How could Ray-Ban been comissioned by the USAF when the USAF did not exist until 1947? I believe this should be the US Army Air Corps

How could Ray-Ban been comissioned by the USAF when the USAF did not exist until 1947? I believe this should be the US Army Air Corps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 June 2007This article, particularly the summary and history, sound a lot like an advertisement for the product. Phrases like 'Hollywood films found them to be very elegant' and 'the unique Ray-Ban lifestyle is embodied in its collections, reflected throughout hundreds of films, and remains the choice eyewear brand of celebrities both in real life and in films' make this entry sound much more like something out of a Ray Ban pamphlet than an unbiased wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Yes, it was terrible. I hope that I have made it less terrible. — Hoary (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)I'm in agreement with all. Somebody please go and remove all the things that say "50% stronger" and similar. Should be neutral. (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Before I arrived and made some edits:After my recent set of edits:All this seems to boil down to isAm I missing some Greater Significance? — Hoary (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)This article has recently had a lot of material added, seemingly as part of this project, and via this sandbox. Okay, but — even aside from the material about Iran, which cites no references at all — the sources cited are on average dreadful: PR puffery, blog posts, material by retailers, and so on. This just is not good enough: Wikipedia requires reliable sources.I spent two hours on the article today, adding nothing and merely removing the worst material and questioning much besides. The result is still terrible, just less so.For additional work, I suggest the use of newspaper and periodical articles (if necessary via databases). No more press releases, blogs, retailers, content farms, etc. — Hoary (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)When I got here, the article told its readers:Much of this is unencyclopedic, so I removed this part of it. The rest of it is totally unsourced, except for the assertion that a website uses a picture of a head in Ray-Bans as its default user avatar. I was able to verify that it does indeed have a default-looking image of a head in sunglasses. This looks no more Ray-Ban-specific and indeed no more interesting than the sunglass-wearing default graphic in many other websites. And so a few minutes ago I removed the rest of this stuff. — Hoary (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)I always thought that Lennon wore only Teeshades (Ray Ban Round Metal) similar to those of Mahatma Ghandi. Not Wayfarers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)By the way, photochromic lenses (sometimes called chameleons) WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION – are they real? The thing is, my eyesight's 100%, but I suffer with photophobia even indoors and at night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) at 19:57, 27 April 2012Since when did this sound like an advertisement? Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 02:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Is it really necessary to have a separate article for the Ray-Ban Aviator and the Ray-Ban Wayfarer, instead of just merging those two with Ray-Ban? Seems like much of what is written on those two articles are repeated in this one. Seb8808 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)I deleted some garbage that just quoted directly material from their ad campaign. Also, I'm thinking that the celebrity endorsement section could be deleted and rolled into the celebrity usage subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)If it is owned by an Italian company, does it still qualify as an "American brand"? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Should there be a section on all the social media scams? Also I'm curious how the company is allowed to get away with it. It's literally an epidemic on sites like Facebook. Every day you see someone with either a phished account or a completely fake account sharing free Ray Ban scams. I can't believe that the company is in no way involved. Someone has to be getting paid by someone at Ray Ban to do these things. They've literally become synonymous with social media scams in pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)