Talk:CTIA (organization)

Neutrality
I have removed some material that is basically advertising, but this needs more work to make it neutral. I'm particularly concerned about this diff, which seems to bias the article heavily in favor of the CTIA, notably replacing "industry consortium" with "non-profit organization" which to me gives a false impression of charity. I'm not averse to just reverting all those changes but there's probably a better way to do it. -- Te xa sD ex  &#9733;  19:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

>> Removed sentence containing profanities from

There's this too...

"Despite the evidence from these well-respected and highly credible organizations, some critics such as the Environmental Working Group (EWG) choose to ignore the decades of research. Instead, they state that “there is sufficient research that shows higher risk for brain and salivary gland tumors among heavy cell phone users. EWG encouraged consumers to look up their cell phone's radiation level, and to wear a headset when talking on the phone to limit their exposure."

Phrases such as "well-respected", "highly credible", and "ignore the decades of research" don't belong in a neutral document. As the WHO is in the media for announcing that there is more evidence of a link between cell phone use and brain cancer, to which CTIA has reiterated their position, "It does not mean cell phones cause cancer."

CTIA is an industry trade group that represents the interests of the industry (ie: profits and shareholders) and would not be representing those interests well if it were to agree with those statements, or at least deny it. --Toquinha (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel like this article in its current state deserves the Advert template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Advert TheForgottenKing (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Article needs to be renamed/moved; Title is incorrect
CTIA originally meant "Cellular telephone Industries Association" and although the CTIA website now uses "CTIA - The Wireless Association", they make no mention of having anything to do with the Internet and there is ample evidence available of their original name. The name of this encyclopedia article seems to be a well intentioned guess on the part of the original author. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After receiving no feedback to my proposed correction of the name in the intervening four months I have moved the page and provided individual citations regarding the original name of the industry group. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanded article with new content
I have expanded and updated this article, removing the Improve Article tag in the process. I have modeled the structure of the article after other industry trade group articles, and welcome any feedback or suggestions for improvement. CTIAAmy (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your "edits" still make the article into a policy position paper, not simply a description of your organization. Wikipedia is not your personal PAC. This edit kills fascists. -Notthatanonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.210.10 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Net Neutrality Section
The section on net neutrality and regulation is awful. Looks like a copied paragraph from one of the booklets of the CTIA. Totally non encyclopedic. I am adding several templates to this article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On February 3, 2011, I made edits to the net neutrality section to add sources and remove note on tone.CTIAAmy (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

On March 11, 2011, I made edits to remove the vandalism note under the net neutrality section and permanently removed that section from the article. CTIAAmy (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

On March 18, I removed the 2nd vandalism note under the net neutrality section and again removed that section from the article. CTIAAmy (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
A major contributor of this article is a person that works for the CTIA. I have added a COI template. Editor can be reached here --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added more details to my user profile. There is a link as well here. Please contact me for any additional feedback or discussion. CTIAAmy (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect I understand you might not want to be biased, but I believe it's important for other editors to also work in this article. Also, the article has a problem on the way information is given. I assume your good faith though. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The obvious issue I have is with the use of eupehmism, which is generally not encyclopedic style. This is a lobbying group, so it needs to say that, instead of using buzzwords like "advocate" and "Government Affairs". And of course the long sections of stating its positions need to be rephrased to make it clear that this is what they are lobbying for, not necessarily facts. W Nowicki (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well two years on and the editor who added all the bias seems to have stopped. So perhaps time to work on making more neutral again? W Nowicki (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lock this article
This article seems to be consistently written in a biased manner by some associated with the CTIA to further their public relations. I recommend locking and cleaning up this article when convenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwillard (talk • contribs) 07:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy-paste
Looks like much of the text of this article is a copy from ctia's website, specifically, the text added by User:CTIAAmy. Some comparisons:


 * Wikipedia article: "CTIA and the wireless industry are leaders in driving ever-growing choices and opportunities for all consumers, including persons with disabilities. Through AccessWireless.org, CTIA and its member companies collaborate with consumer organizations representing persons with disabilities and directly engage with consumers to assure continued progress in accessible wireless products and solutions."


 * CTIA website: "CTIA-The Wireless Association® and the wireless industry have been leaders in driving an ever-growing range of choices and opportunities for all consumers, including persons with disabilities...Through AccessWireless.org, CTIA and its member companies continue to collaborate with consumer organizations representing persons with disabilities and directly engage with consumers to assure continued progress in accessible wireless products and solutions."


 * Wikipedia article: "Mobile providers do not just deliver mobile wireless broadband to the premises; they deliver broadband to the person. CTIA and the wireless industry recognize the value consumers place on their mobile broadband services and applications, and as a result, advocate that the regulatory and legislative framework for broadband remain flexible and thoughtfully focused on supporting the continued growth and innovation made possible by the wireless Internet to serve both the nation’s and consumers’ needs."


 * CTIA website: "Mobile providers do not just deliver broadband to the premise; they deliver broadband to the person.", "CTIA – The Wireless Association® and the wireless industry recognize the value consumers place on their mobile broadband services and applications. We have consistently advocated that the regulatory and legislative framework for broadband remain flexible and thoughtfully focused on supporting the continued growth and innovation made possible by the wireless Internet to serve both the nation’s and consumers’ needs."

Probably all needs to be removed per WP:CV.Forbes72 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If CTIAAmy is working for the CTIA as she claims, then her action of copying this text into the article has licensed it. Doodle77 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Legally, that may well be the case. However, my understanding of Wikipedia policy is that there needs to be a more explicit granting of rights, though. I think this policy seems pretty relevant. Going outside the scope of the copyright issue, it looks like the text has poor encyclopedic tone, and writing similar information from third-party sources would be best anyway. Forbes72 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wholesale undid it to before CTIAAmy's edits and kept the modern infobox. This should serve as an acceptable and non-intrusive version until the issue is resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: proposed draft
Hi there. Over the past few months I've been working on a proposed draft for this article to expand on information about the organization's history, leadership, advocacy efforts, and other activities. As a quick disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest as I'm here on behalf of CTIA as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Due to my COI, I won't edit the article myself and instead ask for any neutral editors to review my proposed changes and make them if they seem appropriate.

I've published the draft in its entirety at the following link: User:Inkian Jason/CTIA. Here you'll see:

✅: * an updated infobox (minus the logo file because fair use images can only be displayed at Wikipedia once). Added by this editor who is quite friendly with infoboxes and sees no reason not to update the infobox. This one has nicely added new parameters with no errors. Fylbecatulous talk 00:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

✅ * a simple but helpful lead displaying former names No problems; well stated with just updated facts. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

✅ * an organizational overview (Section entitled 'Description'): Updated existing section with needed information; supported by sources provided; added two wikilinks for laymen (especially 'spectrum') and one added to lead (first occurance). Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 12:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✅ * a brief history (including name changes and leadership changes) Added information important for expansion of article; factual list with no promotional aspects; citations verified and one repaired, with updated access dates. Thanks Fylbecatulous talk 12:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

✅ * a neutral summary of CTIA's advocacy efforts   Entirely implemented. All sections added with two minor changes: accidental duplicate phrase deleted; add for laymen parenthetical explanation for Title II; image of CEO placed in article; history before her tenure at CTIA, so amended caption a bit. Thanks, <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 21:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

✅ * a short section about its trade shows Added: reads factually and supported by provided sources. Will add category now that is supported by text. Thanks <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 23:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✅ * a section about the CTIA Wireless Foundation. Added after review of citations. Supported by sources and provides content for the advcacy efforts, which is a valuable facit of a good company. It also provides human interest to our readers. Thanks, <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 00:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✅

, I am closing this request now as answered. It has been in the queue since January's end. If there is something either you or I have lacking, ping me here on this talk page, or please feel free to request of me on my talk page. (anytime). Thank you; this has been rewarding. All the best as always   <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 21:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking time to complete a very thorough review, and for spending time to implement proposed improvements to this article. You've been so helpful. I may return with an additional minor request at some point, related to the image of Meredith Attwell Baker or otherwise, but for now this edit request is complete. Thanks again for your help! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
The current article's sourcing is far from ideal. Actually, most of the sources are CTIA links, so I've worked to minimize primary sourcing as much as possible. I've tried my best to make the article neutral and non-promotional, and hope someone can help by reviewing the draft and copying the provided markup over to the main space. I am happy to answer any questions and address any concerns. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are an active editor who mentioned the importance of neutrality above. Is there a chance you'd be willing to review this edit request? Inkian Jason (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The new text is quite good for a lobbyist, thanks! I would only change a few things. For example, calling regulation "barriers" since there are some people who think regulations might protect consumers from monopolies. Also we like to avoid terms like "the nation" since many reads are from a variety of nations, not just the USA. There are quite a few changes, however. Alas, I am volunteer not a paid editor, so only have limited time. Perhaps I can do it in stages, and if real life intervenes, someone else might help. W Nowicki (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, and for complimenting my work. Regarding the word "barriers": I was just going with what sourcing said, but I'm open to your suggestion. I replaced "the nation" with "the United States". Yes, I would very much appreciate your help to implement this proposed draft as appropriate, and you are welcome to do so in stages. Thanks for being willing to review and help out! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please just keep me updated on your progress and whether you plan to address the article in its entirety, or just specific sections, that way I can submit other requests and find additional reviewing editors as needed. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to CTIA (organization) per discussion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

CTIA – The Wireless Association → CTIA – The organization is simply known as "CTIA" now, and has dropped "– The Wireless Association” from its name. On behalf of the organization, I propose moving this article to CTIA, to override the disambiguation page, per PRIMARYTOPIC. However, if other editors disagree with replacing the disambiguation page, CTIA (organization) may be a second option. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging you, in case you have any thoughts based on your research and review of the above edit request. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping. I considered the need for a move while working on this. But the pesky disambiguation page exists as soon as one searches 'CTIA'. If this article is made the primary topic, them you have all these 'if you are looking for this, instead..." for the others and for what might be added in the future to the dab page. See R.E.M. for an example, and Rem, the default disambiguation page. It is good and proper that this request is open for discussion and a bot has already listed it, I see. A real page mover will take action in the end. (Which is good; not being an administrator, I can move a page, but it leaves a redirect behind (which in all my moves is desired). The renamings and cleanups for all this is thorny. At least the dab page only has three items. All the best, as always.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating in this discussion. My thinking here is that since the disambiguation page only has three pages, notes at the top of the article directing readers to 2 other articles isn’t problematic. Also, "CTIA" is just an acronym for Cape Town International Airport and Color Television Interface Adaptor, but not a primary means of identification for either. Perhaps CTIA (disambiguation) would serve as a better disambiguation page, so CTIA can be the primary topic? Inkian Jason (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you type or link Color Television Interface Adaptor, you will immediately discover that the dab page is not accurate. It needed updating in both the link and explanation. That article has been redirected and the current title is CTIA and GTIA with the redirect from the longer name. It seems the acronym (CTIA) and the successor (GTIA) are in common enough use that the page was renamed and the acronyms are used throughout the article. We can be thankful that the IATA and ICAO for the airport is not CTIA. There a yield to tertiary can easily be made. <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 20:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I congratulate you on your transparency in disclosing your financial relationship with this organisation, and in particular for disclosing that this move request originates from your client. But I am less comfortable with the sight of a paid agent on paid time appearing to dominate the discussion in an environment of volunteers. I think that it would be more appropriate for a hired gun to make their case, and then step back. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose No evidence that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the topics referred to by the acronym CTIA. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When I search "CTIA" online, I see websites and sources about this organization, not Color Television Interface Adaptor or the airport abbreviation. Regardless, "CTIA – The Wireless Association" is no longer the name of this organization, so the page needs to be moved to another title. If you still feel a move to CTIA is not appropriate, how do you feel about CTIA (organization)? Inkian Jason (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * that's a rather different proposition the basis on which you made the nomination. As to the organisation changing its name, that its not a decisive factor in Wikipedia's choice of name; what matters is the most commonly used name.


 * Oppose (after free-form commenting above). Unhappily, conversely, when I search CTIA on Google, I also find: CTIA / 2017: Current Trends in Autism. They believe they are CTIA and were established in 1994 and held this year's meeting in Boston. I have to add something to an autism article about them before I am allowed to list them on the dab page, but I shall do so. As I mentioned before, there is no limit to how many entries could expand the CTIA dab page now or in the future. Just because you have advertisements, Twitter, Facebook and this Wikipedia article consuming the first page of Google, does not mean nothing else is known as or searched as 'CTIA'. You need an identifying qualifier, as you suggested, for your designated article entry and I support (CTIA (organization).  Thanks,  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 18:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"CTIA-The Wireless Association®" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect CTIA-The Wireless Association® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)