Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Gallery

Why even bring up "The North Face"? It seems like the opposite of objective unbiased scientific discussion. Meanwhile it provides free advertizing to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericengle (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

But advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I"m confused. Since when is an internal newsletter bound to "unbiased scientific(?!) discussion"? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Juliancolton I share your confusion. When is anything associated with Wiki-anything totally without bias?Not Wilkins (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins

The article states "[brand name] does not love Earth" without evidence. Even if [brand name] does not love earth - say, unlike [brand name] it was a company known to be environmentally irresponsible - that would still be irrelevant to this article's topic. Unlike the editors who commented above, I think it is is fair, accurate, and on-topic to call out this brand as "not loving Wikipedia" but it might be wiser to to follow the paths of some media outlets that refuse to name murderers and others who appear to be "seeking attention" and just say "A company which we refuse to name here vandalized the following articles by putting images in them that included their brand, please review them and consider using some of the suggested images below instead." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that saying [brand name] doesn’t love the earth is going a bit far, but calling them out by name is absolutely necessary. Now that I know NF has done this, I’ll have a sharp eye out for their logo and products in new uploads to Commons. - TimDWilliamson ^speak 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)