Talk:Center for Governmental Studies

Promotional content or accurate description?
This content, which I removed and has been reverted (twice), is clearly promotional: "It created innovative political and media solutions to help individuals participate in their communities and governments, and empowered citizens to become more engaged in their communities, state and local governments. CGS identified policy problems, conducted factual and legal research, built consensus for reforms, drafted model laws, shaped public opinion, educated the public and communicates with elected and opinion leaders." It's not our place to say in Wikipedia's voice, with no citations, that this group was innovative, empowered citizens, built consensus, etc. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for initiating a discussion here. I reverted this edit because it left the lead paragraph meaningless and without any encyclopedic value. The resulting paragraph conveyed only: CGS was an organization in California, it closed in 2011. It's certainly not our place to edit an article so that the lede, rather than give an informative summary of the subject as required by Wikipedia policy, instead says virtually nothing at all. Don't you agree?
 * With your most recent edit, you left the information in the lede, but you added an "advert" tag. You say above that the information you removed is "clearly promotional". It is not clearly so, to me at least -- perhaps you can explain your concern in further detail? There is a huge difference between advertising/promotion and a legitimate list of impressive achievements, and the sources in the article are conveying the latter, which is why we convey that in Wikipedia's voice.  If you are simply concerned that wording in the lead summary might be too flowery, please recall that you were encouraged to help improve that wording. If you are questioning the substance of the lead summary content, I do not share that concern.  The sources certainly say the organization did indeed introduce "innovative" technology to facilitate a more empowered and engaged citizenry (see DNet, CalChannel, Digital Democracy system, etc.), and when I read reputation for bringing together political leaders from both parties — often with wildly divergent viewpoints — in numerous projects that influenced legislation, campaign finance reporting and political discourse, that conveys to me that they did quite a bit of consensus building.
 * As it stands now, I see no reason not to remove the unwarranted "advert" tag. Am I missing something? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We should stick to facts, and we don't need to use adjectives when describing an organization's work. If an organization has been described in a particular way by a particular journalist or group, we can say that, but with quotes. I.e., if there are sources that say "CSG did this" or "CSG was that," than we can add a "Reception" section, or just say "According to Susie Smith at Newspaper X, CSG had a reputation for..." Saying CSG "created innovative solutions" is promotional. Saying "according to Susie Smith at Newspaper X, CSG created an innovative solution to problem X" is much better. It's an attributed and verifiable opinion, not a performance evaluation in Wikipedia's voice. Saying CSG "empowered citizens to become more engaged..." sounds like something from the organization's PR materials. It doesn't really mean anything, it's just a promotional catchphrase. This: "...as well as supplying fresh, analysis and data-based perspectives on issues" is also promotional. What exactly does "fresh" mean? Do you see how that adjective appears promotional? "Fresh" compared to what? It's not imparting any meaning, either. What were their perspectives? That would be interesting to include. But saying they had "fresh perspectives" is a tone issue, and also devoid of meaning. In the "Legacy" section, this "As a resource to the public..." is unneeded and promotional. Why can't we just say what they did, without editorializing about about it being a public resource? Just say they have a website. That's enough. The Washington Current is used as a source for a significant chunk of text here. It doesn't look like a reliable source, as it appears to be a defunct blog. It's also incredibly undue to quote a whole paragraph from the blog (I think it's a quote, at least, although there's a missing end quotation mark). As it stands, the article reads like an advertisement. It has a lot of flowery language and fluff, but imparts little real meaning to the reader. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We should stick to the facts...
 * Yes. Agreed. Up to that point; but then I must defer to Wikipedia editing policy. We describe an organization's work just as the reliable sources we are citing do, while maintaining an encyclopedic tone. So if adjectives are required to properly convey the information from our sources, then of course we will use the necessary adjectives. If an organization is described in a particular way by a reliable source meeting Wikipedia's requirements for fact-checking and accuracy, then we convey that without quotes, as required by policy.  As you say, "we should stick to the facts"; If you need to say "According to Susie Smith...", then we have moved into the realm of opinion.  So as long as we are now on the same page as far as editing policy, let's look at your specific examples:
 * Saying CSG "created innovative solutions" is promotional. Saying "according to Susie Smith at Newspaper X, CSG created an innovative solution to problem X" is much better. It's an attributed and verifiable opinion, not a performance evaluation in Wikipedia's voice.
 * No, that's a reliably sourced fact, and not promotional statement, and certainly not opinion. "Innovative" has a definite meaning (to introduce something new; for or as if for the first time), and that meaning is conveyed by reliable sources. CGS didn't just develop and implement solutions, it created "innovative" technology solutions (see the Oxford forum document reference), or "one of the most innovative electronic voter guides..." (see the Hague book), or the description of the PolicyArchive as "the first and most comprehensive" technology of its kind (see peer reviewed Dublin Core tech paper). Even the white paper from the developer of many of the innovative technical solutions is titled  Innovations in Communications Technologies and the Democratic Process: Recent US Projects and Lessons Learned. If you still feel this content is a promotional, instead of neutral, conveyance of cited sources, please raise your concerns at WP:NPOVN and I'll join you there.
 * Saying CSG "empowered citizens to become more engaged..." sounds like something from the organization's PR materials. It doesn't really mean anything, it's just a promotional catchphrase.
 * No, it isn't. Please read it again. The meaning: The tech solutions created by CGS empowered citizens to become more engaged in their communities, and state and local governments. It gave the citizenry the tools to facilitate a greater level of participation. That meaning is from reliable sources, so that is why it is conveyed in our article.  If you would prefer to use different words to convey the same meaning, please propose that wording. (NB: I do see a small redundancy in that sentence that I will fix, but my point remains unchanged.)
 * What exactly does "fresh" mean? Do you see how that adjective appears promotional? "Fresh" compared to what? It's not imparting any meaning, either.
 * What does it mean? Have you read it in context from the source yet? The cited source says this:
 * On its website, CGS offers fresh studies on term limits (it concludes they haven't done as much good as hoped for), public campaign financing (it urges steps to de-emphasize large donors) and open primaries (it predicts rising influence for independent voters).
 * Its meaning seems self-explanatory: CGS offers fresh (i.e.; recent and different and new-ish and not the same old thing and ... one might even say "alternative"), analysis and data-based perspectives on issues such as term limits, ballot propositions, and open primaries. The wording is unambiguous and certainly not promotional, but you are welcome to propose different wording.
 * What were their perspectives? That would be interesting to include.
 * That's an excellent idea, and I agree. I may get back to content expansion when I get a chance to peel myself away from Talk pages.
 * this "As a resource to the public..." is unneeded and promotional. Why can't we just say what they did, without editorializing about about it being a public resource?
 * How is that promotional? The fact that they have made this very expansive resource available to the public is perhaps one of its most notable features, and all the reliable sources emphasize that fact. How would you suggest conveying that notable fact?
 * Just say they have a website. That's enough.
 * We do. It's www.cgs.org. We don't say anything else about it, because it's just a website -- unlike, say, the PolicyArchive site.
 * The Washington Current is used as a source for a significant chunk of text ... incredibly undue to quote a whole paragraph...
 * Significant chunk of text? Only three sentences; just two of which are quoted, which I disagree is in any way "undue". If you can suggest improved wording that still conveys that factual information, however, that would be great. As for the quality of the source, yeah, that's a valid concern that I share. So I added an additional source which supports the content about the "Presidential Advisory '08" collection, as well as an additional reference link to the collection itself. (I also ran across this blurb, which alerted me to announcements and press releases by CGS which convey a lot of the same information.) I'm also in the process of obtaining additional source material with which to improve that content.
 * In summary, "innovative", "fresh" and "emboldened" are accurate, factual and sourced descriptions -- and not unduly "promotional" or non-neutral. If you still disagree, please raise your concerns at the noticeboard linked above. I've got no problem with conveying the same information with different wording, but you've proposed none thus far. If you have any interest in expanding article content on "perspectives" as you suggested above, we can work on that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Center for Governmental Studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QCA96G0.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725160424/http://www.cgs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=70 to http://www.cgs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=70

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)