Talk:Persimmon plc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

[edit] External links

I don't believe that WP should be linking to an un-official group claiming to represent customers of the Persimmon group -- it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:EL#What_to_link. What's the consensus on this? It would appear that User:Starsend believes the link should be there (even though all their edits are to this article), however it would appear that User:Robbieb7 also believes the link should not be there. You only need go through the edit history to see the amazing add/removal of the link(s). Perhaps this can be discussed in a civilised manner to reach a concensus? -- Ratarsed (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that the external link [1], has a significant number of links to press articles and other articles regarding Persimmon and their upmarket subsiduary Charles Church which can be found on [2]. This must be preferable to adding in many external links to these press articles and is in line with WP:EL#What_to_link, item 4 - 'Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.' Starsend (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in linking to lots of news stories, when they are used as citations to back up a statement; for example, if there was a section on controversy over build quality. I'm a strong believer in that when linking to an external site, it should be to the relevant page within a site -- otherwise it starts to look like it'd fall foul of point 4 of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I'm not sure that anything in the forums on there would classify as a reliable source, per WP:RS. -- Ratarsed (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The majority of the content on the charles-church.org site is non-factual slander. A website containing arguements based upon circumstantial and unreliable evidence contravenes item 4 - 'Sites with other meaningful, relevant content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieb7 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting remarks by User:Robbieb7 in particular those relating to non-factual slander. As far as I can see the majority of the content relates to web-links in the media and other published articles [3]. So to suggest that articles published by The BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Scotsman, The Observer, The Contract Journal, The Advertising Standards Agency, The Health and Safety Executive, The Environment Agency, The Housing Forum etc, relating to Persimmon and its' subsidiaries is slanderous, seems erroneous.

So given that [4] appears to simply provide web links to published articles in the press (on which no legal action appears have been taken regarding their alleged slanderous nature - otherwise they would have been removed) then this would seem an appropriate valid link, as it adds to the information provided elsewhere in the entry. The website seems quite innocuous compared to a number of other websites which contain content relating to purchasers experiences of buying a Persimmon or Charles Church property. Starsend (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that you list all those newspapers when the majority of the charleschurch.org site simply displays the views of users/purchasers. Therefore the site is of an opinionative nature, does not have ethics in line with material fact, and strongly expresses views against Persimmon plc, without evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.84 (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, the innocuous reference to www.charles-church.org.uk has been unilaterally removed again by 80.254.147.84. I am sure that Persimmon plc, would not subscribe to the fact that the views of its customers, without which it would not have a business, are not important. As of writing this note, it appears that 75% of the threads directly refer to published articles in the press or other reputable organisations, some of which are positive regarding Persimmon. So where do we go from here, I guess we should just accept that the only information that can appear on this Wikipedia page is good positive news about Persimmon, or else it will be quickly removed. Starsend (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia was not a site set up with the intention of satisfying the problems customers have with those appearing on it. It is considered usual procedure that articles of the same type, companies in the same industry or governing body are represented in the same manner. Therefore Starsend, Ratarsed and Robbieb7, please review the pages of competitors (Taylor Wimpey, Barratt Developments, Redrow, etc) and note that there are no customers views represented within the ‘External Links’ section on their articles. I would like to see the argument resolved at this point please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)