Talk:Century Council

Can we put in a "neutrality disputed" label? Threatening 20-year-olds with legal problems for drinking alcohol doesn't equate to "reducing alcohol abuse" for a lot of people. The selection sounds like it was taken from their website verbatim. Lothar76 17:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The Century Council appears to meet the criteria for notability. It is a national organization with substantial longevity whose numerous activities are nation-wide in scope and it is headed by a former member of the U.S. Congress.David Justin 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To affirm notability per WP:CORP, please add sources to the article which affirm that the company has been cited in third-party press. I see that you've removed the prod tag. That's fine if you disagree, I'll give you some time to go ahead and add more sources. If none can be provided, I'll go ahead and nominate the article for deletion discussion, and then the community can weigh in. But for now, you have a bit of breathing room. I look forward to seeing what you come up with, and please let me know if you have any questions. --El on ka 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help.David Justin 03:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional sources. They are helpful, but I'm afraid that they don't really make the case for notability yet. Can you come up with anything like an article from a major newspaper or magazine, that profiles the Council? Or have they been talked about on television? Have they won any major awards? Thanks, El on ka 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka- I think the article from The Christian Science Monitor that I've added, a major nation-wide newspaper, meets your criterion. However, I've also provided additional references supporting notability. Thanks.David Justin 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are half of the news links from Google's cache? If the organization is notable, wouldn't there be more current links to stories about it? Lothar76 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lothar- To address your concern, I've added a number of news items reported over the last several days. Thanks.David Justin 03:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tagging

Wikipedia policy states:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies.... Tags should be added as a last resort." The posting of the tags on this page is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. David Justin 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes tag articles that I see as problematic, while editing other articles and finding links, but try very hard to come back ASAP and discuss the matter, fix the issues, or remove the tags. I truly avoid "drive-bys". I have removed all the tags I placed on this article. It appears to be an acceptable stub as it stands now, except it could use formatting for "see also" and some other work, which I shall do now. -- Bearian (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, which I greatly appreciate.-- David Justin (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflict of Interest"

I removed this section because it referred to a different Century Council, namely a group of elite donors that have given more than $25,000 to Texas Governor Rick Perry. It was erroneous to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.165.195 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have added an NPOV tag to the top of this article. The segue from the first sentence to the second implies a connection between underage drinking and irresponsible drinking, without citing any source to verify such a claim. Additionally, the phrase "strategic partnerships" and the language that follows it reek of weasel words, and the whole introduction reads like a PR campaign in general. I do not dispute the POV of the "Programs" section as it currently exists, but would like discussion as to a way to re-word the intro so it is more factual and less propagandist in nature. Lumbergh (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, please see the newly updated info on the page which should address (and fix) the issues you had with it. Thank you! Tccnm (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-freedom drinkers should boycott these companies

What hypocrits! They sell something that people are getting in trouble for using, and then they themselves work to make the laws tougher and the punishments harsher, just to spruce up their "P.R."? They don't deserve our business! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]