Talk:Vista Outdoor

Cleaning It Up

Even though most of the article is factually accurate, a lot of the info comes from unreliable sources.

Range 365, for example, is a new online publication that came into existence on an "exclusivity" deal with Vista Outdoor. For the first year, supposedly, only Vista Outdoor would advertise on Range 365. Well, it's past one year and Vista is still the only one that advertises there. Not saying it's a big deal. Just that Range 365 shouldn't be a source in this article.

Seeking Alpha seems like a poor source as well. This is "crowdsourced" analysis of stocks, written mostly by amateurs. For all we know, "LesbianAdvocate" (aka "SingaporeBobby") has sockpuppets on Seeking Alpha. "Singapore Bobby" could then self-link to his own Seeking Alpha contributions. Come to think of it, that is quite likely.

Furthermore, the discussions of the different brands in this article often contain the "origin stories" that Vista Outdoor also broadcasts on its company website.

The article appears to be one leg in Vista Outdoors' "integrated marketing" effort: "The focus of integrated marketing communications is heavily based on a consistency throughout all areas of the organisation; 'one voice across everything' (Laurie & Mortimer, 2011). By linking all communication in each media outlet, and therefore creating synergy, organisations are able to create a higher impact with their message."

As a side note, last year I made a few additions to the Vista Outdoor article. I wrote that Vista Outdoor had partnered with Kroenke Sports and Entertainment to develop a magazine for people new to the shooting industry. In retrospect, it wasn't in fact notable because I think they only ever released one issue. Anyways, when I added the info to the page, Singapore Bobby quickly moved my contribution to the bottom of the page and asked if we should delete it. I had noticed his previous affiliation with Alliant and the fact that he dutifully came back once a month to make changes, but he had a point about the magazine being not that notable, so I didn't push it.

Point being, the article has been carefully crafted by a paid worker, and it will take a while for those interests to lose their sway on the article, regardless of the block on Singapore Bobby.

I would be happy to try to make it more neutral, but I'm not an experienced editor. JagzBeery (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)JAGZBEERY — Preceding unsigned comment added by JagzBeery (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks pretty clean to me. If you want to change something I say go for it. Anything you mess up can always be fixed with an undo. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not all that glitters is golden. I took a look at the sources and I think the tag either still needs to be up or someone more experienced with these issues needs to take it down. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

After reading and understanding the actual policy it is clear this no longer belongs here. The sources still need clean-up though.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for not leaving a note here when I added the tag. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_101#Account_possibly_connected_to_digital_PR_firm_FP1_Strategies for background. Some examples of problems still existing:

• "more than 30 well-recognized labels and subsidiaries that produce a wide range of ammunition"
• Non-RS e.g. [1] and numerous press releases
• Promotional fluff in Vista_Outdoor#Mark_W._DeYoung.

Until someone can spend the time to ensure that all of the information is reliably-sourced and neutral, the tag needs to stay. SmartSE (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I got all the Seeking Alpha crap out. I am not sure what to do with the press releases. Publicly traded companies are tightly regulated and they generally factcheck press releases about stock offerings, debt sales, and financial matters very, very carefully. In this context, I would consider them a reliable source. If anyone feels differently, just let me know.103.6.219.2 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Will do. I can do some of this but auditing every single source is a tall order. Oh, well.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that consensus is required to remove tags. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Decided to use a named account to avoid confusion

I decided to use a named account. I have edited this article as 45.114.116.108 and 103.6.219.2. Thanx. Happytraveler123 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing COI warning

I am removing the COI warning as the POV and sourcing issues with the article seem to have been addressed, I have verified the accuracy of the remaining sources, and there is no active discussion of this issue. If you disagree just revert and we will do the BRD thing. Happytraveler123 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I will add back the content I removed once I find proper sources for it. It is not gone forever. Happytraveler123 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

NRA boycott

The NRA boycott section is very POV and needs to be cleaned up.60.234.42.253 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the company page is a glowing advertising style profile with nothing about any controversies, much like the ones we delete as spam (except this company is public so it will not be deleted.. We also need a section on devistments by pension funds and the like over their manufacturing of assault rifles. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to add any content you like that is properly sourced and NPOV.60.234.42.253 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The IP is reverting well sourced info linking this business to the NRA and demanding I quote the sources on the talk page. Here you go IP:

Article about NRA boycott

Article title "Local Bike Shops come to terms with their industry ties to the NRA"

Again the title and link include "companies affiliation with NRA"

Local TV reporting on boycott by bike shops

Detroit Free Press first sentence "As the national conversation about guns and the NRA heats up, cyclists and bike shops are being urged ..." and quotes " facing a consumer boycott because they are owned by Vista Outdoor, a supporter of the National Rifle Association." and then goes onto discuss other businesses targeted by the NRA boycott

First sentance "Giro, Bell, Camelbak, Copilot and more are facing a consumer boycott because they are owned by Vista Outdoor, a supporter of the National Rifle Association." Second paragraph "...company is also a corporate supporter of the gun lobby’s mouthpiece, the National Rifle Association" and discusses how the company supports NRATV amd more.

Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) both refs detail the concern is ties to NRA .

R.E.I.. Even the url shows "backlash affiliation NRA"

So yes - this is connected to support of the NRA. Kindly don't make edits using obvious lies for rational.[2] Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Is there a specific peice of text that is objected to, and can the IP provide a better text?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times piece is the only source cited in support of the claim that "As part of the 2018 NRA boycott resulting from the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting activists called on retailers to stop selling all Vista Outdoor products specifically over the company's support of the National Rifle Association and manufacturing of assault weapons."

Vista Outdoor is only mentioned once in the article. Here is a quote of the relevant paragraph, "Facebook posts and petitions from parents in Brooklyn, hiking enthusiasts and bike shops urged consumers and retailers like REI not to support CamelBak hydration packs and Bell helmets. Those brands are owned by Vista Outdoor, which also makes guns and ammunition." It clearly does not support the text as written. I am changing the text to bring it inline with the source. 60.234.42.253 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed this material. Based on the reliable sources, extent of coverage, and factual presentation, the material does not violate WP:NPOV. The IP may take the matter to WP:NPOVN if they disagree.- MrX 🖋 14:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that except for the daily newspapers and the CBC cited, the sources presented here are of exceptionally low quality. I think we can do better than bicycle industry trade rags. 60.234.42.253 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post is exceptionally poor quality? As to the other sources, have you searched for better sources? Are you here to improve this article or are you here to whitewash it on the subject's behalf?- MrX 🖋 15:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are now eight source citations for this material. If anyone feels that any particular portion is not verifiable in a reliable sources, please explain here so that it can be fixed.- MrX 🖋 15:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it safe for outdoor

If its safe for everyone then it's good 105.245.106.70 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)