Talk:Sinar Mas/Archives/2013

Untitled

This article is in need of some revisions -- neutral point of view, organization, the works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Clearly, this article warps the Sinar Mas Group. Please write objectively and help in getting this article to a neutral point of view. Ahmediq152 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reordered the article and slightly neutralized the tone, but otherwise changed nothing to the contents. This article is still definitely in need for some encyclopedic information on the company and a complete rewrite of all current content. Elmarj (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is factually correct and doesnt reflects any bias against Sinar Mas. Negativities reflected in the page are actual events in which Sinar Mas was involved and hence therefore do not affect the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.93.247 (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current content seems to be factually correct. However, a disproportionate amount of the article covers environmental concerns. Although I personally agree with the ongoing campaigns against Sinar Mas, there is presumably a lot more to the company than the environmental concerns against it. The current article creates a kind of bias by having lots of factually correct information about environmental concerns, and little other information. UnnecessarilyConfusing (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

However, I think most of the info in the EC section is relevant and notable. Here's what I'm thinking of doing: Slightly condensing the the EC section. I'd remove the sub-sections as some of them (especially the bottom 2) are looking rather empty. I do mean slightly here, I don't want to get rid of any of the actual information, just say it a little more tersely (and remove some of the duplication). And then expand on the actual information about the company (though I've not actually got as far as looking for refs) so that the article is little more balanced. I'm giving the heads up here in case anyone has a lot of information they want to add to the EC section, in which case condensing and removing the subsections probably isn't appropriate. (But if someone is going to expand the EC section, we really should expand the non EC section to prevent the article becoming even more focused on EC.) UnnecessarilyConfusing (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with last comment. I also think that EC topics are handled in a neutral way. These issues should be handled and I think they are in an accurate way. However I think a company is much more than controversies about it, so I think it is not accepatable not talking about other topics more related to the business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.201.56 (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This remains a distorted and one-sided view of the company. I came here looking for basic information such as the number countries in which the company operates. The only section here, other than the introduction, is "criticisms and controversies". Given the profile of the Greenpeace campaigns, this is all important information, but is only part of the story. Qlangley (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)