Talk:Employee stock ownership/Archives/2013

Neutrality and questionable sources
Many citations to a "working paper" are made. This does not appear to meet our guidelines on WP:RS. esca.us is a lobbying group endorsing ESOP and nceo.org/esop.org is a think tank advocate for ESOP. Obviously sources hosted or chosen by them are cherry picked to advance their position. Notice how often that working paper was used? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Plan Sponsor" references
I think these references would be better if they were directly referenced (i.e. without the "plansponsor.com" intermediary), and attributed.

Also, because I have a strong suspicion that the editor adding the references works in PR, I have warned them on their user page.

Finally, marking the addition of several hundred characters, including multiple sources, as a "minor edit" seems to connote an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. I have recently encountered a different editor at a completely different page marking such additions both "minor" and with clearly false edit summaries. My point in mentioning this is that other editors are liable to misinterpret if one marks such substantial additions as "minor". Please see WP:MINOR for clarification of what use cases the minor edit flag is intended for.

I welcome further discussion about these sources, which i have removed for now, consistent with the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 19:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)