social History of American Knitting) that states:

"In Akron, Ohio, twelve young women, who moved in with parents or in-laws when husbands went overseas, gave their elders a free night once a week (so to speak, since they parked their children there!) to attend 'Stitch and Bitch Club' meetings. Loaded with sewing and knitting, stuffed on supposedly 'light refreshments' provided by the evening's hostess, voicing opinions on everything from parenting to politics and exchanging news from each war zone represented, they met until each member's husband returned home - all but one. The sensitivity of the others to that member's sorrow has bound them for life, but none could face continuing the club after the war." (World War II)

Also added is an statement in bold, no less, that makes mention of SFSE in the paragraph about the book series. Utterly irrelevant, and I suspect it will return if I delete it.

Also, the term is more recognized in connection with the knitting books, as evidenced by a quick Google search. The book series should come first in the page, and it especially makes sense to come right after the paragraph on "knitting groups."Zombiersv (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as the order, the current order is chronological, which makes sense to me. It seems a less controversial way of ordering things than by popularity. I have also made a number of changes to the article:

• formatted the first reference so it directly cites No Idle Hands and links to the quote talking about the WWII group. Considering this reference, I removed the claims that the WWII claim has "no proof".
• added more details to SFSE history with the term, and corrected the publication of the Stoller book (it seems to have been confused with the registration date for the SFSE trademark).
• removed the references to Workman Publishing. They are listed as the publisher in the "Further reading" section. In the article, I don't see that they add anything but wordiness.
• removed the claim that SFSE hosted stich and bitch nights in 1997. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. The Round Robin advertisement verifies these nights happened in 1999; it verifies nothing from 1997. Unless some other reference is found that specifies 1997 (or some other date than 1999), this article needs to continue to say 1999.
• removed a lot of uncited information from the "Book series" section. Much of it read like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. I removed the claim that stitch and bitch knitting groups could not be found before Stoller because that article was talking about Chicago, not New York City. Instead, I included the Newsweek statement that the Chicago and L.A. groups were spin-offs of the Stoller NYC group.
• changed the "SFSE legal action" section back to the last stable version. The changes that had been made were either misleading or just made the paragraph more difficult to read.
• removed the phrase "in aggression" from the "Stoller legal action" section. This phrase violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
• changed the "Boycott" section back to the last stable version. Again, the information read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. I would be more inclined to lengthen this section if more third-party references (like the Vogue and Knit.1 articles) could be found, rather than using the boycott website to reference itself.
• removed Meyrich's book from the "Further reading" section - the topic of the book isn't even tangentially related to the phrase stitch and bitch. Instead of listing it in that section, I incorporated a discussion of it into the SFSE section.
• removed the link to the SFSE store from "External links". There is no information there not found at the other SFSE link, and links to product sites are discouraged by Wikipedia's external link guidelines.

Lyrl^Talk _C 16:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Registration, dues, and chronological order

In general, I think the edits today increased the consistency and readability of the article. Three changes I was unsure about:

• "applied to registered that use of the term as a service mark in 2000." was changed to "was granted use of the term as a service mark in 2002". I'm not sure about the word choice "granted" - the Federal Trademark Office doesn't give people permission to use a phrase, it just protects their use of the phrase. So SFSE using the phrase as a service mark is perfectly legal, it's their attempts to prevent others from using it that are questionable. (If I understand correctly.) And I'm concerned that saying the Trademark Office "granted use of the term" implies that SFSE was doing something wrong by using the term prior to 2002.
• This article was deleted at one point for being "too advertorial". The deleted article was not very long (here is the version that was deleted), and I strongly suspect is was the "The groups do not charge dues or fees and have no by-laws." bit that got it deleted as an advertisement. So I'm really hesitant to add that statement back in.
• The subsection re-ordering in the "Dispute" section put events happening in Nov. 2005 through 2007 (in Stoller's section) before events happening in summer and fall 2005 (in the SFSE section). I'm concerned this may make the chronology of event more difficult to follow.

I'm hoping for some feedback before I make any changes to the article on these topics. Thanks! Lyrl^Talk _C 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps "issued" would be a better word than "granted?" And yes, SFSE's attempts to police the use of the more generic phrase Stitch 'n Bitch on products and mailing lists is where the controversy and boycott come in.
• Aha. I thought the knitting groups section needed more, but I'm pretty wordy myself. It earlier read as just a group of knitters meeting. I thought it should be stressed more that these are casual, social groups, rather than formal membership clubs where you have to pay for lessons or dues, like a knitters guild. I saw that earlier version of it and didn't know why it was deleted. My bad. Perhaps removing that bit and saying something more along the lines of, "Stitch 'n Bitch clubs are generally very casual groups of knitters who meet in bars or cafes for socializing and sharing knitting advice."
• The dispute section could be turned into a timeline? Stoller and SFSE all lumped together? Zombiersv (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've really gotten myself enamored with the word "registered". How about, "This term was registered to SFSE as a service mark in 2002"?
• A timeline like in the SFSE article?

Lyrl^Talk _C 02:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 29-Dec edits

• An anonymous editor had noted (correctly) that the Telegraph reference was not authoritative in the origins of the phrase Stitch 'n Bitch. I added the reference to the Macdonald book No Idle Hands to support that claim in the "Knitting groups" section.

• I'm unclear why "sometimes charging fees and dues" was added to the article. I don't believe it adds anything to the article, so I removed it. Relatedly, I suspect that groups affiliated with Sew Fast Sew Easy charge fees and dues, and groups not so affiliated do not. While that would certainly be interesting and related to the dispute over this term, I'm not comfortable adding it without a citation to back it up.

• The Stoller section says, "The book states that Debbie Stoller founded New York City's first Stitch 'N Bitch knitting group". It does not make any judgement on the truth of that statement. The same standard should be applied to the Sew Fast Sew Easy statements - "states that" "claims to" "holds that" are all acceptable phrases, but one of them or something similar needs to be in there. Lacking a strong source one way or the other, all we can do is report the claims of both sides.

• While it is true that Sew Fast Sew Easy's mark was granted without claim to special form, it is also true that the trademark was granted with a disclaimer regarding the word "cafe". Specifically, by going here and clicking on "Registration Certificate" it can be seen that "No claim to the mark apart from the word Café is granted with this service mark". This disclaimer is more relevant to this article than the lack of a special form for the mark, so I have replaced it.

Lyrl^Talk _C 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The reference is unclear to a source again. The book was published in 1988.

• Sometimes Stitch & Bitch groups charge fees. These groups that are independant are not all free. Some collect dues. These are not the ones run by Sew Fast Sew Easy.

• Stoller claims to have started the first group but there is clear evidence that Sew Fast Sew Easy's groups predates that of Stollers.

• Actually, the document makes the exact following two statements. "The mark is presented without any claim as to special form." and "No claim is made to the exclusive right to use "Cafe", apart from the mark as shown." - This basically says that sew fast sew easy can not police someone saying cybercafe and claim infringement, but can police against someone using Stitch n Bitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.59.12 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The book describes a Stitch 'n Bitch group that existed during WWII. The paragraph with this description is offered online for easy reference; one may also request the book from a local library for independent verification.
• Thank you for the clarification. I'm still not sure mentioning that some groups are free and some charge dues is relevant to this article, especially without citations.
• I have yet to see any clear evidence of when either group started.
• That interpretation is interesting, but not obvious. Other people interpret that to mean Sew Fast Sew Easy can police against someone using Stitch 'n Bitch Cafe but not against someone using Stitch 'n Bitch. Lacking a legal authority to reference for a correct interpretation, it seems safer just to quote directly from the registration document. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)