Talk:National Center for Voice and Speech

removed the COI-- it has been there for a couple years and no one has changed content so it likely seems acceptable to people. 155.101.253.192 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I added a bunch of links and changed some words. I think we can remove the Conflict of Interest tag. Any objections? If non, I will remove it in a week or so.Larynxdude (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the conflict of interest tag. No one complained. Larynxdude (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me preface my remarks by saying I'm not affiliated with the NCVS or DCPA, and I am new to this wikipedia thing -- so I don't want to get involved in any battle. With that said, I'm not sure I understand why the conflict of interest tag has been re-added. It appears to me that that it's been edited enough since the original entry that any conflict of interest has been taken out, especially since the last SLP1 edits. [[72.244.57.45 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Thanks for your compliment about my edits. Given that people from NCVS have edited this and other articles a lot to promote their organization, and the fact that there are many unreferenced sentences here I feel it is worth leaving the COI tag on until some other independent editors can take a pass through and check it out. --Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm new to this whole thing -- trying to understand it because it seems this is where the mainstream public gets their knowledge. But unless *you* are affiliated with the NCVS, I think you re-adding the tag *after* your edits taking out any possible problems seems rather odd. (: There have been quite a few edits -- I'm not sure which are by NCVS folks, but the bottom line is that it looks like any possible conflict of interest seems to be taken out by now. If we look at most entries for companies/organizations listed in Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure they were put in by the company's PR department rather than somebody with *no* conflict of interest -- these guys just seem to be scientists rather than PR people. So my thought is that unless we want to peg every entry for every company, we have to eventually call it good when any inappropriate content is out. (68.164.43.156 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi all, I am also in Voice and would also have to disagree with SLP1. Yes promotion isn't good as Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia but what "many unreferenced sentances" are there? 208.53.56.158 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? Try reading the article. Note all the sentences there without citations. And yes, 68., if you can think there is a COI for a company's article then absolutely, tag it and report to the conflict of interest noticeboard for other editors and administrators to evaluate. I am personally still uneasy about the neutral point of view in the article so will not be removing the tag myself. But if any other of the IP addresses wish to remove it, you can, assuming that you have or have had no relationship with NCVS yourself. Personally, I find it a bit suspicious that several WP:SPA IP addresses that all agree with each other have suddenly popped up to edit this and the Vocology article and talkpages. But if you really are independent editors.....Slp1 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, I'm employed by neither the DCPA nor the NCVS -- so your suscipions at least in my case our groundless. Although I do believe many (perhaps even most?) vocologists (i.e., voice scientists) have collaborated with the NCVS at one time or another on research, so the "no relationship" thing would be pretty hard. I have to admit that I did pass the information on to other interested parties who, if any of them responded, I assume are also new to the Wiki community. Why the IP address? I wanted to test my toe in the Wiki community before getting myself another sign-in name (or whatever you call it), but I find the waters rather chilly. So, after my brief sojourn here, I suspect that I might be better off returning to my research. Again, SLP1, I do appreciate your efforts on voice-related articles -- in the grand scheme of things, it provides good background for the field. But I guess I'm old enough to just feel inclined to bow gracefully out of this kind of battle. (69.3.201.199 (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]