Talk:Creative Artists Agency/Archives/2019

Not an advertisement

I have removed the unconstructive 'advertisement' tag. This article does not read like an advertisement at all to me. If you can point to specific passages you would like to remove, please discuss it here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Amatulic: The article does not sound like an advertisement to me. Please tell us specifically which passages you would like to rephrase and how. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As stated in my revert summary, the informal tone of the entire history is that of a company representative telling a story to some schoolchildren. It would need to be completely rewritten from scratch to have the formal tone expected from an encyclopedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Amatulic: I disagree. But we could take it one paragraph at a time if you want. How would you like to rephrase the first paragraph?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You honestly cannot see the folksy, informal tone? I'll do even better than the first paragraph. Here is a rephrasing of the first two:

Creative Artists was conceived in 1975 by talent agents formerly employed by the William Morris Agency — Mike Rosenfeld, Michael Ovitz, Ron Meyer, William Haber, and Rowland Perkins. Within a week of opening the business, they had sold their first three packages, a game show called Rhyme and Reason, the Rich Little Show, and The Jackson 5ive.

Just the facts, not the fluff. The rest of the history section has the same fluffy tone that needs to be rewritten from scratch. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Amatulic: Can you please re-write it entirely? It wouldn't take long. The tag makes Wikipedia look bad. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It would take me a couple of hours, which I do not expect to have for several days. There are plenty such tags on plenty other articles. The tag doesn't make Wikipedia look bad, it makes the subject look bad. And remember, on Wikipedia there is no deadline. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Amatulic: I know, but I will want to remove it again soon as I fundamentally disagree with you and there is no consensus to keep this tag! It won't take you long.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I provided evidence, with a concrete example for comparison. You will need more than a bare assertion of disagreement to remove the tag. There may not be consensus, but there is also no counter-argument supporting its removal. If you do not have time to rewrite it, you will have to wait until someone does. Bottom line, it needs to be rewritten from scratch. If you disagree, please consider requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Amatulic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC) I'll rewrite it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hey there! I just came across this article and I have to say I agree with the tone concerns. Any experienced Wikipedian will notice this, although it appears to be much better than it used to. I suspect there's been plenty of paid editing here as well. I placed a copy edit tag for now, but this needs looking into. Phrases such as "there were accusations of fraud, malicious untruths, lying, and a range of charges" (this appears to be WP:SYNTH), "prestigious A-list clients", and "many reports suggest that CAA tends to be a dominant force in the industry" are simply unacceptable. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey there FoCuSandLeArN. You're a bit late to the editing party. This is what the article looked like in April 2016, prompting concerns about balance and sources etc, and yes it looked like much advertising. Since then, it has been substantively revamped, mostly by myself, and the article recently, in my view, is in pretty good shape. I don't work for CAA (I'm a handyman in NJ) and pretty much all the new material was referenced -- that is, the way I work is to get the references first, and only add material which is supported by references (and, frankly, there are many positives about this firm -- it does manage A-list clients, it is a dominant force in the entertainment industry. So your comment above Phrases such as "there were accusations of fraud, malicious untruths, lying, and a range of charges" (this appears to be WP:SYNTH) -- well, check the reference -- that's what the reference says, and it is not an example of WP:SYNTH. So if you'd like to keep the tag now, please make specific cases about specific statements that you feel are unwarranted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Also, the 2013 party was a bit lewd and did cause a backlash, so your caption editing in my view is unfair; check the report in the LA Times.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• • I did check the source and it does not state "there were accusations of fraud, malicious untruths, lying, and a range of charges". "Was a bit lewd" is not encyclopaedic language. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• • The party was bawdy (and the source did use the word 'lewd' to describe the entertainer; what wikipedia policy says words like 'lewd' are unencyclopedic? This source backs up content about fraud, untruths, lying, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Despite all of the above, even in mid 2019 the article still has an unencyclopedic tone and that unsourced claim "many reports suggest that CAA tends to be a dominant force in the industry" which is mentioned above, which I have now removed. I will be critiquing it more. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)