Talk:Herb Chambers Companies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BostonBrew: Feel free to lock or mark as spam or whatever you'd like. Fact is, you're trying to push information into the article to damage the brand based on one blogger's account of things. Are we to trust the word of all bloggers? Do we know in certainty that the blogger's experience is complete factual? Furthermore, the Boston Globe article clearly indicates that officers FROM the Herb Chambers Companies donated -- not the company itself. This is an encyclopedia. Let's stick to facts rather than putting a spin on things, no? - EddieLang (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it sure is an encyclopedia, so let's discuss. (Some of this is pasted over from your personal (talk) page for consistency.)

First, we're not talking about "all bloggers" - both The Boston Globe article and The Cosmic Tap article are written by reputable national journalists with significant bona fides, and are thus legitimate sources. They both fit the Wikipedia standards for media citation and therefore merit inclusion.

Further, the 300+ company employees and past / present customers who've spoken on that Cosmic Tap thread are very relevant to this subject, as unpleasant as it may be for the company. It should be included as an external link at least. The company is free to add other, positive objective links - but its surrogates cannot simply delete things it deems unpleasant.

Earlier, you said:

I just wanted to thank you for your edits on the Herb Chambers Companies entry as well as your commentary. I was previously under an anonymous account, but registered in order to communicate and contribute more. I appreciate your input on this article as I get more acclimated to Wikipedia and how it works. After talking with other users here, I understand your point of view and will work according to the guidelines to provide a factual base to all information on this page.

And I responded that my main concern with your edits to the article is that they seem designed to flush out any controversial information and show only positive, marketing-focused, information.

Articles are not supposed to be advertisements for the company. You continue to delete any information regarding the significant controversies the company has faced here in Massachusetts, and these have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia article. I am not out to smear HC or delete the positive things, I merely am asking for an article that is neutral in its point of view. Your insistence on inserting piles of fluff and deleting controversial news articles by reputable journalists looks like corporate vanity in action, and the page you keep publishing looks very much like spam under the WP definitions for each.

You cannot just keep cleansing the article of unpleasant realities without good reason (other than the fact that you're very likely on their payroll.) I will state my motivations clearly: I am a past customer and Massachusetts voter who would like the public record to include the articles about the gubernatorial contributions and the customer complaints.

If you insist on reverting these edits, we should post the article to either Conflict of interest or Third opinion to bring some outside, impartial views into the matter.

It may simply be your (however indirect) objective to get this article deleted, which is fine, but the article on Herb Chambers the individual is then likely to suffer the same fate.

Look, I have no interest in smearing the company, merely representing both sides of it in the way any reader would expect of Wikipedia. If you want, we can suggest administrative or other review per the above options, but I doubt you're going to like the results of that, given WP's notoriously anti-commercial approach to such matters. Perhaps, then, it's best if we come to a fair resolution ourselves. - BostonBrew (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Citrano questionable relationship with small children

I removed the material sourced to a blog and a questionable figure at best. If reliable sources can be found about this add them here. --24.250.56.225 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: On Applicability of Controversial Company Information

A user has requested comment on economy and trade. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCecon list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

At this point the WP community is going to need to decide on whether the controversial company information can stand.