Talk:International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

FICPI

Discussion copied from User talk:Edcolins#FICPI page and User talk:JulianCrump#FICPI.

Ed I note you have reversed the changes I made to the FICPI page. You have asked me to provide sources. I am the current Secretary General of FICPI. As for the information currently there, it is factually incorrect. Charles Elderkin is NOT the President of FICPI, but as stated in the cited source, he is the President of the US Section of FICPI, which is not the same thing. How can I have the edits I made reinstated? Thanks Julian Crump Secretary General of FICPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianCrump (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have corrected the mistake in the article. Since you have a close relationship with FICPI (see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest), it might be appropriate that you make suggestions to improve the article (or to correct factual mistakes) on the talk page: Talk:International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys. ... --Edcolins (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and suggestions to improve the article

The edits recently made here are certainly valuable. However, I humbly believe that, alone, they do not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and sources. An article about an organisation must present all views about the organisation and not only the views from the organisation on itself (Neutrality on Wikipedia means ".. representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias..")

In order to improve the article, I would suggest to first add references from sources independent of FICPI, to explain where FICPI comes from ("History" section), what are the views of FICPI ("Views"), and how does FICPI work ("Organisation" or "Structure"). So far the only provided sources are linked to the organisation. We need to add independent references. --Edcolins (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]