Talk:Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland

message: This article pretends that the RIAI is supporting architectural technologists. Is this a verified assumption? Can someone give an example?
I have a qualification in architectural technology and the RIAI never done anything for me. I am aware of a membership for technicians, which are considered by the RIAI as second-class professionals. However, to my knowledge, the RIAI is not affiliated to technologists and it never claimed to be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.130.35 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAI supporting Architectural Technologists 

message: The critics section of the article was removed... Does it mean that nobody dare criticising the institute anymore? Or is it that the RIAI is trying to hide the strong opposition that they have to handle? By the way, I find the new content poorly presented and missing the point... Maybe the members of the institutes should participate in creating a descent article instead of vandalising the AAoI page...--Christophe Krief (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics and opposition section removed 

message: The content of the present article replaced another article which needed improvement. The previous article was lacking references but its content was not drafted for promotional purpose. The content of the present article was inserted on the 9th of July 2012 by user "Sandraandreaoconnell" who is employed by the RIAI. Sandra O'Connell is in charge of the RIAI magazine and other public events. Many sections of the present article are directly copied from www.riai.ie or RIAI brochures. The critics section of the previous article was deleted. Due to a conflict of interest with the RIAI, I will not revert this article to its previous form dated 9th of July and I will not re-write the article. I will be interested to participate in a section critics and oppositions which is now missing. The present article must be reviewed by a neutral editor or reverted to its 9th of July content.--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone ahead and revert to the previous version. I will see if there any improvements I can make now and maybe find some references. As I don't know anything about the company I have no bias and will try to keep things neutral. Any input you can give to improve the reverted version would be great. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok I have added some references but there are some I couldn't find and are defiantly needed, particularly for the criticism section. I think the article might be a little to one sided in the other direction now, if references can't be provided for all the criticism then some of it will have to be removed. The article could do with more neutral info about them, a history section for example could balance out the negative content. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have improved the section "Critics and oppositions". Honestly I could have added many more referenced information in this section, but it would have been disproportionate compared to the rest of the article. I have also added an info box which is not fully completed but it is an improvement for the article introduction. Let see how other editors will improve this article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article to be reverted to its previous form (09/07/2012) or fully re-written for compliance with Wikipedia articles policy