Talk:Community Financial Services Association of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutrality tag

Hi, I'm happy to include more "pro" CFSA material. Can whoever tagged the article help me locate this information, or show if there are biased sources included? Thanks!Benzocane (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, can somebody clarify the forking issue? There is of course overlap with entries on the content of payday loans, but this is inevitable when tracking a lobbying organization. I've tried to keep the section on payday lending brief, and will redirect to main entries.Benzocane (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with associations and lobby groups and PR firms is that they put out so much information and make it easy to get to via their site or press releases. In this case, most of the criticism is sourced using reliable sources, but the "pro" stuff goes back to its website or sponsored publications/research etc., which I think is what ultimately weakens the article. I'll look through the payday loan edits, but as I remember, Dezenhall's strategy here doesn't seem to revolve around using traditional media, but creating its own outlets (i.e. youtube, front groups, public education campaigns, white papers/research etc.). Not a criticism, mind you, but just noting that finding quotes using reliable sources may be difficult. I'm thinking pr or media trade pubs (PR Week, for example) might provide some interesting perspective; after all, there is lots of money being thrown around on every side of this issue. Flowanda | Talk 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Flowanda. I agree. I assume the article was tagged as being biased against, the CFSA, only because there are more sources critical of their policies than in support of them, but I'm not even sure if that's the case, as the tag involved no post on talk. The CFSA web site provides rebuttals, but without substantial evidence, and I'm not convinced those pr talking points can be described as "encyclopedic."Benzocane (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any stated reason for the two tags, I've removed them. I have no objection, of course, to their being replaced if a reason is given for their presence, but since both tags refer viewers to discussions on talk which do not exist, it seems they should be removed until they actually have a referent.Benzocane (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with WP:COATRACK, but I think adding sourced info about its activities and how it works will help put the CRL content in perspective. Plus, the article has been added to the payday loan article, so there will probably be more eyes showing up here, although I doubt this article will suffer from the same kind of spam. There's been a number of edits added by Dezenhall folks at payday loan that have been removed; some of the info and sources may be more appropriate here as part the larger discussion. I'll dig through the history this week and perhaps add some of the content here for discussion, along with any PR sources.

Nice article, btw; sometimes it's easy to forget that somebody actually started with just a blank page.Flowanda | Talk 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this and other entries. You're doing really useful work. I am also relatively unfamiliar with Coatrack, etc., and think these issues are always particularly trick to navigate with advocacy groups, lobbies, etc.Benzocane (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)