User talk:Rcdavis5714

Welcome!
Hello, Rcdavis5714, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to McCain Institute does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Grayfall. Understandable on the changes side. I was wondering though on the NPOV policy where it says "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media", is the organization's website itself where it has published this information not reputable? If the information on the Wikipedia article is inaccurate, wouldn't it be best to get the updated information from that organizations website itself? Or is it required to acquire 3rd party sources that report on that information?
 * Its a very interesting system and excited to learn more!
 * Thanks! Rcdavis5714 (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. WP:PRIMARY sources can be used with restraint for basic information, but that is not what you did. The information you added to the McCain Institute page, such as this edit, exclusively used the Institute's own website as a source for a large quantity of promotional information which was explained using vague language, buzzwords, and similar. Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources (see WP:IS) as well as secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY)
 * To provide a few more examples, phrases like "fostering innovative solutions" among others are absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopedia, even if they are unfortunately common among press releases. Being able to cite a source for these cliches isn't sufficient, and the reliability of those sources is merely part of the problem here.
 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
 * Additionally, I haven't checked, but wording like this may also be a copyright issue if it is copied from the source directly. Please review WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE if this applies.
 * I also strongly recommend you review Conflict of interest, Paid-contribution disclosure, and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to see if these issues apply to you.
 * Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)