Talk:Center of Concern

Excuse me, but I did not create this entry in the first place. The person who did acted without authorization and made numerous factual errors with serious legal and financial implications for our organization, the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, and possibly others. I am in no way trying to promote or advertise the organization. Rather, I am responding to some unknown person who took it upon him- or herself to publish a series of false statements about the organization. I have indicated with each edit why I was moving the information. There has been no lack of clarity about this. Our preference would be to remove the article completely. Please respect our wishes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalawya (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Dispute

Hoyalawya, you are currently at 3RR, and I would appreciate if you could please stop. Wikipedia is not a host for advertisement, and the content being added is highly promotional compared to the original text. Thank you, GAB^Hello! 02:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hoyalawya, instead of reverting the article repeatedly (which constitutes edit warring, which is not allowed on Wikipedia), please explain your concerns regarding the article, and the reason why the content you removed is incorrect. This is the proper way to resolve your dispute. Other actions, such as continuously reverting the article, will not resolve the issue. I patiently await your response here. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Original author corrections

Please accept these corrections to my original article. I have no reason to believe that they are less accurate than my effort, since they come from the President of the organization.Jzsj (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem now is the article has gone from weak independent sourcing to no independent sourcing. Every source currently cited in the article is somebody connected (currently or formerly) with Center. That warrants a maintenance tag. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not just that, but the text by Jzsj reintroduced a copyright violation. For that reason I reverted the last edit. Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The original article did not come from an authorized or informed source and included numerous inaccuracies that created legal, financial, reputational, and other risks for the subject organization and its board members, officers, and employees. There is no one with the title of "CEO" at the organization and the listing of someone in this role is alarming for us because of the implications for directors and officers' liability. This information in the article also is not consistent with the (correct) information that we have provided to our insurance carriers. References to the Society of Jesus being the Center's "parent organization" are not accurate, as we have an independent status. The Superior General of the Jesuits inquired about this status in the 1970s and I have his correspondence to this effect in my office. Representations about the Center's quarterly newsletter are not accurate as the Center stopped mailing this newsletter years ago because printed and mailed communications are much less effective, timely, economical, and ecological. The organization uses electronic distribution now to reach more people with better content, and for less money. The article was not accurate that Education for Justice materials are "free." In fact, the organization spends thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to create and market them as a major source of revenue, as it has done for 15 years. The unauthorized representations that appeared in the Wikipedia article implicated Federal Trade Comission and other laws and harmed our marketing efforts, including the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours we have spent on rebranding. The organization's predecessor Web site includes legacy material that has not been accurate for a long time, in some cases, many years. Predecessor leadership had not maintained this information accurately and the new team has been rectifying this and is in the process of building a completely new site. The new material that I inserted was a simple factual recitation of the Center's vision, mission, and strategy, along with the fact of its founding in 1971 and some of its affiliations. This was because I could not determine how to remove the article completely, which was my preference. The information I inserted is official, as it comes directly from me, the president, and we have distributed it in numerous other venues. I take exception to the arbitrary determination by uninformed editors last evening that this was "marketing" or "promotional" material. As president, I also take exception to the suggestion that I should be obligated to explain deletions of inaccurate information that an unauthorized writer decided to post without even contacting us. The issue is not documenting what does appear or explaining why content should go away, but rather letting us have some voice in sharing who we are and the service we provide for our friends around the world. This article was distinctly unhelpful to our educational efforts and I want it to come down immediately. Thank you. Hoyalawya (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"The issue is not documenting what does appear or explaining why content should go away, but rather letting us have some voice in sharing who we are and the service we provide for our friends around the world." That's what your website is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles should be written from neutral point of view. Wikipedia also has conflict of interest rules in place to temper how much direct involvement the subject should have with its article.

Wikipedia policies also prefer that articles be based upon secondary sources—sources not written by the subject or affiliated entities. @Hoyalawya: Can you point us toward some magazine or newspaper articles that have given significant, substantial coverage to Center? —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about an unauthorized and uninformed author creating an article without performing due diligence on the content. It is not due process for us to have to document and explain away someone else's lapses in judgment. When we could not delete the article, we tried to remove the pervasively inaccurate text. Even when we have attempted to insert factual information about the organization's founding, vision, and mission (http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/center-concern-turns-45-qa-lester-myers), you arbitrarily have construed it as marketing. We did not initiate the article and we want it to come down. The time we have had to waste on this has been costly. Thank you. Hoyalawya (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that as no, there is not that kind of coverage out there. I'll give other editors a chance to look, plus I need to do it myself (WP:BEFORE). Otherwise, I'll initiate deletion discussion—not because of your request, but because the article fails Wikipedia guidelines for general notability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request from author of article

When I created this article I did not know of the inaccuracies in the organization's website. I ask that the article be deleted, or if that is not possible left as a stub until their website is complete.Jzsj (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've opened an AfD due to the article failing WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the original with a more accurate, up-to-date version. I assume this one will be the topic of discussion after 3:34 CST on Sunday, March 6.Jzsj (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)