Talk:Persimmon plc

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Persimmon plc is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Incident at Coity[edit]

The article currently refers to an alleged incident at Coity the circumstances surrounding which are disputed by the company. It seems to me that either (i) this was a serious incident which should be reported to the Health & Safety Executive so they can investigate it and publish any adverse findings; the findings could, at that time, be properly cited on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:CITE or (ii) this was a minor incident, as asserted by the company, in which case the disclosure in the article is defamatory and should be immediately removed per WP:LIBEL. Either way the allegation should be deleted for now. Dormskirk (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is now cited and it does appear to be a serious incident so I am OK for it to remain. Dormskirk (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Persimmon plc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606030314/http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2010/05/new_homes.html to http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2010/05/new_homes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section Sizes[edit]

Section sizes in Persimmon plc

Section size for Persimmon plc (12 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,170	2,170
History	2,836	2,836
Operations	393	393
Criticism	14	11,121
Build quality	5,980	5,980
Censorship	814	814
Health and safety failure	536	536
Executive pay	2,273	2,273
Late payment	808	808
Competition	696	696
References	33	33
External links	610	610
Total	17,163	17,163

Captain Wacky HJS (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is revealing, isn't it. I think the article needs some work for NPOV and could also use some expansion of the History section. I've removed a bit of less-important stuff from the criticism section. Ovinus (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]