Talk:Public Relations Society of America/Archive 1

Please go to

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone create an article for the current CEO C. Del Galloway? Thanks! Jccort (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching with interest as this article has been expanded over the last couple of weeks, and have felt no need to contest any of the edits made, but do get the feeling that the article is a bit unbalanced. The controversy takes up about 30% of the article, and that section is completely devoted to one person's dispute with the PRSA. Is this a fair reflection of the coverage that the PRSA has received from independent reliable sources, per

The other controversies like the SEC investigation and the definition of PR are integrated into the History. This one is pulled out because it took place over an extended period. We must cover it with "due weight" based on its coverage in the media (which is extensive), but it is on my To Do list to continue expanding other sections and both fill in some gaps in the dispute while also condensing excessive detail. The main thing I'm missing is what took place from the 1970s to 1992.

Corporate 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. I was only asking because I have had previous contact with O'Dwyer when he attempted to insert blatantly non-neutral content into the article based on private communications rather than independent published sources, and I was unsure whether he was as important to the history of the PRSA as he thinks he is. I see that he actually may be, although the current neutral, reliably sourced, presentation is obviously much better.

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I see COI as equal on both sides - whether it's promotional or negative. My approach is the same for both - to ask them to provide images and independent sources.

Corporate 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm not doing work for

Phil Bridger (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, sorry - I got you mixed up with

Corporate 15:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I feel that there's a NPOV issue here and I've listed it on the neutrality noticeboard. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Dwyer

Here's what I've distilled from O'Dwyer:

• He says he never sued PRSA over copyright issue, however multiple fairly reliable sources say he did.  Not done
• There are 14, not 19 professional interest groups (confirmed[1]) Done
• He says the APR program no longer requires writing. A look at PRSA's accreditation materials suggest this may be true.
• Code of conduct: He says membership isn't actually revoked for ethical violations. Historically this appears to be true in at least some cases, but would be OR. I modified to "may" be revoked. Not done
• He says the lawsuit with the PRSA speaker was dismissed. Multiple sources confirm he "won" the lawsuit. It appears to be a lawsuit of substantial historical significance, but PRSA is not the appropriate article to cover it in depth, so I condensed it. Done
• Timeline: I'm simultaneously condensing, but also looking to fill some gaps. When asked what led up to PRSA's letter in 1992 and the boycotts in '09 and '11, he provided the following events:

• 1977: FTC sends a consent decree to the PRSA about its code of conduct being an anti-competition strategy; O'Dwyer jumps on it. From what I gather, this is the actual beginning of the dispute. Done
• 1988-1989: a controversy over Summerlein Harrison criticizing the PRSA for meeting with the CIA on how to raise funds for the Contras in Nicaragua (big scandal he says)
• In 1999: PRSA finishes a poll 5 years in the making that found PRs were one of the least credible sources of information + a 2 year study that found APR had no value in the job market. PRSA chooses not to publish either story - but O'Dwyer publishes them anyway. + He completes a ten-year study of PRSA's accounting and accuses them of cooking the books, leading to the 1999 boycott.

I haven't found any useful secondary sources in my searches, but if anyone has an alternate article database they could try like HighBeam, it could help us fill some of these gaps.

I looked through O'Dwyer's article criticizing my coverage of the dispute. The only correction I felt was needed was done here. Additionally, there is a need to cover the dispute in 1999 that led to a boycott if independent sources can be found.

Corporate 18:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

When I audit the currently cited sources, I read that O'Dwyer refuted the allegation. I'm not really seeing consensus that we should include a sentence to say that he refuted the allegation, as it reads in the source. Can you participants comment on this? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does such an arcane legal nicety really belong in the opening sentence of this article? If we need to specify up front what type of organization this is then wouldn't it be better to do so in plain English (such as "non-profit organization") rather than in legal gobbledygook?

A more simple "non-profit" is fine with me, but I do think the type of organization and where it is located is important in the lead, for most articles about organizations. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I haven't done so to avoid promotionalism, but I have been thinking the lead should mention they are the largest PR association (by a large margin) in the world. They are the de facto standard in the US and the closest thing we have to a single voice for the entire profession. I think there must be a neutral way to articulate this. At the least being the largest PR organization is supported by secondary sources, but I feel is often seen as promo (even when true).

Corporate 01:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This is Jack O'Dwyer, who has covered PRSA and other PR subjects 44 years as of July 1, 2012. Wikipedia taking up the subject of PRSA is a tremendous development both for the PR industry and for America. Our country runs on good information quickly dispensed. Blocking information is bad in any form. PRSA has not talked to me in many years nor has it talked to many of its members. It is more than 20 years since an elected PRSA head addressed the New York chapter. I was the only reporter covering the all day annual Assembly of PRSA from 1995 until 2010. I was blocked from covering what should be an open meeting in 2011 and 2012. I hope Corporate Minion, who is writing about PRSA, will seek answers from the leaders and staff since he is obviously in contact with them. Ask them to name any chapter memberships that 2012 chair Gerry Corbett addressed. I only know of two of the 110 chapters that 2011 chair Rosanna Fiske addressed--Miami and Georgia. I'm not talking about chapter leaders but standing up in front of an entire chapter and answering questions in an on-the-record format. PR was founded by Ivy Lee just after 1900 with the promise that it would answer all press questions "most cheerfully." Another question is why were transcripts of the Assembly discontinued starting with the 2005 meeting? Shouldn't members know what is said at this legislative session? Why can't the members have a PDF of the members' directory? Why is it taking so long to post IRS Form 990 that was originally due May 15? It has the pay/fringes of the top seven staffers. I could ask a number of other questions. Members want me to get this information but are fearful of asking the questions themselves and putting their names "in play." I don't blame them. Speaking out could cost someone their job and career. It is my job to ask questions but when I do that my motives are impugned. Opjack271 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Jack O'Dwyer[reply]

This is Jack O'Dwyer again who is very disappointed that the entry on PRSA has been cut as of Saturday, Nov. 3 from 4,697 words including 695 on me and 82 references to 3,208 words, 342 on me and 63 references. I'm glad the image of me burning PRS at the stake has been removed. It never should have been used The image was created by Derek DeVries, a PRS delegate of the West Michigan chapter, whose website is loaded with personal attacks on me. He led the "flash mob" that attacked me at the 2010 Assembly. A video of that is available on our website as proof since WP likes documentation. You are consistently mis-stating what is going on here. It is not a question of a "contentious relationship with journalist Jack O'Dwyer..." The issue is that Jack O'Dwyer the reporter has documented numerous abusive practices and behaviors at the Society such as its code that blocked competition for decades and had to be amended on orders from the FTC; its refusal to defer dues income as demanded by the Financial Accounting Standards Board; its decision to move h.q. to downtown NYC making it virtually unusable by the mostly midtown NY PR community and without any input from the Assembly; Its decision to kill the printed members' directory and not offer a PDF of it, again with no input from the Assembly; its closing of the conference exhibit hall for four years rather than deal with a group of exhibitors who had organized to get better treatment; its sale of authors' works without their permission for 18 years and refusal to deal with the authors when this theft was uncovered, etc. It is these issues that should be discussed not whether I raised them. They are they without me. PRS simply refuses to deal with them. A major one is the lack of democracy at the Society. Leaders can be drawn only from the 18% of members who are APR and this has been true since the 1970s. The requirement has driven away almost all of the major figures from the big companies and big PR firms. WP's essay on PRS is missing the ethics boat. I know it has worthwhile seminars and webinars and its chapters have meetings good for networking and training. But that doesn't give it license to do bad things such as steal from authors, kick a journalist (me) out of the conference hotel and block me from covering the Assembly and other events, withhold transcripts of the Assembly since 2005, move h.q. far from the PR community without asking the Assembly, block reporters from seeing its quarterly financial reports, etc. It lies to prospective members because it doesn't warn them they have to put up another $410 and become APR before they can be on the Ethics Board or run for a national office. If you were writing about a thief who robbed his neighbors you wouldn't cover his church activities, what he gave to charity, the family he is raising, etc. No, you would cover his crimes. The other stuff wouldn't matter. Opjack271 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Jack O'Dwyer[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Public Relations Society of America/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Youreallycan (talk · contribs) 22:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails GA stats - its not stable at all - diff - On reading, my primary assessment is that recent expansion appears promotional and with neutrality and undue issues . I am not going to review - I have only read the article and a few linked externals and am commenting as to my interpretation of the current article and

Thanks You. I was looking for some initial feedback to start. I went ahead and made some substantial trims to reduce promotionalism and try to address the undue problem. Let me know what you think.

Corporate 00:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Youreallycan, per the GA criteria; Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing)....do not apply [to determine stability] - The article is stable and the changes are merely improvements which cannot be considered as an "edit war" perhaps, please re-assess your decision about reviewing. The article is "ok" in my view and needs some tweaks but it is nowhere near a failure unless the nominator doesn't address any issues. I'd disagree if you fail it without reviewing it. And about neutrality, can you provide the text in the review so that the editors get the clear image of what they have to neutralize? I appreciate you taking this review. Do ping me if you ever need any second opinion or review from me about this. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is an edit-war ;-)

Someone want to give a third-opinion?

Corporate 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi - I was pinged on my talkpage - after my comment regarding NPOV Corporote minion made some edits that addressed my concerns in that regard - thanks for that CorpMinion - As for the all his edits are to improve the article" - yes ...however imo its better to edit an article and then wait a bit for agreement or objections -- Youreallycan 08:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting such a prompt review - maybe it would be best to come back in a couple weeks or so. You, if you care to, I'm also working on the

Corporate 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Will the review be done soon? Wizardman 13:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on whether this new section is appropriate?

I would think not, unless more substantial secondary coverage can be found than a mention in a footnote in a book.

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

We have reported that members have been denied transcripts of their annual Assembly since 2005 as well as the complete national list of Assembly delegates. For the past two years, PRSA has blocked all reporters from attending and reporting the Assembly. Other professional groups such as those for lawyers, doctors and CPAs, wouldn't dream of doing that. Their meetings are open to the press. I note that a link to a New York Times article that started with "Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, the bible of PR" has been removed. Why? PRSA financial reports are misleading because dues are booked as cash rather than monthly over the period involved. The WP essay on PRSA comes up first on a Google search meaning many people are reading this. Many of them can see all the mistakes that WP has made. I hope they are corrected. I am e-mailing this directly to Corporate Minion who is the author of the piece. I hope he or she will start correcting this. What is needed is scholarship and thoroughness. Cordially, Opjack271 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Jack O'Dwyer[reply]

Twillisjr (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't removed, I just replaced it with a secondary source and improved the editorial.

Corporate 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I also think that discussing an "affiliated" PR association from Canada is not relevant, especially because it does not appear to be supported by the source,[2] however including the pricing of membership is an acceptable use of a primary source and would be worth getting a second opinion. I'm also not sure why we're adding individual Presidents. If an executive has had a substantial impact on an organization, we often cover their leadership style and documents its impact on the history of the company, but I don't think it's valuable to just list or mention them. Thoughts?

Corporate 13:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Twillisjr (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Some of these comments seem reasonable, though putting some of this in the lead seems misplaced. To avoid

Corporate 16:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This source just says that two people from Canada were elected as members of PRSA's predecessor. Am I missing something? It doesn't say anything about a separate Canadian PR association that is affiliated with the PRSA New York chapter.

Corporate 22:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The WP history of PRSA needs many other corrections and especially a new tack that cites abusive PRSA governance and information practices. It stubbornly refuses to make changes in its governance and financial reporting. It won't allow the PR press access to its quarterly and annual financial reports. How can the PR press cover the Society? It cannot take credit for any good that it does while continuing with these abusive practices which are well documented. 184.152.7.97 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Jack O'Dwyer[reply]

The information added seems valid, but it was reverted by

No comment on the content, but I don't see any evidence of use of a script. If you have some evidence that a script was used, please elaborate. If you do not have evidence that a script was used, please redact that section of your comment, as it could be construed as a

personal attack. Thank you. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 07:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, so this is about the manual, non-automated use of the

Twinkle gadget, something akin to clicking 'undo' in the revision history? Perhaps you could clarify that, or again, redact that section of your comment. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 07:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I reworded. What's challenged is the unexplained reversion "(Reverted to revision 521724946 by Corporate Minion. (TW))" I do agree however that "script" may not have precisely defined Twinkie. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia Uses McGraw-Hill Chapter for PR History. Worth investigating, I'm not sure if there's any merit to it. Dcoetzee 19:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits seem to have improved the section in question a bit, but some fresh eyes would be helpful (especially re:

WP:RSN to decide, if needed. And gee, I was mentioned in a blog from J. R. O'Dwyer Company and all I got was this lousy virtual T-shirt. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 11:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What's with the section about the "feud" with Jack O'Dwyer? Maybe it's because I'm not in the PR industry, but it seems unnecessary to devote even that much space to something like that. Trivialist (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include WSJ, NYT, PRWeek and AdAge. In the industry, it is a fairly well-known feud with strong opinions on both sides. Some PRSA members have resigned over the feud, others think it's a witch-hunt. Though its notability is probably inflated by aggressive media outreach on both sides (and the irony factor), I don't think it's appropriate for us to take out the section with the strongest mainstream sourcing out of the whole article.

Corporate

Hi CM, the problem with the section as written is that it's not clear what it refers to and it seems quite defensive. Also, this article is about the society, not about O'Dwyer. I would start with O'Dwyer's criticisms, then the society's response, and then refer to Forbes and others talking about the dispute itself.

"Trade journalist X has been writing about the society since the 1970s in his newsletter, Name of Newsletter. He has alleged over the years that a, b, c, and d. The society has responded by accusing X of e and f. The dispute is well-known within the industry; the New York Times wrote in 2000 that blah, and Forbes added that blah."

I think the photo caption might be a BLP violation. And the thing about using the News International news cycle is a bit odd. Suffice to say that they accused him of eavesdropping (so long as secondary sources have repeated that), then give his response to that allegation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits based on your feedback (though the cites are all messy now). Feel free to dig in though. I don't know what you mean about the image caption being a BLP problem. I do think it's important that PRSA used the news hype around phone hacking to publicize their allegations, because the reader would interpret them differently (more seriously perhaps) if the accusations were made regularly, rather than as a publicity stunt.

Corporate 01:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments:

I would agree with Slim, that the photo caption put O'Dwyer in a bad light and gave unnecessary weight to the cited content in the corresponding paragraph, so I"ve changed it to a more neutral wording. Generally the caption is supposed to describe the photo and there is nothing in the photo that shows him being barred.

I empathize with Slim's idea of how to organize the Odwyer section but..... in a 'fued' that is back and forth and ongoing, I think its best to list the events in chronological order. However if there is a way to summarize it just a bit, that would be helpful too.

This phrase: used the news cycle of phone hacking by News Corp is confusing and unclear. So if its going to be kept, it should be reworded IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made corresponding changes to where you and Slim agree as well as based on your comments below. I've asked Eclipsed to be our tie-breaker on doing O'Dwyer by chronology or POV. I think I would like to keep in the news-cycle bit, but in order to do so well, we have to drill down more into explaining all the back and forth.

Corporate 20:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds good. In case I was unclear. In that sentence I just didn't know (and still don't a clear idea) what the terms "news cycle" and "phone hacking" mean. So if those terms could be clarified or substituted for more universal terms, that would be a good thing, I think :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complete story is that

Corporate 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, no tie breaker help for chronology or POV -- don't have a strong feeling either way. But I would suggest it'd be appropriate to add some content about PRSA to the J. R. O'Dwyer Company article (and possibly to move the O'Dwyer photo to that article as well). -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 11:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil and Corporate for the background and terminology. I think the current revised version gives the reader a clearer picture and like it better than the prior version. Thanks for the discussion and collaboration. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll double-check the cites when I get a chance and if it stays stable for a couple weeks, I'll ask You to continue the GA review.

Corporate 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we should rename the section "Controversies" as per most organizational articles and the reduce the O'Dwyer stuff to a brief summary rather than a back and forth. We should also add a brief paragraph about PRSA and Wikipedia since that's been a subject of controversy, too. And for the love of all that's beautiful, please kill that picture. Rklawton (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corporate, I finally got a chance to look at this article and have a few suggestions:

• The lead only covers the description and history sections. It needs to be expanded to include a summary of the Services, Research etc.  Done
• I don't perceive the FTC thing as a controversy and think it should be moved to the History section Done
• I think you should remove the O'dwyer subsection heading and just leave the paragraph there without a special heading. It looks like you have listed the events in chronological order but that needs to be clarified a little bit more in the text I think. Done

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cantaloupe. Maybe we should just take this to the Talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Colorado State University[3] is self-published by the PRSA. Can you explain?

I don't really appreciate the title heading, so i changed it. Self-published does not necessarily mean its published by the subject, but that the source is published under author's direct control,

WP:SPS. It's a class website intended for his students and not necessarily appropriate for use as reference. It is not published by the Colorado State University. It's posted by that instructor for that class. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand. You're saying you believe the PRSA had direct control over the content posted on the University's website? Very confused.

Corporate 00:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It means that its not a secondary source, not that PRSA did the editing. Read

WP:SPS. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh I misunderstood; not that it is self-published by the PRSA, but it is comparable to a self-published blog.

You may be right on this one. I noticed it is published not by the university on an official basis, but by professor Kirk Hallahan individually and the university merely hosts it. I also see that Hallahan has been practicing for 19 years and won the 2007 pathfinder award for scholarly contributions to PR[4], has been published in the Public Relations Journal[5] and awarded an Outstanding Educator of the Year award by PRSA.[6] While not famous enough to qualify for his own award, I think he qualifies as an expert for such a non-controversial fact. Lets take it to the noticeboard.

Since there are multiple disputes, I will start a string at the DRN.

Corporate 00:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I tend to agree with Corporates assessment that the source (as outlined above) would appear to be a sufficient reliable source for non-controversial facts. Can someone provide a link to the source and the text that its citing? Also, the correct noticeboard IMO would be WP:RSN. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I only used DRN because Cant and I have previously been all over the drama boards. The closing admin at my last IBAN request said to use DRN next time. However, I think we already agreed on the O'Dwyer issue and I only keep the sourcing one open because it is very questionable.

The source[7] is the only available for pretty important and non-controversial information, but it is some kind of course guideline for students. It says:

Public Relations Journal -- Published for 50 years by the Public Relations Society of America. (Succeeded in 1994 by two other publication listed below as professional publications.)

But if you look at the text, it's not 100% clear which two pubs it's talking about.

Corporate 00:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What is the text that you are wanting this source to verify? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1994, the society also began publishing The Strategist and Tactics." User:CorporateM 17:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of dropping that prose. It's a course website last updated over a decade ago in 1998. Commons sense says that course webpages says such pages are not under a great fact checking scrutiny as materials meant for publications and it does not support the claim made, which is that publications addressed in prose were started in 1994. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we would want to keep the information that PRSA publishes these periodicals, but since the media rarely reports on the competition, we would expect it to be difficult to find really solid sources. The issue at hand is not whether the periodicals should be mentioned at all, but what the best available source is. I would be fine using PRSA's website if no better sources existed, though ideally we would have a secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 12:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source does not prove the assertion, it was tagged verification failed and we should leave it there until a verifiable source is added. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragrah about PRSA's contention that O'Dwyer eavesdropped on him, and a reference that goes with that prose. The reference mentions O'Dwyer refuted the PRSA's allegation, so I just added that along to reflect the referenced source. Editor CorporateM reverted it and asserts its been "decided by consensus". Well, the decision does not seem so clear. Perhaps I missed something, but can someone demonstrate where a clear and obvious consensus was reached on this matter? There is also a discussion on NPOV Noticeboard about this. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A clear and obvious concensus rarely exists anywhere, especially not for individual sentences. My first draft included extensive details about all the back and forth and the current version exists as a result of many editors citing WP:UNDUE, requiring us to summarize the 40 years of arguing rather than including every detail. It would not be acceptable behavior to bring the section back to its original form despite how it's evolved as a result of thorough discussion, claiming each sentence needs stronger concensus.

If you feel O'Dwyer's claim that he did not eavesdrop is important enough to warrant inclusion, I would not revert it if you also include that PRSA claims to have phone records showing otherwise. However, I feel this makes O'Dwyer look worse, not better. If your motive is to defame PRSA and go to bat for O'Dwyer a much stronger argument would be to highlight PRSA's mis-use of the word "hack", which was also discussed above or that PRSA members have retired from the association as a result of the dispute.

But the section could easily be skewed either way through selective inclusion/exclusion. The current version has 1 paragraph dedicated to each POV. I believe it will be relatively balanced so long as each side is given equal platform for their side and we select only the most important arguments from both positions. CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply added on that O'Dwyer refuted PRSA's allegation to the existing prose, which you reverted and took it to DRN. I would appreciate your active participation in the ongoing Neutrality dispute discussion on this matter. When consensus is clear and the judgment call that consensus has been reached was made by an editor involved in discussion it brings up more contentions.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and now I've explained why. If you continue to make edits that are not representative of the discussion, I will continue to revert them. Your misplaced accusations of COI and excessive tagging to de-face articles is disruptive and I do not believe they represent a good-faith effort to improve the 'pedia. CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been actively participating in this talk. I've expressed my concerns about neutrality and I invited you to participate in NPOV/N, but you're passively and persistently refusing to address the concern about the reversion you made a while back. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section now needs a rewrite to correct grammar, spacing, undue, etc. but I do think there are some salvageable elements. Some portions better express the intensity of the dispute and the "back and forth" quote is more neutral than the "castigated" quote. Controversies are normally placed at the end. But I think you know this. I will repair it tonight while keeping potential improvements

I incorporated a couple things. There are approximately six lines dedicated to each POV and a couple lines to summarize. These proportions and overall length need to stay relatively the same. You know full-well the other side of the story regarding O'Dwyer's defense to the phone hacking accusations. I believe you are intentionally violating NPOV. CorporateM (Talk) 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of PRSA's claim that "We have provided Mr. O'Dwyer with a 23-page document that outlines" reads PRSA PUBLISHED a 23 page document? I spotted this error and corrected only to find that but you re-inserted a fabricated statement that is ridden with factual error. This is getting disruptive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation against me of "excessive tagging to de-face' articles is disruptive" as well as "I believe you are intentionally violating NPOV" is assuming bad faith and is disruptive and highly offensive to me. I demand that you strike it out. I was not aware "controversies are normally placed at the end". If it's a wiki policy,then I stand corrected. If it's an appeal to popularity, its not a valid claim. I don't understand your assumption that "I know full well". I read the two cited articles. Regarding phone records.. "our teleconferencing vendor show that telephone numbers registered to the J.R. O' Dwyer Company connected to PRSA teleconference calls" and the claim he eavesdropped/hacked whatever is an assumption. The evidence does not positively substantiate it. All it verifies is that PRSA claims that its providers information shows the number that allegedly called in is allegedly registered to O'Dwyers company. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have made arguments you know are false in the past, so I will interpret your actions in that context. We do not AGF in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as Hounding, Battlegrounding, ABF, edit-warring, vandalizing, etc. On the contrary, I openly ABF and quite reasonably so. If you want editors to treat you differently, you will need to adjust your behavior. You are free to forum shop your complaints to the appropriate boards. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem attack. Please focus on contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM: Please provide the passage from the source that you made this edit. It looks like you editorialized something the first time or second time to change the strength and/or meaning of what was actually in the source. I would like to see the source which you seem to have access to, at least the portion you used to make this statement. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3PO

Came here from 3O. As this appears to be fundamentally a dispute over the inclusion of O'Dwyer's comments in his defense I believe it is better to address that concern. Quoting the vulgar part of his defense is not the right way to do this. In the source O'Dwyer denies the allegations of phone-hacking and states this information was volunteered by PRSA members. Noting that would be more informative for the article than quoting his combative remarks. I do believe it is important to note his defense as these accusations from an opposing party of what would presumably be criminal conduct concern a living person.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I wasn't sure how to describe what he said neutrally, so without editorializing, I just lifted what was cited in the reference originally present. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't contest the vulgarity. I think it's important to capture the intensity of the feud. I read somewhere that O'Dwyer has even accused PRSA of systematic racism and PRSA literally hired a guard to bar him access to their events. The venom from both sides is quite acidic and it is not problematic for us to describe it accurately as such. But I would hate to see BLP used to create bias in favor of an individual over an organization. The same argument could be used the other way, requiring us to add more defensive content for PRSA against O'Dwyer's accusations. CorporateM (Talk) 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it is more appropriate to note why he thinks the arguments are "bullshit" rather than simply quoting that comment. You can still quote that if you like, but his reasons for saying it should also be provided.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I don't think there are any reasons for his arguments in this case in particular, except that it is the natural reflex of anyone accused of anything to deny the allegations. But the same rationale could be applied to other areas, such as explaining why he criticizes PRSA's finances. This is a major premise of the dispute and could use 1 more well-written sentence to give it more weight and explain the basis of his criticisms. Same goes with a possible rationale for PRSA's response. CorporateM (Talk) 02:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If sources discuss two sides, we are expected to cover both sides. If the reasoning are not explained in sources we have, we can't just reason it, because we shouldn't pollute the article with

original research.-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]