Talk:Whirlpool Corporation/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Whirlpool Corporation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Controversy section
StealBeard. Do you work for whirlpool? Do you dispute the facts in the controversy section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.216.238 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Info in the controversy section should be verifiable with a linked citation and limited to one sentence to match the other controversies. I don't work for Whirlpool, but Whirlpool is a Michigan company and I live in Michigan. Steelbeard1 03:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute the facts presented regarding the MFI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.216.238 (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before, it must be verifiable. Please include a link with a verifiable citation to the relevant subject matter in order to avoid deletion. Steelbeard1 04:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted... Steelbeard1 is right. And even if this defect were verifiable, the level of detail (down to the model numbers) is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Please review our guidelines on reliable sources, notability and neutral point of view. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add some information about whirlpool's treatment of employees but I don't think there is a suitable section for this information. Do I have to create a whole new section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.216.238 (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is the wrong place for this sort of material. After your block expires, if you have well sourced material, propose the text, and include the cites, here first, and whatever you do, don't revert war if you can't gain consensus that your material is appropriate, or you may find your next block longer. This article is not a place to air grievances with the company, it is for neutral, well sourced information that any reader would want to know. ++Lar: t/c 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Shoddy products
Typical Wikipedia....it's not interested in the truth only what is verifiable! Just take the consumer affairs website to see how awful Whirlpool products are? Original research, well seems like 160 people all have had similar experiences with their appliances from this company. But then again if they treat their workforce like drones, what does that say about care and attention for their products!! 86.160.111.57 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)