Talk:Brennan Center for Justice

message: This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a press release.
71.247.249.236 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brennan Center for Justice. 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/20081121195230/http://brennan.3cdn.net/6a990d231fa8ab0e67_q3m6b36nz.pdf to http://brennan.3cdn.net/6a990d231fa8ab0e67_q3m6b36nz.pdf
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) 05:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Quick question, how exactly can something be liberal or progressive but be nonpartisan? Isn't that a contradiction?
:It's not a contradiction because partisan refers to affiliation with a political party. Being nonpartisan means there is no affiliation with a political party. It doesn't mean there is no ideology (e.g. liberal or progressive)--just no official relationship with a political party. Marquardtika (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may not be a contradiction, but I don't see anything stating that this is a factual representation. I see a news story from CBS mentioning it as a 'liberal thank tank' and the other document notes that 'it is sometimes seen as' liberal/progressive but that it also has helped conservatives (i.e. John McCain getting on the GOP ballot). So I'm not sure stating that it unequivocally as a sourced article is valid; unless of course 'opinion' is enough to be cited as fact. 80.216.23.80 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a contradiction.  Reference wiki entries for partisan and nonpartisanism. Partisan says affiliation, where the nonpartisan entry refers to affiliation and bias.  The difference seems to stem from a disagreement between the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries.  The center itself does not claim partisan or nonpartisan status, but rather comes from the reference noted in the supporting article.  It is worth noting, however, that the referenced article states in the exact same sentence, that "the center is generally seen as espousing a progressive or liberal point of view" (and unless you demonstrate those ideologies are shared equally among parties then a bias exists).  Depending on which definition wins out, the entry should be revised to partisan the chosen definition should be propagated by revising other entries to explicitly state their non-partisan status.  NRA and Federalist society perhaps?  Given that the center does not claim one way or the other, the point should just be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3C8F:3400:90FF:FBFB:E925:E17F (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The center itself does claim non-partisan and many reference materials exist agreeing. There is no reputable source saying otherwise, there is an article that notes that it is 'generally seen as' but no actual data backing this comment up. As such, it barely deserves the mention it already has on the page. I'd propose we remove that comment altogether unless there is more than subjective text of an article that otherwise highlights their non-partisan work. Quote: 'The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute.'; source: Brennan Center About Page. Your comment about NRA and Federalist is just being sensationalist to highlight your own view; the Federalist wiki article already mentions their non-partisan claim and the criticisms/rebuttals directly as it actual has documented conflict, whereas the Brennan society does not. The NRA doesn't claim to be non-partisan, so likewise is irrelevant. Remember, this is Wikipedia not conserva-paedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.23.80 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The text about its liberal/progressive leanings is longstanding and is supported by several references. Ergo Sum  15:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk: affiliation 

message: , I would like an explanation as to why you reverted my edit. I looked through the sources in this article, and did not see any which demonstrate notability, as the ones which are reliable and independent are simple name drops. Could you please explain what references lead you to believe this subject is notable? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If deletion is desired, I think an AFD discussion would be the appropriate venue. Marquardtika (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone said anything about deletion. I'm talking about redirection to a parent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The policy WP:PAGEBLANKING governs this very action. It is against policy to blank a page as a form of deletion. To accomplish this, you must run it through the AFD process. Ergo Sum  01:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirection is not "page blanking". I asked a specific question and would like a specific answer, please. Which references lead you to believe that this subject is notable? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirecting this article without merging any of its content appeared to me to be deletion by redirection. And since the redirect was objected to by another editor, I recommended an AFD as a next step. Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is not deletion. I am still now, after asking several times, not clear which sources lead you to believe that this subject is notable. I am not looking for the article to be deleted, just redirected (with merge if desired), so I cannot file an AfD to ask for the article to not be deleted. Please list the sources which lead you to believe the article is notable, or any objection is invalid. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The page blanking policy is very clear. If you're not happy with two editors' interpretation of that policy and application to the present circumstances, I recommend obtaining a WP:3O or, as has been stated many times now, listed at AFD. I must advise that, having seen this precise dispute play out on several occasions, at either, you will get the same answer as you have already gotten. Ergo Sum  02:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I thought the subject was notable. That was another editor (Ergo Sum). But since you asked, I did a quick search and it looks to me like WP:ORGDEPTH is easily met. For example, this in-depth NYT article about a Brennan Center report on criminal justice reform. More coverage is found in The Hill, Time, and HuffPost. Marquardtika (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for revert explanation

message: — Assignment last updated by Jdoebler (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for proposing potentially controversial edits on the talk page before implementing them. While it would be good to have suitable images included in the article (perhaps of an event run by the Brennan Center), fundraising and other promotional text or links would most certainly run afoul of WP:NOTPROMO. Ergo Sum  19:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed content about becoming involved with the group via fundraising, etc. is not appropriate--that's the type of content one would expect to find on the group's own website, but not in an encyclopedic article. Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics