User talk:Vangoat25

Hi Wikki Dan, If there was a problem with the picture I recently uploaded, why was the whole page taken down? I'm still learning this whole Wikkipedia thing as an ongoing project for school. I have permission to use the pictures, and while I understand that I'm not supposed to advertise here, where is the line? For the most part I've been sticking to a history of the company. I just thought a newer product might be relevant. I can change that if it will keep the work I've been doing so far alive. Thanks! (Vangoat25 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)vangoat)

The material you added to the page was copied, almost verbatim, from the company's own website. This is the cause of the copyright concern. Please refer to the instructions for how to get and document the permissions required to use copyrighted material. The other problem with this material is that it is written by an advertising copy writer at the company itself, and as such is hardly a neutral and unbiased view of the company. As this is a school project, you should consult with your instructor, and you should both consult WP:SUP as a guideline in how Wikipedia can be used effectively as a teaching tool. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Dan,

The existing work was basically a brief history of the company. Yes, it was pretty similar to the 'official' material, but that material was the most basic (and only, really) and comprehensive information available. It may be based (or even written by) someone from the company, but history is history, right? It was entirely factual, and if given the chance, I could possibly find actual 'news stories' to reference. I can take down all the pictures if need be, but I don't understand how adding three pictures made everything that had been up all week incorrect. I guess what I'm asking here is to get back what was up before I made today's changes. That information had been up there a week. (Vangoat25 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)vangoat)

As to your statement "history is history", that is not exactly true. The first line in the history is "An American success story unfolds." This is a highly biased and non-neutral way of writing a history. Other phrases peppered throughout the history have the same pro-company bias: "[Sweasy's] energy and drive would steer the company...", "Redwing's legendary durability and comfort...", "From the dream of one man, Red Wing Shoe Company has grown into the most respected and best loved manufacturer of hard-wearing footwear around the globe." This is the way a company ADVERTISES itself, but it is NOT the way a neutral third party writes the company's history. The entire section about the town of Red Wing is superfluous also, as the article already links to the Wikipedia article on that town. If you are unable to find any history of the company other than the company's own version, perhaps this speaks to the notability of the company. In any case, the company's own website is NOT a valid source for historical information, as it is considered a primary source. Without that reference, all the information you've added is unverifiable, and should not be included. Finally, the fact that the information had been up for a week (or a month or a year) does not make it any more valid. It just means that I'm the first editor to have noticed the changes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do some more research. Thank you for your input. One last question: What if some of the material I use isn't online? For instance, there is a Red Wing Shoe history book that I found that has a wide variety of information. Clearly, I can't link to this. Can I just site the source? I haven't used it because I was under the impression that everything on Wiki had to be from online sources. (Vangoat25 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)vangoat25)

Yes, printed material is a valid source, if it was not published by the company itself. (Many companies do publish their own histories in book form as a promotional item -- just be sure to check the book's author and publisher and look for promotional terminology such as I've already pointed out.) You can use the {{citebook}} template to help you create a uniform citation for the book.

Red Wing Shoes

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Red Wing Shoes. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Please see the guidelines regarding this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you've been updating this article again. Your "History and Origins" sections still sounds too much like an essay written by a RedWing employee and less like an encyclopedia entry. And the "Creating a shoe" section is completely irrelevant to the encyclopedic article about the company (and has therefore been removed). Please look at the profiles of some other companies on Wikipedia to get a feel for how they are structured and the tone of language that is used. Check out this list for a sampling of company articles classified as "good".WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)