Talk:Canadian Communication Association

CCA Edits
Hi Diannaa, thank you for your edits to the Canadian Communication Association article. I do have a question though. Why is it that you've justified these edits by stating that the individuals are "non notable private individuals". To my knowledge, every individual that we included is an academic with a public profile and that has published extensively in the academic literature. While this certainly doesn't satisfy WP:N for their own Wikipedia articles, though many academics with similar credentials do have articles on Wikipedia, it is confusing why this would justify deleting them from the CCA page. This is also confusing when put into context. If you look, for example, at the American Historical Association page, they have similar content presented. We actually began to model our article after the International Communication Association page, which also has similar content. I could go on to provide additional examples, but I think the point is clear. Presentation of the governance structure is fairly standard to association articles, so it is unclear why you've deleted ours. I would appreciate understanding better your justification for automatically deleting this content, without any comment on my talk page or the talk page of the article. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I should add that I've just noticed that the American Historical Association has a similar quote in their summary to ours (which you deleted), though the AHA's quote is plagiarized due to a lack of citation. You've also deleted our list of past presidents, which to me is historical data worth preserving. If your concern is with the WP:N of the CCA in general, I would appreciate hearing your justifications. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Our Manual of Style says that we should not include such lists. Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which links to the appropriate section of the style guide. Not everything that's appropriate for the corporate website is appropriate here. International Communication Association is not a good model to follow, as it appears to be loaded with copyright violations and other inappropriate content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, thank you for your quick reply. I have reviewed the page WP:NOTDIRECTORY and do not see your point. In fact it notes, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." As I noted previously, the governance structure of an association, especially an academic one, seems to be fairly standard. The list of past presidents provides historical significance for people interested in understanding the evolution of the most important communication studies association in Canada. While I could understand a concern suggesting that these components dominate the current state of the article, this does not justify deletion less than a day after the content is added. Furthermore, you didn't just delete lists, but cited quotes that are not copy and pasted complete mission statements. Based on what I'm seeing at this point, I don't see your edits as justified at this point, please correct me if I'm wrong. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The mission statement was removed per the advice at Avoid mission statements. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, thank you again for your quick reply. I am sorry to disagree with your good faith edits, but to me what you've done is excessive and at this point, unjustified. One half-sentence taken from an organization overview page and used in a summary is not copy and pasting a mission statement in a mission statement section. I think part of the problem here is revealed by an earlier comment you made: "Not everything that's appropriate for the corporate website is appropriate here". First of all, the CCA does not have a "corporate website" because it is not a corporate entity. Furthermore, the editors (myself and some students) that did the editing yesterday do not work in marketing for the CCA. While I am certainly supportive of efforts to identify pr and marketing firms that are paid to promote organizations, to suggest that is what's going on here is incorrect. Unless I hear otherwise, I will restore some of the material, but will be as sensitive as seems appropriate to your concerns in terms of the lists. I will likely remove the members at large section. --Jaobar (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These were my good-faith efforts at bringing the article into conformity with the Wikipedia style guidelines, which help ensure good-quality encyclopedic articles. Re-adding the content will make for a lower-quality article in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I'm sorry that we do not agree. I hope you will respect our good-faith edits as well. I will certainly keep your concerns in mind as I continue to edit. I have already addressed your paraphrasing concern. Jaobar (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "our" to describe your edits leads me to believe that you have a conflict of interest, which means it's recommended that should not be editing this article at all. I suggest you have another look at the material already present on your talk page on that topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, by "our" I was referring to an edit-a-thon some graduate students and I ran yesterday. We worked together on the CCA article and on a number of articles as well. You can see our group page here. I don't believe that being members of an academic association automatically means we have a conflict of interest, that seems quite overstated. I'm sorry to say that I'm now concerned that this conversation appears to be drifting away from WP:AGF, and frankly, in the context of the students I'm working with WP:Bite.
 * I disagree. Please stop pinging me; if I wish to participate in a discussion I will watch-list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well again, I'm sorry. I wish we could come to an agreement. I have already brought your concerns to the other editors that worked on the article yesterday. Please let me know if further edits are problematic in your view as I am certainly always committed to the quality, integrity and future of Wikipedia. All the best, --Jaobar (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

CCA Tag - Source Concerns
Original conversation started on: User_talk:Atlantic306.

Atlantic306, while I see your point, suggesting that the CJC is an internal source is incorrect. It is true that there is an affiliation; however, academic articles are not overseen by the CCA. They are written by independent authors, at different academic institutions, edited and published by academics with CCA memberships who are not marketers or publicists. It is my understanding that your flag is more commonly used to identify articles where concerns about marketing and advertising are more obvious. While I appreciate your concern here, as well as the concerns of Diannaa noted above, it does appear that these edits are a bit excessive, considering the consensus determined with similar articles for similar associations. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Describing as "consensus" the fact that you found low-quality material to emulate from amongst our 5.4 million articles (many of which are not so great) is not appropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I do not agree that a governance structure is low-quality content. I do not believe a list of past presidents, which provides historical relevance, is problematic either. If there are readability concerns in terms of the presentation of the list, I could see that being an issue. Understanding the leadership structure of an important academic organization, especially over time, seems vital to understanding its evolution. I don't see how this can be confused as marketing or irrelevant. --Jaobar (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)