A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
- According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
- I didn't spot issues in neutrality and therefore removed the template. Even if the article is based on reliable sources that are used objectively, it is natural and understandable that a paid editor does not mention some facts that might be inconvenient in the client's point of view – that's why it is important that paid editors inform openly about their affiliations. In my understanding user Jjanhone has done this properly. The article framework is properly done and any other user may complete the text with supplementary information. --Gwafton (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- @Gwafton: This article is hugely dependent on primary sources produced the company themselves, including the first reference which seems to be some form of anniversary book. Neutrality means representing the views of reliable sources and is different to whether the article is promotional. It still requires major clean up. SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- @Smartse: The history section is based on the company history book and there are a couple of references to the company's own website. But all other sources are based on articles on business journals and other independent media. Almost all company history books are published by the same companies in question and it might be difficult to find 3rd party sources for the history. I am a non-affiliated Wikipedia editor and I have written some company articles using similar sources but that has never been an issue. I fail seeing any problem in the text and sources of this article and I remain of the opinion that the template should be removed. --Gwafton (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
