Talk:Mutual Fund Directors Forum

Discussion

Is this discussion closed? Can I take off the deletion tags? DJDeedle (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mutual Fund Directors Forum entry is not an advertisement, nor is the Forum a club. The Forum does not advertise, and membership is only open to independent directors of mutual funds, not the public. The article clearly notes that the Forum is historically significant because of the reasons it was formed and it's mission. The SEC does not request formation of private, educational or self regulatory organizations; however, in response to sweeping scandals in the mutual fund industry, In this case it did. The speeches cited are those of SEC commissioners (linked directly to the SEC's website)that remark on this unique distinction. The citation to David Ruder's remarks before the Senate Banking committee support the assertion that no agency or organization had before addressed "best practices" guidance for directors of mutual funds. Wikipedia contains any number of entries to similar nonprofit organizations and foundations that are also not considered advertisement or solicitation. see: lnvestment Company Institute This is a similar industry group. And it even cites its own website. The Forum's entry does not.DJDeedle (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No, the discussion is not closed. Given that you defied the speedy deletion, and recreated the article, it has now gone to a more formal debate, which will last for 5 days.
2. You arguments around significance aren't relevant. Significance isn't the yardstick by which inclusion is decided. Notability is.

Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Did not defy speedy deletion

I was told by reviewer stifle that I was welcome to resubmit the entry with new cites. You guys need to communicate better. Just look at my discussion page. DJDeedle (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article still has no cites of reliable sources, this is incorrect. The first two links don't seem to mention the forum by name, and the third is a link to a transcript of evidence submitted to a Senate committee.

• Cite 1 does not actually evidence that the MFDF grew out of the the MFDEC
• Cite 2 does evidence the fact stated, but doesn't relate to the forum directly
• Cite 3 is not a reliable source it shows that evidence was given, but does not attest to the truth of that evidence (a report from the senate committee might be a reliable source, as it would indicate that the evidence had been tested and accepted)
• All of the supposed cites are formatted as simple external links, rather than as proper inline citations.

If you want to create an article, then you will need to get it right. Getting it wrong, then arguing about it won't work. Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability

You are wrong that the comparison with the Invesment Company Institute entry is in invalid argument. "WPOTHER STUFF" says: "Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this." You have done just that: dismissed the comment because of a comparative statement.

1. I have explained why the Forum is "notable" and historically significant (two terms you seem to think are not somewhat interchangeable).
2. I have also compared it to an entry to a similar organization (as part of my cogent argument - see your own WPOTHER for guidance).
3. Item 2 supports my assertion that the Forum does not seek advertisement, in the same way as the ICI does not
4. Item 2 also gives you, the editors, an idea of what kind of organization the Forum is: an membership organization like the ICI, not a private club.
5. I have supported every assertion in the entry with verifiable and reputable sources
6. I have followed all the Wikipedia editor/moderator instructions (see my comment about "stifle" telling me that I could repost the article with additional citations)

DJDeedle (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just going round in circles!, but let us take your points one at a time;

1. Whatever you have explained, you have NOT cited anything in the article that proves notability. Please bear in mind that notability here has a particular meaning (that is that the organisation must meet the criteria specified in WP:N
2. Not relevant. This article must assert its own notability within the article, and back it up with sources
3. Not relevant. The article is proposed for deletion as not notable (as defined by WP:N), not for being an advertisement.
4. As the link doesn't actually mention the Forum, it is entirely conjecture and original research to suggest that the link tells us anything about the forum.
5. The first two links are verifiable and reputable sources, but they don't actually directly back up the assertions. The third link is reliable only as proof that the evidence was given. In any case, none of the links proves WP:N
6. The links are NOT formatted as citations, they are just external links - see WP:CITE

Mayalld (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof you are not even reading the article

The first citation is not supposed to reference the Forum. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see it is support for the statement that the Mutual Fund Directors Education Council was an unprecedented public-private partnership, not the assertion that the Forum grew out of the MFDEC. The speech references that group and also is the "call for better mutual fund governance."

The third citiation, on the second page supports the mission of the Forum to "improve fund governance by promoting vigilant and well-edcuated directors." It is official Senate testimony from the Senate website.

Your comment, "If you want to create an article, then you will need to get it right. Getting it wrong, then arguing about it won't work." is snotty and disrespectful. DJDeedle (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect is intended, and I'm sorry if it came over that way.

In Wikipedia, there is an easy way, and a hard way. The easy way is to take some time to really understand what is needed, then create a good article. The hard way is to rush in, get it wrong, then end up spending your time arguing points to no avail

Mayalld (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Points well taken

Your points are well-taken, and I hope to address them.

I will address the substance questions first. Please indulge me to leave the formatting changes to later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJDeedle (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

Moved to talk RJFJR (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Forum's Executive Director, Susan Wyderko, was quoted in the November 12, 2007 Investment News article, "Fund Trustees Said to Favor Repeal of 12b-1s." Hansard, Sarah, "Fund Trustees Said to Favor Repeal of 12b-1s," Investment News, November 12, 2007.

David Smith, the Forum's Executive Vice President, was quoted in the October 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal article, "The Case for Knowing Your Fund's Directors." Laise, Eleanor, "The Case for Knowing Your Fund's Directors," Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2007, p. D-1.

In its July 16, 2007 issue, the Wall Street Journal published the Forum's response to a July 6 op-ed by the AEI's Peter J. Wallison. Op-ed, Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2007, p. A-11.

David Smith, the Forum's Executive Vice President, was quoted in the May 8, 2007 Wall Street Journal article, "Independent Directors Tackling 12b-1 Fee." Anand, Shefali, Independent Directors Tackling 12b-1 Fee," Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2007, p. c13.

The Forum's Executive Director, Susan Wyderko, wrote a letter which was published in the August 8, 2006 issue of the Wall Street Journal, in response to former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt's op-ed piece, "Over-Lawyered at the SEC" which appeared in the Wall Street Journal's July 26, 2006 edition. Op-ed, Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2006, (pinpoint cite forthcoming)