Talk:Common Purpose UK

message: they are on the edit page, but not onscreen for the main page.  any ideas why??  raining girl 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the problem of a missing </ref> tag. __meco 07:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and links vanished

message: I have removed the section 'Notable Clients'.  Not all of these organizations are not notable, and the fact that two notable organizations have a business relationship is not necessarily notable.  This section does not explain why these relationships are notable - The list tells us nothing about the nature of their relationship with Common Purpose -- Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This list corroborates the ubiquitous nature of Common Purpose, and the nature of these relationships is at the minimun defined by Common Purpose's field of activity as described in the article. The list could easily benefit from some pruning, but to remove it altogether is an exaggeration in my opinion. __meco (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable clients

message: User:Crosbiesmith removed the following text with the edit commentary "not supported by source given":
:Similar criticism of the organisation has come from CIB, UKIP, BNP and David Icke.*Indymedia Report "Common Purpose takes over Bradford"
I haven't checked to see whether this source is inapplicable to the assertion, but if it is, perhaps it would be sufficient to leave the statement and add a  tag requesting a new citation? __meco (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be.  Restored - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign for an Independent Britain (et al) criticism removed 

message: On November 15, User:Rangenews added:
On 14 November 2007, the Prime Minister made a statement on national security that measures to oppose extremism would include working closely with the community; including "new leadership training sponsored by Common Purpose" especially for members of the Muslim community. 
This was based on http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13757.asp .  Unfortunately, the source does not support this.  I know it did say this as it was in the google cache.  I have a copy.  I guess it was a draft.  It can also be seen here.  However, in Hansard, Common Purpose is not mentioned. .       As it stands the article is incorrect and will have to be changed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on national security

message: Christopher Story's views aren't notable and should be removed from this article.  Around this time last year, Christopher Story was running the story that Henry Paulson was arrested in Germany .
I doubt that Christopher Story himself is notable, though if someone were to write a well researched article on him, I would be fascinated to read it.  I would like know exactly what his professional relationship with Margaret Thatcher was.  Based on the incredible claims on his website, I found it hard to believe his advice was solicited by her.  However, a search of the Times digital archive does show up a Christopher Story talking to an 'audience of MPS and students' in 1981. - Crosbiesmith 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your doubts are misplaced. Christopher Story FRSA was in fact an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and has worked closely with famous KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, collaborating on the book The Perestroika Deception in 1995. You might disagree with his analysis, but his views should be noted here. Gordon Thomas is a reliable source. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could some reliable references be dug up to corroborate mr. Story's credibility (and notability, if possible – he might warrant his own Wikipedia article)? I think this would make it easier to accept him as an applicable source for controversial claims. __meco (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christopher Story

message: This article needs expanding, especially the (left wing) political aspects and connections. The organization is secretive, and has too many tentacles into local government, and the "public sector". It's goal is "to find future leaders", this alone means it should be exposed to sunlight. Most people have never heard of these people, and yet they suggest a huge number of people are graduates of their program. It has the potential of becoming a left wing form of Freemasonry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consideration for deletion

message: User:Rangenews - On 16th April I added the statement 'It was founded in 1989 by Julia Middleton, its current CEO, and Deborah Jenkins'.  You removed Deborah Jenkins with the comment 'Correction. Julia Middleton was the founder'.  In addition to the provided source , Deborah Jenkins is described as 'co-founder and European Director of Common Purpose' on the website of her company Kindling http://kindlingltd.com/, and as a co-founder on the website of Durham County Council , and on the website of the Mental Health Act Commission .  Do you have cause to doubt these sources?  I will revert this shortly. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored Deborah Jenkins mention. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's sourced.  Who founded Common Purpose is pertinent to an article on Common Purpose.  If you don't  demonstrate that the sources are wrong, I'm putting it back. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note a more specific description of Jenkin's role here: "She was a Founder Director of Common Purpose"  - Crosbie 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Deborah Jenkins

message: What hasnt been elaborated is where the money is coming from to finance and expand common Purpose. and considering that Common Pupose has been accused of being a security servce front, who has been the main funder of common Purpose?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.221.76 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is funding Common Pupose? 

message: There seems no reference to it's political leaning, which is very much to the left, socialism / collectivism. Surely this is an important fact, especially while a left of centre government is in power, and this organization has links back to the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left leaning politically 

message: There is a huge difference...the section should specify which each person is, preferably separate out Trustees from Participants.Paulbrock (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants ''or'' Trustees? 

message: There is currently a conflict of interest tag on the article, but no discussion.  I will  remove this if no evidence is provided that a conflict of interest exists. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: whois on 217.150.113.250 shows that that IP is owned by Common Purpose UK, who has recieved several warnings for COI, and whose edits resulted in blacklisting of commonpurpose's website. Here are all the related accounts.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_2.5#commonpurpose.org__commonpurpose.org.ukUser_talk:RangenewsUser talk:217.150.113.250--Hu12 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The spam is all very well, but that is gone now.  What needs to change to get the tag removed?  - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ballance needs to be restored--Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hu12 - what specifically needs to be done to restore balance to the article? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest tag

message: Please note: these are not 'criticisms' of Common Purpose: they are conspiracy theories. There is no evidence for Brian Gerrish's claims. What is the relevance of the taxpayer's contribution to Common Purpose? Wikipedia is intended as an objective resource, not a place for the publication of slanderous allegations put about by conspiracy theorists.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.167.222 (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theory is not neutral, 'criticism'.  I presume this is just another editor who is working for Common Purpose (though this time using a non-Common Purpose IP) who is (again) trying to 'clean' the article to his liking.  Please stop and discuss here only!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No, I am not a 'Common Purpose' editor (I have signed your page, as requested. Neutrality is exactly the issue here - 'Criticism' gives credence to the idea that there is some kind of objectivity to the statements being made by these people. Would you call accusations that the Royal Family murdered Princess Diana 'Criticism' or a 'Conspiracy Theory'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.167.222 (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Conspiracy theory gives credence to that there are people working together to discredit the organisation.  Both have a large negative impact, so lets find something more neutral here.  I feel that 'critisism' is the less worse of both.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, it then makes sense to mention the reference you are giving here in the document, and since it then clearly contradicts that sentence, you can remove the sentence it contradicts.  By the way, could you sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: OK - have done. Four tildes? What's that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesJBlank (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: (the four tildes are automatically converted to your username and a date, add them to the end of your comment, save and see what the result is).  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" / conspiracy theory 

message: What is so notable about the comments made by Common Purpose and stated in the article? These comments have the appearance of typical marketing stories and do not seem to contribute to the article. People interested in promotional material are probably better off visiting the website of this organization. HilcoH (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable comments 

message: Here - might be of some use. Loganberry (Talk) 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC News article 

message: There are so many "citation needed" tags in the lead section that it makes the article very hard to read. Going to the other extreme, in the "Trustees" section we have a completely unwiki'd list of names - and unless any of those people are notable in and of themselves, what's the point in listing them all? And so on and so forth... so, my suggestion would be that this article be stripped right down, leaving only properly referenced material, and then further material added when (and only when) it is accompanied by citations. Loganberry (Talk) 02:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Article looks much better now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Looking at the references to Christopher Story under the "criticism" section, they seem to be an unacceptable synthesis. The anonymous worldreports.org piece doesn't seem particularly reliable as a source, and only mentions him in passing. The first refernece to Brian Gerrish is cited to a blog, which is clearly also unacceptable, and the same applies to amateur footage, whether on Google Video or the BNP website, even had the latter not been deleted already. I am therefore deleted this paragraph until someone can come up with reliable sources. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: CP is not a 'not-for-profit charity', it's a private organization that charges thousands for its courses. This should be noted in the article. Unfortunately, due to blacklisting of the CP site, these prices are much harder to source, even though a quick look at the site reveals that the claim that CP is a 'charity' is a myth. Whenever I make the necessary and unbiased changes, pro-CP users quickly revert the article to its 100% positive, biased form.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.130.99 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 January 2011
:The Charity Commission lists it as a charity, so it is clearly legally a charity. (The charity accounts include Common Purpose UK.). Rwendland (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You just need to find and properly cite reliable sources (generally good editorially checked newspapers of reviewed academic sources) for any additions. I don't mind criticism added, but it needs the usual Wikipedia standard of citing to show notability and verifiability. Rwendland (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

text: 203.219.69.226, this page is about what Common Purpose UK provably is, not what you think it is. I would note that running paid courses does not somehow invalidate CPUK's charitable status, as you seem to think, and in fact it is far from unique in this respect. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Eton has an easy alternative intro "Eton is a school ...". It is normal to start with something like "Org_x is a Country (company | school | charity | newspaper | something_similar ) ...". If we don't use "charity" for this article, what else do we use? "non-profit organisation" is a possibility, but I don't really think that is an improvement. Rwendland (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Charity' 

message: I note a few phrases in this article have been lifted pretty much word for word from the source that is cited. The idea of using sources is that they support a statement made in the article. The article shouldn't simply reproduce what the source says word for word as this could present copyright issues and the style may not be completely appropriate for Wikipedia. Examples include the sentence starting "Mark Cowgill..." which has been directly copied from The Guardian's article, and the two sentences which start "The format for Common Purpose is...". This will need to be reworded a at the very least. Adambro (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I have now twice removed the following text:
:"Common Purpose UK has also come under attack from Libertarians, who accuse the charity of being part of 'New World Order' and 'Agenda 21'  . The main critic is a retired former Rear Gunner with the Navy, Lt. Cdr. Brian Gerrish. Despite his accusations, Common Purpose have not (to date) brought charges against him, which could be seen as strange as most of his criticisms of Common Purpose are quite damning."
The cited reference is nothing more than a copy of an old version of this page on SCribd, so therefore is not acceptable for anything. The attempt to validate Gerrish's claims that CP have not actually gone to the not inconsiderable expense of suing him is preposterous.
The link to www.stopcp.com has previously been removed, as it is clearly a conspiracy theory site that makes numerous potentially libellous claims. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions by Adam.king11 

message: Isn't is suspicious that cpexposed.com have stated that they were subject to legal proceedings over copyright infringement rather than criminal wrongdoing as is alleged in the official statement (http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/governance/trustee-statement)? What is also suspicious is that the statement made on cpexposed.com does not match the official CP statement in that officially, they said that they would talk to people who are involved and ask them to remove potentially libellous content before persuing legal action. Rather, they contacted the ISP of the website owner and had it shut down over "copyright infringement," rather than genuine criminal libel. For a cult like $cientology, i can understand these tactics, although condoning such acts is criminal. The use of dodgy copyright claims is extremely harmful to any group purporting to have charitable status, and if the allegations are true then the website owner was acting in the public interest and CP should lose its status as a charity. CP does only help the rich anyway, and I am disgusted that the Charity Commision could accept such a charity. Lets see if CP is the new Co$-style cult. My IP is here, everyone can see you watching this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.176.165 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further questions regarding this 

message: The topic of "Common Purpose" was brought up today so I went looking for more information. When I saw that there was a wikipedia page on the topic I hoped to get a rounded overview of the subject. However the first half of the page felt decidedly like an advert despite the smattering of citations therein. --Lord Matt (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activities: Reads like advert 

message: In the 'Further Reading' section there are five links: three of which are to Guardian articles. That is hardly a balanced further-reading section; especially since The Guardian was extensively quoted in the article itself.
There's also a lot of talk about "conspiracy theories" in this Wiki piece, which may be justified to some extent. Nonetheless, if Common Purpose were commonly seen as a "right-wing" organisation, my bet is that it would be The Guardian that would be doing much of the conspiracy theorising, especially since this is its speciality in other areas.
Again, if the argument is against a Common Purpose conspiracy, it doesn't help the argument one bit to include so many links to Guardian articles. It just seems counterproductive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Further Reading' Section 

message: If an organisation has many members in many institutions (from academia to government and local councils), it doesn't need to be "secret" as such. If an organisation has political power and influence (or at least if at least some of its members do), it doesn't need to be secret in order to have a pernicious - or indeed a positive - influence.
Likewise with the words "conspiracy theories". Theories or views about Common Purpose don't need to include any references to any "secret" dealings or events if such an organisation has political power and influence; which it does have.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 06:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Press coverage" Section 

message: As mentioned by others above, but not currently addressed, it seems odd that there is no explicit reference to CP's apparent left-leaning slant (other than one passing mention in the Press section). E.g. CP's site has a whole section about 'cultural intelligence' here , meaning support for multiculturalism, a well-known left-wing obsession. 90.198.224.197 (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the main article the group are defended by The Guardian and New Statesman, two heavily left wing media groups. All it needed was the BBC and their left wing credentials would have been proved. (84.236.152.71 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly for you, such synthesis is not acceptable. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Luckily any editor can revert your biased changes. You pejoratively labeling certain publications "left wing" in a section that does not equally label the Mail, Sun, and Telegraph as "right wing" is blatantly POV and absolutely unacceptable. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Left-leaning again

message: Many of the sources for claims given in this article turn out to be from videos promoting CP or interviews with the founder of CP or otherwise originating from CP in the form of press statements, press releases etc. Are there no reliable third party sources about the organization's aims and activities (or about criticisms of the organization, for that matter)? Comments from individuals' blogs are scarcely encyclopaedic.--Smerus (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common Purpose UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100219233300/http://www.teachernet.gov.uk:80/teachingandlearning/resourcematerials/charities/ to http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/resourcematerials/charities/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120302124346/http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk/leaders-public-voluntary-sector to http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk/leaders-public-voluntary-sector
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common Purpose UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091007031058/http://www.equalities.gov.uk:80/pdf/296596_GEO_Diversity_CommonPurpose_acc.pdf to http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/296596_GEO_Diversity_CommonPurpose_acc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common Purpose UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713031437/http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=10&storycode=4123305&c=2 to http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=10&storycode=4123305&c=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Common Purpose UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921040912/http://director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2008/11%20November/strategy_62_4.html to http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2008/11%20November/strategy_62_4.html
*Added  tag to http://www.tedxeastend.com/juliamiddleton/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello Wikipedians
I am an independent education technologist based in SA. I had an invitation from common purpose to attend an event entitled “Leadership Teaser:  21 May 2024”, which I accepted. There were a number of locals on the Zoom call. I see that Common Purpose, Times Higher Education and NAFASA have collaborated on a course called “International Education Professional Certificate”. I have added a short paragraph describing this course, to the Common Purpose page. I hope that it does not sound like an endorsement. I have not signed up for it, as it is far to expensive for me. Derek J Moore (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Purposes Course - IEPC