Talk:Consumer Action Group

message: This article (for the most part) complies with the wiki standard, and is clearly notable - there have been numerous press articles regarding the CAG and many national TV appearances.  They have been on TV in Australia and in Hong Kong - I think the question of Notability has been answered.
There is no link to the site from here, which makes it unclear how this is an advertisement. This article was NOT written by any of the 'staff' of CAG (although it has been edited by such).
Members to CAG typically grow at around 100 (weekend) to 400 (weekdays) per day and continue to do so - on average days the main page recieves over one million hits. Where the 'sadly a dying forum' and 'poor reputation' comes from is anybody's guess ;-) Sour grapes perhaps?
Despite the claim in an older post and that there are 'very low visitors' and that the site recieves less than 250 visits per day, at the time of writing there are currently over 1000 people viewing it's forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  194.202.26.135  (talk • contribs)  15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for telling me how to sign ;-)  I did it in that style as I didn't want it to look like an advertisement - which is what it started to look like (which it isn't).  I am the admin of the CAG, but I didn't start the article - in fact, I have no idea who did, but have added updates to it as and when.  Dchurch24 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, thanks for tidying it up a bit for me ;-) Dchurch24 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was I that started the article, I'm now just a mere user (former mod) of CAG, I think my name should ring a bell with you, DChurch. Thanks to both you and to Identz for tidying it up. Ukmonkey 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

message: Is there a way to request that an article be locked? I'm fed up with having to undo rival site member's irrelevant graffiti.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.26.135 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have the article in my watchlist, and keep an eye on changes regularly, and amend if I deem necessary. Hopefully the discredited ex-staff member and her netfriends will soon become bored, as will CAG's currently member(s) who keeps trying to turn the article into a self-promotional page. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad to heard about the newsletter. It's a real shame that this powerful medium was never utilised. I'll amend the article accordingly if this situ changes in the future. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, please sign your name with four tildas, without a space. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits made to this article

message: Any chance we can make this page semi-protected? It's suffering from repeated, regular vandalism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.19.16 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'm pro the Consumer Action Group and think they do good work, but my first thought on reading the article was that it's not NPOV. Particularly the criticisms section, which seems to consist of reasons why criticism isn't valid. There have been criticisms of CAG by people like the British Bankers Association and, although you may disagree with them, they are notable and thus should be included. 91.84.13.71 (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, include them ;-) 194.202.26.157 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: In order to avert an edit war concerning the statistics section, let's discuss the matter here.  We have two editors who believe that the statistics aren't important or notable enough to include in the article, and one who does.  Could each of us, and anyone else who wants to contribute, please provide a policy-based argument for the section's inclusion or exclusion? —Psychonaut (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was creating a similar discussion at the same time, so am moving my comment here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The self-sourced statistics provided in this section are in violation of WP:NOT#STATS, so should be removed unless we are provided with an independent source that provides some analysis or interpretation of these statistics. The fact that the section has been here for five years is immaterial - it simply means that nobody has noticed before that it should not be included. This is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of the CAG's web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT#STATS says, "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". How does this section meet that requirement? And how do we know that the statistics are correct? We can't rely on self-reporting for such information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't see what bearing ICO registration has on the publication of web forum statistics.  As far as I can tell operators of web forums aren't required to register with the ICO, nor does the ICO have any remit or ability to punish such operators who post false statistics about their web forums.  Anyway, I'll add my endorsement of User:Phil Bridger's analysis, and furthermore note that I haven't found any other Wikipedia article on a website which has a separate section for statistics. What makes CAG so special that this article must go against the structural norm? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm putting forth their absence from similar articles as evidence (not conclusive proof, but evidence) that they're not considered notable or verifiable in general.  There's also something to be said for stylistic consistency; this is why we have an official manual of style.  Could you please explain again why it's a good idea to put the statistics in this article?  Your previous explanation (that they show the site's growth) makes no sense whatsoever, since the numbers as presented don't show any change over time. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: If growth is the point you're trying to make then you shouldn't put the two pieces of information necessary to demonstrate this at opposite ends of the article.  Why not have a single, appropriately cited sentence which says that the project started off with 200 members and now boasts nearly 340,000?  That makes the purpose of the statistics clear, and is also upfront about them being self-reported.  I wouldn't object to including this in the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I object to "which grows daily".  Pretty much any web forum which doesn't have a policy of deleting inactive and spam accounts "grows daily".  I have no objection to the statistics section being deleted and that single sentence being inserted somewhere else in the article, minus the last three words, and with the addition of citations.  With respect to continuously updating the membership figures, I think it's silly to do that on a fixed schedule.  We're not CAG's publicity department.  —Psychonaut (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, some might see it as advertising.  But given the way it's being presented in the proposed sentence, I don't think it's too objectionable, as the wording makes it clear that the figures are self-reported.  (We do report self-reported membership figures for other organizations.)  There's no rule here I know of against regularly updating figures in articles, so if this discussion results in them being kept in some form or another, then no one is stopping you from updating them every month.  When I said that doing so was silly, it was only my opinion (though if that's all you use your Wikipedia account for, it will rather strongly mark you as a single-purpose account with a probable conflict of interest). —Psychonaut (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics