Talk:Common Cause

message: I added the Non-Compliant and Advertisement tags (wasn't sure which was the best, so I put both up). The article reads like marketing from a website/brochure, and as such is not NPOV. For example, the section "Election Reform Agenda" is copied from Common Cause website . I think the problem is obvious if you glance through the piece, especially the use of "we". Vudicarus 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "we" is not, of course, the only problem. There should be no section of an article on an organization copied from that organization's website. XINOPH | TALK 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Compliant / Advertisement

message: User 216.64.80.226 vandalized the page and I reverted to the previous version edited by you. Unfortunately, my edit summary got truncated so that it looks as if I attributed the vandalism to you. Vudicarus 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am taking a crack at editing this mess of an article.  I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of Common Cause. (I am a registered Democrat; see my badly designed userpage).  Bearian 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry Kpws8

message: It has been noted that the IP address 208.201.146.137 currently has a reverse DNS entry of "cause2.commoncause.org", and that a number of edits to this article have been coming from that IP. Several editors (I among them) have been reverting these edits, in general as conflict of interest. Studerby 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a real problem.  — Athaenara ✉ 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Added COI/N archive 14.  — Athaenara ✉ 06:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest edits

message: Maybe there some additional material can be found through Special:Whatlinkshere/Common Cause.  (SEWilco 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly related 

message: Much of the information blanket-deleted on the basis that it came from the Common Cause website was still factual and NPOV. For instance: "Common Cause is a nationwide membership organization with members in all 50 states. It has 35 state chapters which lobby their legislatures as well as an active Washington, D.C. lobbying team." I think people were too over-zealous in deleting information, basically leaving the article as a stub with little historical information. Phaedrus79 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest edits removed NPOV information

message: Most members of Common Cause try mightily to avoid being labeled as they are a process organization and generally do not deal with policy.   They avoid partisanship.  
I see a reference to the Washington Post reportedly describing Common Cause as "Liberal" but when I checked the link, it simply connects with the Washington Post homepage.  So I question the validity of the statement which is not properly referenced.
The article does go on to define the 'process' issues which are the focus of the organization.   The number of 'policy' issues addressed by Common Cause are very narrow: ie.'the Bottle Bill' (pertaining to the recycling of glass bottles.   
It is also clear that Common Cause has an extensive history of forming broad coalitions to promote 'process' reforms.
So I would recommend that the Wiki Editors modify the first paragraph's second sentence which define Common Cause as a liberal organization and Common Cause resists ideological labeling and I think the article--right of the bat--inaccurately labels this organization without proper citation.  
Thus the article appears to be biased as it prejudices the Reader without proper citation.  75.6.247.87 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement used is that the Washington Post refers to Common Cause as liberal; the statement does not say that Common Cause is liberal.  The WaPo article is not available freely online.  It is available through paid databases such as Lexis-Nexis.  I can quote the relevant parts of the article if you would like. Wikipedia policy states that free online access to a source is not necessary for inclusion. Drrll (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I would support moving it out of the opening paragraph.  Where do you suggest it go? Drrll (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed that sentence.  This article being as basic as it is, I'm not sure there's a place for it unless someone wants to write a section fleshing out the perceived ideology of the group.  I'm not an expert on the group (nor a member), but I understand them to be widely perceived as genuinely nonpartisan, so I think that citation without any context or an opposing viewpoint does more harm than good.  Note that I forgot to log in before I made the edit; it was me.  Statyk (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it back, modifying a section name.  There are other Washington Post news pieces describing them this way, such as http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501370.html .  Please add other sources if you find some that contradict this characterization. Drrll (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: There are other online newspaper sources that describe the organization as nonpartisan.  I agree with Statyk - the liberal label does not belong in the opening sentence.  Neither does a nonpartisan label.  These types of labels are more opinion than fact.  Better to let the reader come to their own conclusion.  If someone thinks this info is important for the article, the Controversy section would be a more suitable place.  --Mcp92 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: IS PROCESS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?

message: I removed the reference to "conservatives" in this head.  No evidence is cited of generalized activism against any group, as the heading implied. Only one case was cited, and could as easily been characterized as "activism against supreme court justices," or activism against men over 60."Elinde7994 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "Against Conservatives" from "Activism" head--the activism had no obvious link to the targets' political leanings. 

message: I removed the one entry in the criticism section because it seemed  non-substantive , thereby removing the entire criticism section. The citation supporting it was a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and a response from Common Cause. This did not seem like criticism worthy enough for an entry. Instead, it seemed like a prank that was played on Common Cause. Rather than a criticism, I think it fit more into the category of a "manufactroversy." I realize deleting sections like this can be controversial, so I'm happy to hear other opinions. Ideally, if the organization had faced more substantive criticism, such instances would make sense for this section.  Ahuertas (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of critcism section 

message: has removed the reliably sourced "liberal" from the first sentence (source here, representative of many) and replaced it with "nonpartisan" based on Common Cause's own website. This is a pretty blatant violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. "Liberal" is verifiable based on reliable sources, "nonpartisan" is not--at least, not based on the subject's website. Nitsuj88 claims that "nonpartisan" satisfies all five parts of WP:ABOUTSELF, but this is incorrect, as "nonpartisan" is clearly self-serving. In addition a single organization can be both nonpartisan and liberal, so no reason has been given why Common Cause shouldn't be labeled as liberal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that not only has this been fully discussed here, but that at the completion of the previous discussion an editor who is a veteran admin weighed in supporting the "liberal" formulation in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence: "liberal" vs "nonpartisan" 

message: Redistricting
The organization has sought to end the practice of gerrymanderinghttp://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/. In 2016 they filed a lawsuit in North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of district maps.http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-lawsuit-too-much-party-bias-in-north-carolina-2016aug05-story.html The organization's North Carolina chapter has led a campaign to create a nonpartisan redistricting process which has bipartisan support in the statehttp://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article10873580.html.
Jlittlew (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I've performed this edit for you. st170e 15:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Hi , thanks for your edit request. I do appreciate the effort that you've put into this, but I do have a few concerns. As a COI editor, you will of course face much harsher criticism of your work as you have to fight between neutrality and your company's views. However, I do believe that the edit that you're proposing is too promotional and not conforming to a neutral point of view. Describing the organisation as 'outspoken' isn't neutral. Instead, you should aim for more neutral words as it subconsciously portrays the organisation as 'the good guys'. Although you have a long list of references (which need formatted), you need to re-word it entirely so that it's entirely neutral. There are facts there, but they aren't portrayed in a neutral way. All the best, st170e 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Please don't overwrite. You can copy and paste parts of the old one, if that's easier. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with . You can use the same information that you've posted but just make it sound a lot more neutral. Post it below when you're finished with the edit request template again. You can also ping me or contact me on my talk page if you'd like further input. All the best, st170e 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  looks like another editor has edited that section and cleaned up the references. How does it look now?  Thanks again. Jlittlew (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting adding a new section: "Redistricting" under "Activities" 

message: I'd like to raise the issue of whether three recent edits removing content set forth below should be reinstated:
Coh848en (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it follows logically that just becuase a link is dead or a page removed from an organization's website, the information automatically becomes "outdated" or "irrelevant." Could you provide some justification that the list of coalition parters, which was accessible via a viable link not even two weeks ago, is necessarily "outdated" or "irrelevant" beyond the fact that the webpage was removed? The much more likely explanation for CC removing the coalition partners page is that they decided that information wasn't needed on the website anymore; I highly doubt that within the last two weeks, CC suddenly dropped all ties and connections with each one of those multiple organizations. And if that were the case, I would, of course, be glad to update this page with a citation to an article addressing such a change of heart by the organization. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to a Wikipedia authority that states that if only one reliable source cites something, it is grounds for removal? I don't think editors should be in the business of picking apart the veritability of claims made by the sources cited by reliable sources, either. If that was the case, I think it would be hard to cite anything in Wikipedia without risking getting it removed. Your arguments may have  merit if they were found in the substantive content of another published article, but even so, the content would not be removed - rather, the alternative viewpoint would be added to provide balance. Furthermore, removal of the ALEC material and Common Cause Magazine material has not been addressed, so I maintain that that content be reinstated as well. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text: *  before I respond to your further points, I noticed your edits in Wikipedia have only been to the Common Cause page. It looks like you have a lot of knowledge about the organization. Do you happen to have any affiliation with them? It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

text: *  Would you care to expound on how you have become so familiar with their work, and why you have taken such an interest in the subject matter to have joined Wikipedia to edit the article? Thanks. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinstatement of certain reverted edits

message: As multiple reliable sources - NYT and Politico to name two - describe Common Cause as liberal, anyone seeking to remove this descriptor should first participate on this talk page and provide their justification. The most recent edit (which I just reverted) citing CC as "non-partisan" is sourced from CC's own website, and that is a self-published source so it's not as reliable as the NYT or Politico. Please seek WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page before re-adding any material. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory descriptor