Talk:International Association of Skateboard Companies

message: It would be great to get responses from the prefessionals themselves, maybe some of the information will be reliable enough to source. Here is Steve Berra's view on the subject --KoRnholio8 10:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses from the PROs 

message: For all the NPOV issues, here is the answer: there is not a lot of reliable sources in skateboard industry, and TWS Biz is pobably the best one, because they do publish unchanged press releases and is almost the single reliable source out there.
As for the views of hardgoods manufactors: the IASC is the assiociaotn of them! The "fight" is directed towards the consumer and the shops. Once again read the references if you haven't done so. Because of this, there is a lot of response from the consumers and shops on messageboards, but as of now, no one has had the guts to come foward with an opinion (if they stay quiet, we can presume they agree?). It is going to stay like this for some time and did you notice that the section cover an current evet? Information will change.
"A little more background here would help, especially the fact that the perceived 'problem' of blanks was actually created by IASC companies as it was them who moved production overseas and told the skaters that Chinese made boards were 'just as good' as US made boards."-SteveG
I agreee with that, but there should be a new section created for that, which would face same problems as does the blank section. In addition, it would be original research to point this out as the cause - no references.
Please try to come up with solutions, not just problems. I surf the net everyday looking for skate news and I have come up with only this references. If you know where there would be more, please do use them.--KoRnholio8 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I can find some good history on the IASC, I'll try to add to the article. If I remember correctly, it was started as a pressure group to get more/better skateparks in California. 
As for the fight against blanks, I agree that it would be difficult to get any viewpoint from the blank manus, as the ones who the IASC are fighting against tend to be Chinese firms flooding the market. 
Maybe we could offer a contrasting viewpoint in the abstract? Would this break any wikipedia rules? Steve-g 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just found this: http://www.aworldwithoutceos.com/homeslice.html I think it may offer an opposing view. Steve-g 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and other issues 

message: Allow me to highlight the 3 major problems:
*WP:V / WP:N - only one independent external source is referred to, and its standing is unknown. Reprints of press releases are not considered "independent" of the article subject.
*WP:NPOV - A controversial issue is referred to here, but only one side's opinions are revealed.
*General - The article devotes only a small section to its nominal subject, and a far larger amount of content to a single issue this group has a vested financial interest in.
Clearer now? Deiz talk 12:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was all clear from the start, yet nobody has done anything to find alternative references or even suggested them. The first version contanied contrasting views, but there was no source for it and it was deleted. I still believe in the integrity os TWS Biz, I just don't see why not (please, give me a reason). And for general concerns: I thik it is better that the article created is about IASC, rather than just about the fight. If you feel it lacks materia, then stub it.--KoRnholio8 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Other mags have choosen to stay out of thiis so far, yet even if they expressed an opinion, only TWS has the article format, that is usually referenced to. Others simply write a short news post, that can't even be linked to and it is problably semi-serious. We've added some responses and the article is starting to balance out.--KoRnholio8 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notwithstanding the 'general' critique posted by Deiz, above, can we remove the NPOV check now that we have a more balanced overview? I agree that the nominal subject needs lots of work, but is the blank issue now resolved? Steve-g 09:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect a deletion debate would result in the page's removal in its current form. A quick google search brings up some information from a variety of sources and I'll endeavour to expand the page within the next few days. For now, I think the 'off topic' template is appropriate. Steve-g 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is off-topic.  The cited sources mention IASC a few times in reference to their campaign against blanks and other "generic skateboard products".  This actually seems to be a central reason for the formation of the IASC.  I think this is suitable for this topic, although the material might be more apropos on another page.  The only other page (that exists) it could make sense to include this on is Skateboard, although putting it there might make the page too clunky.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: Hi all. I've just had a crack at re-writing this article so I thought I'd post some notes here for reference:
:1. I've removed the old Transworld Skateboarding references that had become dead links. I added one or two newer articles that could be linked but we'll need to watch those to make sure they remain online. 
:2. I have general concerns about using TWS references anyway, mostly because they are a key part of the IASC and partner with them on specific initiatives. They really couldn't be considered "independent" so I have real WP:RS concerns. Nonetheless, I have left a couple in there where the content was not particularly controversial or promotional.
:3. Though the Bud Stratford reference is a blog, he seems to be considered fairly well-respected and though his content has no editorial oversight (in the traditional sense) and a fairly obvious point of view, I don't think the factual accuracy is in question (at least in terms of the part we're using to verify particular claims). I left it in but if anyone has a big problem with it, please feel free to be bold! 
Leave a note on my talk page if you have any concerns or questions. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write