Talk:Pacific Bearing Company

Community Activism

 * I returned the "Community Activisim" section to this article. The Josephson Institute Center for Business Ethics (and several others) consider "Citizenship" to be on of the Pillars of Success (aka Pillars of Winning, Cornerstones of Success, etc.). I personally do not benefit from any of charitable givings of this company, but that does not mean the nearly 500,000 people surrounding this company can not benefit from it.  According to wikipedia standards, their support is documented and verifiable via external links.  As a personal, side note, I think that it's a shame that more companies do not support their community the way this company does.  Schbrownie (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read Wikipedia's policy regarding "not here to support your noble cause, no matter how noble it is..." and beleive that this content is not supporting the cause or offering any point of view on it, rather stating factual content that this company supports these two groups. Since at least one of the groups has its OWN Wikipedia article, that group itslef must be acceptable.  Since this article does nothing to offer an opinion or some other form of support, it is neutral. Schbrownie (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the content is pushing to advertise for your company. The idea being that if you look noble because of your great deeds it's makes you a better company to buy from. Look at the Ford or General Motors articles; they doesn't refer to any of of their "activism" activities, because an encyclopedia isn't supposed to be about that information. The info in this article should be about the core competencies of the company. Wizard191 (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Other Topics

 * I have re-posted the Patents Held references as they are a significant contribution to the technical community as verified by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. I have found several company and individuals pages that reference patents held (Avaya, Netac Technology, Zebra Imaging, Etienne Aigner, William C. Pfefferle, David E. Blackmen, etc., etc.)  This is not an attempt to "push product" as the patents in and of themselves are not saleable, but rather they verify the history of company growth and technical advancement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7052markh (talk • contribs) 14:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with user 7052markh. This article is not attempting to push the sale of the patents and furthermore does not qualify as "Unencyclopedic" content, as mentioned by the person who originally deleted the content.  This specific content is verifiable (froma  reliable, published source).  Furthermore, several other articles (as 7052markh mentioned) already listed this type of information and it was not removed or deleated as "unencyclopedic", therefore, (if this were a court) rules of prior evidence would apply and since it is allowed in other articles without removal and there is no specific guideline against it, it should be allowed to stay here.  Furthermore, based upon Wikipedia's guideline for Consensus, I would respectfully request that further "undo's" be discussed here before they are implemented.  Even though I have been on Wikipedia for several years doing minor edits, this is my first full-length article.  Per Wikipedia's policy of Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, I would again respectuflly request that the single person who continually undoes edits to this page read this policy.  I personally thouroughly researched this company and was sure to write the article so that it was in accordance with Wikipedia's policys for Verifiability and Neutral_point_of_view.  Furthermore, one of Wikipedia's few actual rules relates to its Editing_policy.  This article does not need to be perfect - it is a work in progress and changes should be done in the discussion space as opposed to just undoing everything that is done.  Schbrownie (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, other stuff exists, but that doesn't make it right. I don't think the inclusion of every patent a company has is encyclopedic. The Ford and General Motors article would become overwhelmed if they were to list every patent they own. As such, I think this boils down to advertising and peacocking (not in the word sense, just in the general sense). Wizard191 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)