Talk:Center for Citizen Initiatives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 POV tag 2 PROD tag 3 Edits made to bring article within Wiki guidelines 4 PROD tag was removed

[edit] POV tag

This article is shot through with uncited assertions, questionable allegations, and just plain old POV. Denni ☯ 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some citations now. 26 June 2006

Seems to include speculation as much as fact about the organization. 28 June 2006

The citations have been growing and it's making the article a lot more informative.

[edit] PROD tag

I'm afraid that the citations in this article do not really count as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Proposing an argument or attempting to make a point by citing primary sources constitutes original research. If the ideas within this article could be attributed to previously published material from a reputable source, then those would be acceptable citations.:DLK 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits made to bring article within Wiki guidelines

Alright, I made a bunch of edits that probably bring the article within Wikipedia's guidelines, removing whole sections, and adding a few small details.:DLK 01:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, now it's debatable whether or not this organization should be considered notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm going to leave my Proposal for Deletion in place with the original rationale, and just add this comment to the record. :DLK 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROD tag was removed

This article was accused of violating Wiki's three guiding principles. Some of the language was indeed incendiary, and I have attempted to remedy that. The sources all appear to be reliable (the bulk being the organization's very own website) and the section addressing delegate motivations has been removed, as I could find no reason to justify the author's inclusion of what was, indisputably, op-ed.

That said, this organization is certainly "worth a wikipedia inclusion." Only when its transition, history, and politics are censored by an over-zealous Wiki-cop does CCI lose its worthiness of The Free Encyclopedia. 29 June 2006

Citing primary sources (i.e., material taken from the comany's website, or statements made by its founder) in support of the author/editor's viewpoint (e.g., the end of government funding has resulted in a shift in the organization's philosophy or priorities) constitutes original research. Now, if the same observation had been taken from a third-party published source, that would be a different story.

The newly added section regarding the politics of CCI's President is especially guilty of drawing generalized conclusions and advancing unsubstantiated claims that are clearly those of the author/editor. If this is not the case, then simply cite from a pubished source outside of this article itself in which the same conclusions about this woman have been derived.

I maintain that this continues to fall short of Wikipedia's primary criteria of Neutral point of view,No original research, and Verifiability. If anything, the article comes off as a bald-faced attempt to discredit the president of the organization. DLK 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The shift in the organization's philosophy and priorities is not the Wiki author's viewpoint but a simple fact manifestly present in the company's public relations rhetoric and the purely mathematical consequence of raising the fees higher than small businesspeople can afford. Yes these are descriptive claims, but their accuracy is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge.

You accuse the President's Politics section of being normative, when it is merely an amalgamation of her public statements. You insult her by arguing that her political position is discrediting. Her statements are not construed here; the accompanying text merely provides context.