User talk:RebelAt/Sandbox/Firestone Draft

Starting Point

I have started this article draft with the last available version before the mass of reversions and edits which were put in before the page protection.

While this version is still flawed and needs a lot of work, I feel it is the best place to begin this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelAt (talk • contribs)

Appreciated will be any comments on style, content or layout. Please also assist with NPOV comments as I am still a bit vague on how to accurately report something in a totally NPOV way.

Mobile 01^Talk 11:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RebelAt can I edit this sandbox article? Travb (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb, I would prefer that no one edit this draft article. I am still working on it and it will change considerably. I am happy to accept any suggestions on article content. Please address any concerns on the discussion page where they can be mutually agreed on. This is only a draft article and not the finished product. I was asked to create this draft which I will do. Once completed we will hold a straw poll or discussion on the article to see if it should indeed replace the current article. As I have said on the FS page, I am leaving Wiki for a while and will be doing only an hour or so a couple of times a week. I need to regain my focus on my family as this whole attack has left me quite drained.

Mobile 01^Talk 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again welcome back Mobile 01, I knew you couldnt resist my charms.

First issue: only the offical firestone history is on the page history (from the bridgestone webpage), all other dates have been deleted.

If only those who have a certain POV can edit this page, please don't substitute the real page for this page and claim it has full wikipedia community support. You have claimed this twice before, when the edit history says differently. Travb (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb, I want to avoid the possibility of editing getting out of hand again. So rather than apply your edits to this draft, would you mind simply writing here in the talk page, what edits you'd like to see done? Or, if you want, I'll create a draft page, and you can make the Firestone page you've envisioned. Then, we'll have two copies with which to merge into one article, which I hope, will at least satisfy both views on the topic. I very much doubt an article can be made to leave both you and Mobile 01 happy, but I do think we can achieve an end result thats satisfactory. Here's a draft page you can apply your own vision too. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to create a new draft page. The way the article is right now is fine with me. the version right now has both Mobile 01's edits and my own. Large sections have not been deleted and removed by Mobile and the bridgestone employees, as they were deleted before I restored those edits and had the page protected.

I have no problem with my edits standing side by side with Mobile's corporate sourced edits.

"Comprimise" does not mean that we delete well referenced material. More well referenced material can be added to the article, which counters the view of the existing well referenced material, but the existing well referenced material should not be deleted, as it has been repeatedly. (And please no WP:RS arguments). The stopfirestone reference has been removed, but no one, including myself, is yelling bloody murder when 203/Mobile adds only Bridgestone corporate websites.

Since Firestone is the same company as Bridgestone now, and since corporate Bridgestone has now adopted the Firestone history, the Firestone page should be merged into the Bridgestone page. Travb (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Bridgestone's North American presence has adopted the Firestone USA history for it's operation, the global corporation of Bridgestone, retains it's own Japanese history. To merge the firestone information into the Bridgestone article would mean the loss of all the Firestone history. The Bridgestone article already sufficiently covers Firestone in North America.
The history section is a problem for me too and I have already mentioned that it needs to be expanded to include all history both positive and negative. I am in agreement with RebalAt, in that the format looks crap and ruins the flow of the page. I would like to expand each date as a text comment like Rebel suggests.
Firestones corporate web link is added just like every other corporate wiki article. By it's very name, www.stopfirestone.com is obviously not a NPOV source. Well referenced material does not mean sourced from a biased site. There are plenty of sources that provide a neutral POV that can be used for reference.
Travb wrote :If only those who have a certain POV can edit this page, please don't substitute the real page for this page and claim it has full wikipedia community support.

No one is claiming anything about support. It has been very clearly stated that this is a draft article and that once completed it will be presented to the wiki community for comment, revision, edit and consensus. Only with full support would it replace the current article. You will have your say along with any other editors.

Timeline

As a historian, I view every timeline as a narrative simply waiting to be expanded. My suggestion would be to remove the timeline, take the information in the timeline, and write into a narrative style. I have little to no experience with corporate articles, so unless its the norm to have a timeline, I think it'd be aesthetically more pleasing to take this route. Furthermore, it allows for a more robust history, which can reference the problems that can be fleshed out later in the article. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very visual person, I like the timeline which 203/Mobile created. Travb (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline stays, then. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]