Talk:Gibson/Archives/2016

Acoustic guitars
Gibson acoustics are not made in Tennesse, They are made in Montana. Pat Pending (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been much talk about a "woodpile" of particular quality and value that the company had amassed, which supposedly burned in the 1960's. The values of instruments produced during this era were partially assessed with respect to whether they were produced from this stock before it became exhausted. Would like to read the real story on this, if true or partially true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.138.65.233 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute: Lack of allegations of politicization in the 2011 DOJ raid
Reading your section on the raid, I'd like to point out that you missed a key and very, VERY notable aspect of the raids. I am disappointed at this huge gap of coverage.


 * First: the CEO of Gibson feels that he is completely innocent and complicit with the environmental regulations, as said in his press release.


 * Second: there are heavy allegations of politicization by the raid. Gibson supporters note that C. F. Martin & Company use either the exact same or similar exotic woods in their instruments. Although these beliefs can not be totally certified, Open Secrets testifies that its CEO donates to Rightist lobbying groups. The CEO of CF Martin, Chris Martin IV, donated money to John B. Callahan. Open Secrets explains this much better.
 * Allegations of politicization assert that the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration has chosen to invoke the Lacey Act on Gibson, as opposed to CF Martin, who uses similar woods in similar manners. Critics see this as a means of punishment to major Republican donors, although it's unquestionably an isolated incident. Folks allege that these notes are to coincidental to say that there was no bias in the raid. The coincidences include political donation histories, their similar pasts, and more.


 * Third: Michelle Obama gave a Gibson Guitar to the French First Lady. This is a similar guitar to the types that were raided, and critics point out that if Gibson was truly involved in an illegal act, the First Lady would not have given a contraband to another as a gesture of goodwill.

I implore Wikipedia to obey its mission of neutrality and amend these extremely important opinions to reflect both sides of a key issue in today's politics.

Regards,

--TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food. - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I will be addressing the issues as I stated above in another discussion. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly came here to see the facts of this situation and was completely awestruck by the obvious POV of this article. It is egregiously skewed. 75.83.24.85 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I would like to note that until today, I was unaware of the political slant to this story. From the looks of it, this all erupted recently, either on or after the date that I was updating the article.  (Since I don't read conservative news or listen to it on the radio, there's no way I could have known about it.)  Otherwise, upon review of your sources, I agree that we need to include the materials from Gibon's own website (obviously).  However, I strongly question the reliability of your other sources, namely "OpenSecrets.org", "hotair.com", "directorblue.blogspot.com", "bluecollarphilosophy.com", and "tngovwatch.org".  The other source, "Landmark Report" should be fine because it's not in a blog format.  Honestly, though, your accusations about a lack of neutrality were out of line if you're referring to anything other than lack of coverage of Gibson's statements.  Unlike the ultra-conservative sources you have quoted, none of the other sources used treat this as a political issue. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that I know more about opensecrets.org, I'm striking the question about its reliability. However, there are still two big issues: 1) Your links are broken.  2) From what I understand, opensecrets.org is just a database of political donations.  You cannot draw your own conclusions from it, otherwise you violate WP:OR.  To make those kind of statements, you need a reliable source to back up those claims... and you'd probably need to note who is making those claims (avoiding weasel words). –  VisionHolder  « talk » 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With no replies in a couple of days, I'm going to go ahead and clean this up tonight. I will be removing your unreliable references (and any material that relied upon it), while adding new material that I have recently found from reliable references. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 07:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have yet to look carefully at the sources that are currently in the text, but let me note, right off the bat, that the three points mentioned above by TurtleShroom are not based on reliable sources as far as I'm concerned, and the note on Michelle Obama is pure original research and synthesis ("the First Lady would not have given..."). Now, Visionholder seems to accept one of the sources and they could be right, so I'll have a closer look at it as well, but it should be clear that until sourcing is deemed impeccable, here and possibly on the RS noticeboard, this information does not belong in the article. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the 'left-wing' section. The sources cited are certainly not great, and one could not accept political commentary from a site like that Rainforest Alliance's--such sources can only be cited as primary sources about the organization itself. But worse, there was no secondary or even primary sources to support the fact that there was notable criticism from left-wing bloggers. I'm going to look at the other section next; I urge editors to consider WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY, and to remember that not everything that's found on the interwebz is enyclopedic information. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have removed the 'right-wing' section. Data from Opensecrets.org, which is run by Center for Responsive Politics, may be reliable, but the conclusions drawn from that data are, in this case, derived from this blog. There is no reliable secondary sources to support the fact that 'right-wing bloggers' (note the plural) criticize the investigation and its political intent; besides, that blog does not rise to the level of notability to deserve mention here as proof of widespread allegations of politicization. To TurtleShroom, above: we are not the news, in a nutshell, and until more reliable sources report on a possible controversy, such a supposed controversy should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the above edits. I'm not particularly fond of discussing the political controversy, particularly because of the lack of reliable sources.  I tried to stick to the sources with an editorial board when covering both sides.  But you are right, without reliable sources, the information does not belong in the article. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. The article is in pretty bad shape already; edit-warring over politics (or, in this case, a legal case apparently jumped on by some politickers) can only make it worse. BTW, I do appreciate your effort to represent both sides. Now let's get back to playing. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, in regards to that Wickedpedia comment above (haha), there aren't always two sides to represent. If an investigation is taking place, and it's notable enough, it can be remarked upon--that doesn't mean that all sides have to see their commentary reflected. To put it another way, most Fenders have single-coil pickups. Stating that the Stratocaster was first made with single-coils doesn't mean we have to include commentary from humbucker-fans and the countercommentary from the single-coil crowd, with a bit of extra room for the P-90 fans and the Stratocaster HSS crowd. Facts are facts, sometimes; we are under no obligation to turn factual matters into a forum discussion. To the IP who started that thread, that Wikipedia includes a report on an investigation doesn't mean "we" endorse it. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Before reading your reply and after seeing your edits, I read an interesting piece that showed me the error I made by trying to address the need for neutrality. The piece read:
 * "Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable 'hard news' segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the 'respectable' media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the 'centrist cop-out.' 'I joked long ago,' he says, 'that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'' source"
 * Anyway, I have no interest in cleaning up the rest of this article. Instead, I placed the Multiple issues tag on it, and hoped that another editor to take it on.  (I write more in the field of biology.)  But yes, I agree with all you have said and will try to maintain that approach as I monitor and update this section with the facts of the case. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

<--Visionholder, I certainly don't want to call you in error, not in any way: I think you did the best you could and were trying to be careful and respectful. I, unfortunately, am not so friendly, but then, I was forcibly ejected from the field of biology for a certain eyeball experiment (not on an animal's eyeball). Anyway, nice to see that Krugman remark--I like to think I taught him everything he knows. Thanks for that link! Drmies (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I own a Gibson Melody Maker,single fat pickup, single cut away. The serial number is ink stamped on the back of the head #932547. According to your serial number search this guitar is a 1962, but according to your disciption this guitar is a 1960. Is there a place I can take this guitar to verify my guitar info? My email adddress is fastfreddye@gmail.com I would really appreciate a responce Crocety (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a flyby at the lead to adequately summarize the article, paraphrase major controversies and so on. If other editors feel it's up to snuff with WP:lead, we could take that flag down. As a side note, the COI declaration my signature auto-generates isn't relevant here. User:CorporateM 05:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)