Talk:Society for Human Resource Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

If someone wants to add information about their conferences, that would be insightful. --Email4jonathan (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Ldiener71 added conference info under Education...thanks! --Email4jonathan (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has grown substantially, so I am removing the stub status. --Email4jonathan (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


This is not an article -- it's a press release. Yeeha 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Update?

Anyone want to update this so that it doesn't read like an advertisement? User:?

Even if it were rewritten without the fluff and puff, this content is not encyclopedic -- it's organizational literature, and it still reads like a padded resume after editing. It's appropriate for the website belonging to this organization, not a Wikipedia entry. A page devoted to the topics covered by SHRM might be appropriate for Wikipedia, although I grimace at the thought of Wikipedia becoming a repository for all kinds of obscure vocational jargon that's of no interest to the public. But the organization itself warrants perhaps a stub with an external link if anything. Yeeha

[edit] Sourcing

Most of the material in this article either needs to be removed or attributed to a WP:reliable source. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for material to merely be reposted from a website rather than attributed to independent, reliable sources that have produced coverage on the article topic.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call, Factchecker. I don't think getting third-party sourcing will be an issue since there are over 515,000 Google hits for SHRM, so I will try to get to it this week, but any other help is appreciated. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Very good, but note that was is needed is not just "third-party" sources, but sources considered to be reliable under WP guidelines. For example, the majority of "google hits" on a given topic are unlikely to link to reliable source material. Avoid citing literature published by SHRM, its local chapters and affiliated organizations, as well as other self-published material. Please also make sure you are familiar with the relevant guidelines on sourcing and content when considering whether material is appropriate for Wikipedia.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand...and if this is so important to you (or anyone), then please take it upon yourself. --Eustress (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have added several reliable, third-party sources to this article, so I am removing the This article does not cite any references or sources tag. I think the other verifiability tag should also be removed, but I'd like to see any feedback others may have first. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing verifiability tag since issue has been resolved without any subsequent feedback. --Eustress (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/ DB-Spam tags

I have added an NPOV tag to warn of the promotional nature of this article. I have also added a DB-Spam tag. I believe it will be necessary to start this article over from scratch in order to achieve a neutral and non-commercial tone. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't require deletion. Nakon 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely doesn't require deletion...if you want it modified, then fine, but please help out instead of just criticizing it. I've been the only one to seriously contribute to this article (part of the reason why I remove the previous tag after no response after a week). If this sounds like an ad, then we should work together to resolve the issue because the organization is definitely notable. --Eustress (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Items to fix in order to remove tag

It would be helpful if Factchecker atyourservice would please list each item below that constitutes non-neutrality and that requires verifiability, so I (hopefully we) can address each issue. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that a special burden has been placed on you since you have taken it upon yourself to conceive of and write this entire article yourself. My purpose is not to create extra work for you, but to ensure that Wikipedia is not used to propagate biased views or marketing material. I will simply edit it myself and include explanations for my edits, then we'll work from there. But not today. It's barbeque time!Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I patiently await your modifications or justifications because right now there is no reason the article should be tagged. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I think otherwise, or I would not have tagged it. I'm sorry I have not gotten back to this yet, but I only have a limited amount of time to work on Wikipedia. Please do not remove the tags. I'll begin my editing today.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major editing to achieve NPOV

The previous diff of this page was written like an advertisement from beginning to end. It containted language to solicit business for the topic organization, including a menu of products and services and an invitation for prospective members to join. Various sections included trivial and ancedotal information as well as one-sentence sections, all serving only to flesh the article out. For example, the entire "History" was awash in minutiae and was simply reprinted from the SHRM website. Many of the supposed news articles cited as references were in fact press releases, which are a self-published commercial product. There were numerous uncited external links masquerading as references, again, serving only to dress up the article.

In one section of the article, it was stated that "SHRM conducted the EEOC's annual survey on its behalf", when in fact this was simply an email survey of SHRM members, conducted by the SHRM, and presented to the EEOC at a meeting on September 8th, 2003. A link to images illustrating the survey results that were presented to the EEOC was cited as a "reference" for the claim that this survey was part of a previously existing program of the EEOC, which had been undertaken by the EEOC, but which duties were taken over by SHRM for the year 2003. Unless I am simply missing something that's absent from the current references cited, this is a blatant misstatement of fact and somewhat appears to be an effort to inflate the apparent status of the organization. Yet the comment for the edit in which you added this statement reads "Government Involvement: Added another fact with citation". So if not a blatant distortion of fact, what is this?

Wikipedia does play host to articles about companies, trade associations, and non-profit organizations, but it is explicitly expected not to be used as a marketing tool.

While I appreciate your continued efforts to further develop this article, going forward it absolutely must remain written in a dry, strictly factual, and non-promotional tone. It should not include excessive or trivial details about the organization's history or service offerings. It should not include any language that encourages the reader to purchase a membership or service. Articles should be included as references only if they are specifically and directly cited: the purpose of factual references on Wikipedia is to substantiate specific statements, not illustrate the topic.

When referencing material which has been produced by SHRM, please consider the following language held under Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples, with emphasis added:

"Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view

Websites and publications of trading companies, organizations and charities are a marketing communication channel and should be treated with caution. These media can be used for primary data about the organization's view of itself and may have clear bias related to commercial interests. Effort should be made to corroborate the reference with an independent source in order to maintain a neutral point of view."

Please also note that a press release is still self published material when hosted by a company such as Business Wire or PR Newswire. Such entities are not the same as legitimate news wire services such as Reuters and the Associated Press. Material from press releases does not constitute news coverage by a reliable source, and any references should properly attribute SHRM as its author.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to make a good edit and share some rationale. I'm going to make a couple copy edits and re-add the picture of the HR Magazines (which you can address here if you don't like). Best --Eustress (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)