Talk:Peebles Corporation

Undue weight
I've tried to clean up this article some, but much of the article seems to have been intended to make Don Peebles look bad by emphasizing the legal problems encountered by the developments his company has undertaken. I have removed some slanted language, removed some unsourced items, improved the formatting of a number of citations, and noted some problems with other citations. - Donald Albury 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It all seems accurate to me. The representations are the results of Peebles developments. The prior articles misrepresented unsuccessful projects or projects that Peebles did not complete as "completed" or "underway" projects. I don't see how it was designed to make Peebles look bad if they are the facts. It appears that the language from prior revisions was copied verbatim from Peebles corporate pages or are unsourced/lead directly to Peebles interviews. Those are not primary sources. It also appears that much of the information can only be sourced to Peebles websites or press releases directly attributable to Don Peebles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.45.35 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also add that the requirements of Wikipedia entries be that a person should be accurately represented, including their business dealings, and that inaccurate wikipedia articles edited by that persons PR representatives is damaging to wikipedia accuracy as a whole. I don't think the statement "designed to make ____ look bad" is relevant; the only issue is accuracy and whether the weight of these statements are fair on balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.45.35 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I noticed the "undue weight" tag, and it's obvious that the editor, Donald Albury, is giving undue weight to certain statements made by the subject of the article, Don Peebles. Many of the wiki entires are lifted directly from press releases and unverifiable information. The alleged "emphasis" on the legal problems seem to be exactly what's lacking from the article, namely, that many of these projects are in litigation. It would be like having a Bernie Madoff article that removed references to his Ponzi scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.38.147 (talk • contribs)