Talk:Gallup (company)

Merger proposal
The stub article about Gallup Europe should be merged because information about a subsidiary fits better in one artice about the parent organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by CZmarlin (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)  Sorry, I forgot to sign it last night! — CZmarlin 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. -Pgan002 (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found Gallup Europe being merged. What about merger proposal from Gallup poll? I'd agree with that one too.. 2 april boy talk  12:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Funding?
Where are Gallup polls funded from? This is an important issue that may bias the polls or at least public perception of the polls. I can't find anything about it on Gallup's website. -Pgan002 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Management, Board of Directors, top managers - Information, please?
Not much history of the last 15 years of the organization, nor its governance, Board of Directors, top managers, are easy to find. I have never been thwarted before in finding who runs an organization. Very odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogtrouble (talk • contribs) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Article omits valid critcism
Article is mainly corporate propaganda; no discussion of valid criticism of Gallup methodology by Alan Abramowitz (Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University)Swantamer (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)swantamer.
 * No he actually said, "The Gallup Poll should be commended for making their internals available to interested observers for secondary analysis -- few other polling organizations are so generous with their data. And to be fair to Gallup, they have cautioned that these results are not a prediction of what will happen on Election Day, only a snapshot of current voter attitudes." Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading, by Jim Clifton
The Coming Jobs War ISBN-13: 978-1595620552 Publisher: Gallup Press (October 4, 2011) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: Move The Gallup Organization to Gallup (company). There is clear consensus that "Organization" needs to be dropped, but no consensus this is the primary topic for "Gallup". This parenthetical was the best supported of the suggested options. Cúchullain t/ c 16:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

– Our company goes by "Gallup" rather than "The Gallup Organization." "Gallup is more recognizable. It would be great if we could redirect "The Gallup Organization" page to the "Gallup" page. --Relisted Cúchullain t/ c 18:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 206.205.24.242 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Gallup Organization → Gallup
 * Gallup → Gallup (disambiguation)
 * Gallup has many meanings and is a long disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose multiple uses, indeed we need to split off Gallup Poll into a separate article as well. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If moved it should be at Gallup (organization) since there is no evidence that this is the primary meaning of the term Gallup.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Google rankings for . It looks like the company dropped the word "organization" a few years back. Here is the relevant page on their Website. Kauffner (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Question If you want to move this page to Gallup, this means that we already have to move the current page Gallup to Gallup (disambiguation). This should only be done if the subject of this article were the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. PRIMARY is usually indicated if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". Can you show that this is the case here? --RJFF (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Kauffner. Indeed the current Gallup should be moved to Gallup (disambiguation); I'll add this to the request. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The guideline does not say that a the primary topic must be more likely to be sought than all the other topics combined. If A implies B, it does not follow that B implies A. If you google, everything on the first two pages of results refers to the organization, Gallup, New Mexico, or to Gallup Park in Ann Arbor. The organization got 39,146 page views in the last 90 days, while the town got 19,109. We don't have an article, or even a section of an article, for Gallup Park. Kauffner (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsure. I suspect the primary topic is Gallup Poll, as suggested by an IP above. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to "Gallup, Inc." or "Gallup (company)" per Naming conventions (companies): "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate ... If the legal status is used to disambiguate, it should be included in the article title using the company's own preference." DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to "Gallup (company)" this may be the simplest solution. Rjensen (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support move to Gallup (company) per DrKiernan's argument based on WP:NCCORP. --213.196.194.37 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gallup (company). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106230652/http://www.gallup.com/corporate/1357/Corporate-History.aspx to http://www.gallup.com/corporate/1357/corporate-history.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gallup (company). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018002136/http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/06/cell-phone-addi.php to http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/06/cell-phone-addi.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Request: Infobox + Gallup Press updates
Hello, I'm here to offer some suggested updates to the article, beginning with the infobox and Gallup Press. Below I posted drafts for the infobox and Gallup Press in addition to markup. But first, a disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Gallup as part of my work at Beutler Ink.

Infobox The infobox is missing some key content, such as Gallup's former names, its industry, and where it was founded, among other things. My draft updates the following:
 * The company has been previously called the American Institute of Public Opinion and Gallup Organization, so I included them in the Formerly called parameter
 * Gallup belongs in the management consulting industry
 * Gallup was founded in Princeton, New Jersey, United States, so I updated Founded to include the location
 * Gallup's headquarters are at The Gallup Building, 901 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C., United States. I updated Headquarters to reflect this
 * Gallup has 30–40 offices globally (2017), so I updated Locations
 * Jim Clifton's job title should be stylized as "Chairman and CEO", not "Chairman & CEO"
 * Gallup's services include management consulting, analytics, research, opinion polling, and publishing, so I updated Services
 * Citations are added throughout

Infobox edits have been approved. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to flag here that there are news organizations that still refer to Gallup as a "market research" firm. I did not include market research in the Industry parameter because Gallup no longer carries out that kind of work. I point to Gallup's own website, which does not list market research among its services provided. Instead, I used "management consulting" for industry, as that is the best overall descriptor.

Gallup Press The section currently contains three references: all of which are primary sources. My draft of Gallup Press provides Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing and tweaks some of the language to make it more encyclopedic. In my draft:
 * I changed "over 30 books" to say "approximately 30 books"
 * I deleted the phrase "including a number of best sellers"
 * I changed "notable titles" to "noteworthy titles", as not all the books listed have their own Wikipedia page
 * I added citations for each of the titles
 * I changed "which was Amazon's bestselling book of 2013" to "which is among Amazon's 20 bestselling books of all-time as of 2017", and a citation for verification
 * I deleted the sentence "Books are distributed by Simon & Schuster", which is cited to a primary source

Approved AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I will keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries. You are the most recent registered users to edit this page, could any of you review these updates? Please ping me here if you have any questions. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88: Per our discussion on your Talk page, do you have any time to review this request? Thanks for considering, Danilo Two (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently on vacation and will return Sunday night to address this. Thank you for your patience. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88: Of course. I hope you had a great vacation! Let me know if you have any questions. Danilo Two (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88: Looks great. Thanks! I am currently drafting more proposed updates. I should be back here soon with more. Danilo Two (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Request: History updates
Hello, I'm here to offer an updated draft of History. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Gallup as part of my work at Beutler Ink. AmericanAir88: Could you review this request as you had reviewed my previous infobox and Gallup Press updates?

History as currently written is generally well-constructed, but there are some gaps that I hope to fill and some existing content is unsourced. This is what I've done in my draft, based on secondary sources I found in my research:
 * Divided History in two subsections: Early history and Recent history
 * Added citations for Gallup's founding
 * Rewrote the second sentence of the first paragraph based on available secondary sourcing
 * Added citations for Gallup refusing to conduct surveys commissioned by organizations such as the Republican and Democratic parties
 * The sentence about David Ogilvy in the live article sources Gallup. I have used a new reference to rewrite this sentence to show that Gallup began conducting market research for advertising companies and the film industry, but deleted reference to Mr. Ogilvy. This was done to better reflect available secondary sourcing.
 * Added a new sentence that shows that by 1948, Gallup established polling organizations abroad, and its polls were syndicated in newspapers
 * Removed the sentence on Gallup compiling video game sales charts in the UK. The reference contained a dead link, and I question if it is even a reliable source to begin with. Also, this article would get very messy if it listed all the charts and research Gallup has conducted over the decades
 * Rewrote the content on Gallup's sale to SRI, adding that the deal was for an undisclosed price, the Gallup family remained active in the business, and shuffled the detail about the nonprofit George H. Gallup Foundation here
 * Added a citation for the Gallup name giving SRI more credibility and higher response rates
 * Removed "Today the poll is used to gain visibility", as this is a vague timeline. Additionally, I moved this point to the next paragraph
 * Added two paragraphs on Gallup repositioning itself as a research and management consulting company following the acquisition by SRI
 * Added a paragraph on Gallup's incorrect prediction of the 2012 U.S. presidential election and the company's subsequent six-month review of its methodology
 * Moved the content from the existing Legal section and rewrote it. The Legal section was largely written off a Department of Justice press release. I reworked the content and added citations throughout.
 * Added a paragraph on Gallup deciding not to conduct horse-race polling of the 2016 election
 * I added citations throughout, and tweaked language where necessary

I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I'm looking for editors who might be willing to review my request and update the article if things look neutral and well-sourced. Please ping me if you have any questions. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Approved. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88: Thanks for moving my History draft live! I noticed the Early history and Recent history subsections are each one long paragraph (in other words, the paragraph breaks from my draft are lost). Was that intentional? If so, that's fine, but I wanted to flag it here in case not. Also, now that the material on Gallup's settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice is included in History, can you remove the Legal section? Thank you again for your help with this. Danilo Two (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. I split the history section. I forgot to.
 * AmericanAir88: Looks great. Thanks. Danilo Two (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Request: New Organization section
Hello, I'm here to offer a new section containing key details about the Gallup organization. My proposed Organization section contains important detail not covered in the body of the article (For example: Gallup is a private, employee-owned company. It is based in Washington, D.C.) This draft includes some detail that is currently in the introduction (For example: Number of Gallup offices and employees). However, I am also working on an updated introduction, in which I plan on suggesting that particular information be removed from the intro. My Organization draft includes the location of Gallup's D.C. headquarters, its Omaha campus, leadership, and clarifies that Gallup is not related to other organizations that use the Gallup name overseas.

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Gallup as part of my work at Beutler Ink. AmericanAir88: Could you review this request as you have my others? Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, with some minor modifications. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88: Thanks for making the edits! If possible, can you add a paragraph break between the two paragraphs? Thanks! Danilo Two (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Request: New Services and divisions section
Hello, I'm here to offer a request for a new section called Services and divisions that outlines the various areas of Gallup's work and raise a question about the Gallup Poll. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Gallup as part of my work at Beutler Ink.

Below, you will see my proposed draft includes these subsections: Workplace, CliftonStrengths, K-12 Education, Gallup Press (which was previously updated, this edit is simply moving it from its own section to under this umbrella), Gallup World Poll, and The Gallup Poll. My aim is to provide more information about the various areas of Gallup's business, since the article currently focuses on the Gallup Poll, which is just a fraction of the company's work.

Before I provide my proposal, though, I wanted to raise a question about the Gallup Poll section. This section makes up about half the total article length, yet the sourcing is substandard: there are entire paragraphs about its polling methodology that are unsourced, and a reliance on Gallup itself as a source. The Gallup Poll section also includes some interesting detail that, as presented, comes off as random. One paragraph reads: "The population of the U.S. that relied only on cell phones was 34% in 2012". While interesting, there is no additional context on how this issue affects the Gallup Poll. Also, the section does not reflect changes in 2018 to Gallup's presidential approval rating and its Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index polls. To keep some of this interesting information and allow for further expansion, I am wondering whether editors would be in favor of splitting the Gallup Poll into its own standalone article (I would argue it meets the notability threshold based on Wikipedia's general notability guideline; a Google search of Gallup Poll generates more than 7 million results). In the context of an article about Gallup the organization, I wonder if this level of detail about the Poll is too much? What do others think, could the Gallup Poll section be split off into its own article and information about the Poll then be summarized here in the Gallup article?

In the meantime, I have created a draft of my proposed Services and divisions section to add and expand on Gallup's other services so the article delivers a fuller picture of the organization. It also tweaks the first few sentences of the Gallup World Poll section. I have kept the current Gallup Poll information for now, while editors consider my question of splitting it off. However, I have also prepared a summarized and updated version that editors can view below to see what I have in mind.

AmericanAir88: Since you've reviewed other changes here, I thought I'd ask you first if you have a preference on how to go about this. Should I open a request for the split first? Or are you happy to look at the rest of the Services and divisions draft, then come back to discuss the Gallup Poll part later, so editors can weigh in on the split and proposed summary then?

As I mentioned previously, here is a proposed summarized Gallup Poll subsection for this article should editors ultimately decide to split off the Gallup Poll information to its own standalone page.

I welcome feedback and thoughts from the Wikipedia community. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Following up here in response to your decline, I believe this article's omission of major portions of Gallup's business should be considered omission of facts, as you put it. What I am proposing to do is add information about these businesses, phrased in a neutral and non-promotional manner, based entirely on well-regarded, independent secondary sourcing. Are there specific concerns with the material that I've offered for consideration? Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm concerned not just about this proposed edit but about other material that has recently been added to the page at your request. I wonder, did you actually read the links to native advertising and deceptive advertising that I posted above? Is it clear to you that advertising content masquerading as neutral content is illegal in the United States, and that Wikipedia is subject to and governed by United States law?
 * , do you have any thoughts on this? Or indeed, or , all of whom have recently received requests for help from this editor? I'm inclined to suggest that the page should be reverted to this revision, before the latest round of edit requests began. Any thoughts on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is to go to the independent business press and get all the info from there--and keep in mind that apart from its polls Gallup is a small minor company with 2000 employees and ??? revenue that deserves at best a very short article. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have declared my conflict of interest clearly and consistently, including the "connected contributor (paid)" banner at the top of this talk page, so there is no cause to invoke "deceptive advertising". If this were it, then the queue should not exist at all. Since that is not the case, we should focus on the content of the article and what is most helpful to Wikipedia's readers.


 * The bulk of my work on this page thus far has centered around fixing and cleaning up existing content (all the changes are listed out above, for ease of review). Reverting to the version suggested by Justlettersandnumbers would revert simple fixes to the infobox and edits to add citations to existing unsupported content. I did propose a new Organization section, which was reviewed and approved by a volunteer editor, that explains basic company background information: company type, headquarters, number of offices, employees, and leadership. I included a note in there about lawsuits with other organizations using the Gallup name. This is not meant to be advertising, but rather useful information for readers. At every step I have taken care to follow Wikipedia's rules on neutral point of view and verifiability, carrying citations to independent, secondary sources.


 * For the proposed Services and divisions section, I'm actually not proposing a lot of new content. The completely new material here are small subsections on Gallup's Workplace, CliftonStrengths, and K-12 Education businesses, all supported by the independent press. I also seek to move the existing Gallup Poll, Gallup World Poll, and Gallup Press sections under this umbrella, and slightly tweak the Gallup World Poll language for accuracy. To focus this request on the specific additions I'm seeking, I am happy to post a new request focusing on Workplace, CliftonStrengths, and K-12 Education. Based on feedback here, I will also go through my proposal again to see if I should eliminate any detail sourced to lower-tiered sources. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I wonder, did you actually read the links to native advertising and deceptive advertising that I posted above? Do you understand that content intended to promote an entity (which is what you are paid to do here, right?), placed in such a way (like, say, in Wikipedia) as to appear to be neutral content, is illegal in the United States? That's not a reflection on your compliance with our local requirements for paid editors, which as far as I am aware is exemplary; it's the law of the country whose law governs this project. And no, the edit request process is essential – some editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly, but that does not mean that they are not welcome to offer corrections or propose additions of suitably referenced facts. But nowhere do we say or suggest that the process can be used to rewrite entire articles. On this, you and perhaps some of your colleagues might like to read WP:PAYTALK. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are concerns about the legality of COI editors proposing content, there are other forums suited for such discussions. My colleagues and I are not violating WP:PAYTALK. We try our hardest to be respectful of volunteer editors' time.
 * Per WP:TALK#USE, which says "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article" and "Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace", I suggest we focus here on this article's content. Danilo Two (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: Addition of Services and divisions header
Hello, Following the closure of the discussion above, I'm here with a new request. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Gallup as part of my work at Beutler Ink.

My request is as follows:
 * Can editors consider creating a new section heading titled Services and divisions, and relocating the existing material from Gallup Poll and Gallup Press within it?

This heading could help keep all material about Gallup's various businesses in one place, and would neatly organize this article by details on Gallup the organization, its history, and its services.

I welcome feedback and thoughts from the Wikipedia community. Thank you in advance for considering, Danilo Two (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * no -- there is no evidence these services are noteworthy.  You need major independent sources that say so.  In my opinion, absent the very famous poll, there is no evidence here indicating the company is not deserving of much attention. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. I appreciate your review of these requests, and I will take your feedback with me back to the drawing board. Thank you for considering, Danilo Two (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: Services
Hello, Following feedback on my previous requests, I've gone back to the drawing board to draft new content that briefly explains Gallup's consulting business. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Gallup as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Editors' feedback on my previous requests was that any detail on Gallup's non-polling activities should be sourced only to major independent sources. With that in mind, I created the following draft, limiting detail to that which is written about in sources including Bloomberg Businessweek, U.S. News & World Report, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, Fast Company, Forbes, The Washington Post, and HuffPost. I also cut back on the amount of detail that I previously proposed.

The reason I'm proposing this section is because the article puts a heavy focus on the Gallup Poll. While Gallup is mostly known to the public for the Gallup Poll, it's a fraction of the firm's business. And while not covered to the same degree as its polling, its research and consulting business has been covered by major press, in addition to regional press. For the sake of Wikipedia's guidelines and feedback I've received so far, I have only used major nationally known publications as sources for this draft. It's my hope that editors will find this draft neutral and properly sourced.

Does this seem like a reasonable, short summary of Gallup's main business? If it's acceptable to editors, I would ask for it to be moved into the live article. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't edit the article myself. I welcome feedback and thoughts from the Wikipedia community. Thank you in advance for considering, Danilo Two (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No,, it does not. It reads like more a press release: we don't write stuff like "Gallup is mostly known to the public for its famous Gallup Poll" here, as this is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising platform. Apart from the overtly promotional tone and the matter of native advertising, which I thought I had already explained above, it's also poorly written. Let's see: it has a student poll which surveys students? Is that really worth mentioning? – would it not be strange if it surveyed anything else? And then it measures student success? Sorry, but no. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to mention that a listing of products and services is specifically mentioned as one of the many things that Wikipedia is not. See WP:NOTDIR: " (my bold/underlining). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment. My proposed content is not a "simple listing" of Gallup's services "without context"; it explains what these services are and how they relate to Gallup's work as a survey company. Additionally, the drafted content is not intended to be "promotional" and should not be confused with advertising; it is meant to convey straightforward information about services which are lesser known, but constitute the majority of Gallup's business. I believe this information would serve the reader's interest, and this is why I have offered it for consideration. Meanwhile, based on your comments, I've edited one sentence to read more clearly. I hope this modification will be recognized, by yourself or others, as willingness to find solutions and consensus to improve the content of this entry. Danilo Two (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

✅ - You're stalking me! But seriously, I'm impressed by how long it must have taken you to find my edits from four years ago, to ping me. I modified the services text and made some but not all of the changes. I tightened up the verbiage to make it more encyclopedic, and deleted some unnecessary sources, including the Guardian one you used because it was paywalled by Nexis. BTW - a Google search makes it look like the article appeared in the Observer. Also, according to sources, CliftonStrengths was originally just called StrengthsFinder, before it became Clifton StrengthsFinder, and the original author's contribution was quietly removed from history. [] TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and editing my proposal. What you have done here is fair. As for going through the article history: there have not been too many edits to this page over the last few years, so it was not too much work to find constructive editors to contact for feedback and guidance. Thanks again! Danilo Two (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
This is Mark, editor at Gallup. Much of this article has been updated in the last year, yet the introduction continues to offer a somewhat dated view of Gallup. For example: Gallup has not been structured as the live article indicates for years. To help the introduction summarize the article's most important contents, I propose this:


 * Gallup, Inc. is an analytics and advisory company based in Washington, D.C. Founded by George Gallup in 1935, the company became known for its public opinion polls conducted worldwide. Starting in the 1980s, Gallup transitioned its business to focus on providing analytics and management consulting to organizations globally. In addition to its analytics, management consulting, and Gallup Poll, the company also offers educational consulting, the CliftonStrengths assessment and associated products, and business and management books published by its Gallup Press unit.

Is it possible to update the introduction as proposed? I'm available to discuss this more if that is necessary. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will suggest edits on behalf of my employer using discussion pages only. Looking forward to working more with the Wikipedia community! GallupMS (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating the introduction. Will you consider removing the second paragraph of the introduction: "Gallup has 30 offices in more than 20 countries, employing about 2,000 people in four divisions: Gallup Poll, Gallup Consulting, Gallup University, and Gallup Press"? This is an outdated description of Gallup's operations. Thank you for collaborating! 198.175.141.60 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Request completed. Thank you! GallupMS (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)