Talk:Early Light

Recent round of changes
Seems to me that the edits from User:Forewordcommunications need to be reverted. He's replaced any critical information with marketing-speak directly from the company website. Probably some of it can be re-inserted, but as it stands, WP:NPOV has vanished. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how I got here other than my edits were removed. I noticed as well that previous user forewordcommunications removed sourced material and replaced with promo materials. However, I also noticed that article as it stood before my edits was definitely not only slanted toward a negative point of view, but it also contained assumptions that were not supported by the references of the original writer/editor. Additionally, there were numerous grammar and punctuation errors that I attempted to correct. Article has now been reverted back to original which, again, is distinctly negatively slanted. Page should probably be completely rewritten removing both negative and positive slants. I thought that only a neutral point of view was permitted. Not sure why page would have been allowed to stand as was, and is now. I left reasons for all my edits. Not sure why edits were rolled back (even grammatical ones which are obviously warranted). Article is a stub and invites additional material. Again, article as it stood contained only negative and poorly-written information as well as assumptions that were not supported by cited references.--Rjsnorthcoast (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because, under both of your usernames, you made so many changes, many highly inappropriate, that it was much easier to roll it back and do it correctly rather than dig through your large number of edits and fine-tune them. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. However, how is it inappropriate to delete source material that is improperly cited or make grammatical changes? Source material should be used to present an unbiased view of the company, not to make conjectures that are slanted toward one view or another. And, good grammar and punctuation just makes good sense, no? That is what I was doing as you can see by my notes. Can you direct me toward which edits were inappropriate? Thanks! --Rjsnorthcoast (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, another question. Would it be advisable to work with User:Ohconfucius to make the article unbiased and well-written? I'm happy to go through my edits point by point with either/both of you. Thanks! --Rjsnorthcoast (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammatical corrections aren't an issue. But I needed to roll back all the edits you made as User:Forewordcommunications, and that was impossible without removing all the ones you made under your current user name. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius was already doing an awesome job of revising forewordcommunications edits. Should have been left alone. You didn't answer my other questions. May I assume it's ok to redo my edits? --Rjsnorthcoast (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, the purely grammatical stuff isn't a problem. --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, grammatical corrections are never a problem. I was actually reworking the new material inserted and was a bit surprised that Josh did a wholescale rollback. I thought tht there was a fair amount of stuff that can stay, but he also pointed out it was lifted from the company website, which I would agree is unacceptable. By all means insert about the company based on information, suitably attributed where necessary, retrieved from reliable sources whilst avoiding copying or sounding promotional. I am watching the article but will do some work on it in a few days' time. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply any copyvios. It wouldn't bother me if you rolled back my rollback and worked from there. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rolling back the rollback sounds like the best way to avoid completely rewriting the article. However, User:Ohconfucius, I would like to discuss with you the obvious negative bias and assumptions made from some of your source material. I think we need to keep conjecture out of the article. jpgordon, I am still waiting for guidance re negative bias when WP:NPOV is Wikipedia policy. You keep touching on the grammatical, but you are not addressing the negative pov. --Rjsnorthcoast (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One can put well-sourced positive information (i.e., not from the company's website) if one feels that the article is unbalanced. But removing well-sourced negative information and replacing it with poorly-sourced positive information is problematic. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

jpgordon. You keep talking about well-sourced material. My point is that the material is not well-sourced. If you read the source material, the negative information written into the article is not at all true. How is something that is untrue "well-sourced" information, positive or negative? See my edits. As evidence, I noted... "Cited reference does not compare wages in terms of numbers, nor does reference wages of Shenzhen factory in terms of numbers. Text makes assumptions that are not verifiable via this reference." Is an entry that makes assumptions about something not noted in the reference material "well-cited?" Also note, I indicated "reference makes no assumption of what "sparked deadly brawl." Again, how is material that clearly misleads the reader "well-sourced?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsnorthcoast (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)