Talk:Environment California

message: I have tried to wright this article several times. It originally was a PR stub put their by an employee of the organization.  That same individual has been removing subsequent entries. Richprentice (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I nearly also protected the article, since there's an edit war going on. I didn't, but I'll let half of you know why I've reverted to "the wrong version":
# Jimmihoffa's edits removed formatting (wikifying) and categories from the article.
# The edits also strayed from the subject of the article, Environment California, into FFPIR and PIRGs. The article should stay on the subject at hand and not devote significant space to other organizations.
# Least critically, the edits were not reversions of vandalism. Christopher Mann McKay's edits were good faith. The preferred approach to such situations - even under the rather rash approach of WP:BRD - is to now discuss the article and find consensus on how the article should appear. CMM has at least done this in his edit summaries (e.g., "deleted all text that is backed up by unreliable sources"), but it's now time for all parties to come to the discussion table and fix the article together.
Like I said, I nearly protected the article, but I'd like to see all parties involved willing to come to the discussion table voluntarily rather than forcing them to it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I reverted 

message: If we can not reach a concensus, then we will just have to leave it stripped bare. The criticism section is valid and I believe it should be in there.  Also did any one read the changes that Human growth and development did?  They really xhanged the article to give a balanced point of view.  Read this section:
"The book "Activism, Inc: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America" by Columbia University sociologist Dana Fisher, is based on an ethnographic study she did in a stratified random sample of fund canvass offices during the summer of 2003. Fisher charges the corporatized fundraising model (of which the Fund is an example) with mistreating idealistic young people by using them as interchangeable parts and providing them with insufficient training; Fisher also believes that the outsourcing of grassroots organizing by groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace to organizations like the Fund has led to the decay of grassroots infrastructure and opportunities for involvement on the left (A summary of this book can be found at: "http://www.sup.org/html/book_pages/0804752176/Press%20Release.pdf")
The Fund has created a website to respond to a few of the criticisms raised by the book: http://www.canvassingworks.org/. The site includes testimony by former Fund staff who have moved into leading roles in other progressive organizations and other progressive leaders, including U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (IL), Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, Dr. Woody Holton (Associate Professor of American history at the University of Richmond), and Randy Hayes of the Rainforest Action Network."
Somebody please tell me what is wrong with this and why it should not be in there.  We are talking about two legitimate sources and opposing points of view.  To not mention the criticism of the fund amounts to censorship, because there IS tons of criticism. AND almost every page this group has on Wikipedia is PR fluff written by fund employees to advertise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmihoffa (talk • contribs) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited information? 

message: If your removal of my citable info was legitamate, then in fact your uncitable information must be removed as well. If it has that 501c3 or 502c4 status- PROVE IT!!!! If they lobby on state national ets levels PROVE IT!!!!  I am giving you a chance to discuss these things here.  ALSO read the above as well.  I believe  the criticism belongs in there, but will wait to have discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmihoffa (talk • contribs) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nader is Citable (and now cited).  Read below as to why I removed uncited edits

message: I have made serious concessions on this, as I have allowed you to delete an entire body of work, mostly because you didn't like the content (or my citations). I will make this concession to you (an end this revert war) if we both can agree to have citable work only.  501c3 nonprofit is not cited.  The standard for wikipedia is "citatability". So If you can put that in with a credible reference I will have no problem with it.````Jimmihoffa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmihoffa (talk • contribs) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 501c3 status verified via independent source. Granted, I'm sure the assembly member used information from EC, but still, it wasn't published directly by EC or a controlled/-ing entity. —C.Fred (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed 501C3: (Please read) NOT CITED

message: I removed the labor section yet again (diff). As stated in my edit summary, using www.thefundovertimelawsuit.com as the sole citation is a blatant violation of WP:VER/WP:RS. Third party reliable sources are needed to prove the notability of the law suit. Organizations are subject to many lawsuits, but unless these suits recieve media coverage, they are not notable enough to include on Wikipedia. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the notability of the lawsuit, the text and link would be more appropriate in the Fund for Public Interest Research article as it's not specific to Environment California.  The lawsuit is "charging that the Fund for Public Interest Research (Fund) has a common practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its canvassers", it's not charging Environment California. –panda (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Legal documents are unacceptable primary sources. Such sources should only be used to describe themselves and to quote their authors, and should generally not be used where parties other than the author(s) are implicated. They should never be used when they contain negative information about parties other than the author(s), as they never qualify as reliable sources for such information. The reason is that (and this is the most important part, please consider this carefully) that anyone can generate such documents (see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)). Claims made in a legal proceeding don't need to be valid to become a legal document, they just need to be made, period. There is no editorial review, no peer review, no third-party analysis included in a legal document, only it's creator's opinions. Thus, it is no more reliable than a critic's blog, and should never be referenced except to quote the specifics of a legal proceeding where said proceeding is already referenced to a secondary reliable source.  Someguy1221 (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Wiki page on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) explicitly makes no claim that primary sources are assumed reliable: Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. And keep in mind that reliable sourcing is a guideline, not a policy. The actual policy in question, and the one that trumps any claim you might make for the legitimacy of this legal document under the reliable sources guideline is the neutral point of view policy. As I said in my above post, a legal document necessarily presents only a single point of view, without subjecting it to peer/editorial review or any form of fact-checking. It is no more reliable than the personal writings of a single individual, and should never be used to cite information that concerns more than just the author. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Further, content that is not covered by a reliable secondary source would not be considered noteworthy, in any event. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Labor section

message: You are right that the legal document says things that are a biased opinion. BUT the article on E.C. only states that the lawsuit does in fact exist (without taking sides sides on the lawsuits position). The standing fact that the lawsuit exists is undistorted by emotion or personal bias; it is "objective evidence".  I realize you have to be very careful with this, and I have been. If however you believe that the link directly to the lawsuit lends to article bias than I am fine with removing just the link. The link itself is not needed for credibility (the official stamp from the state of California might) as much as the fact that anyone can verify its existence because it is filed with the state of California with full disclosure. (By the logic that legal documents can not be used as Primary Sources, even the Declaration of Independance could not be referenced in an article about America!)
As for the notability (thanks for the link) Wikipedia states "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [11]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections". 
So I have met both the standards for verifiability and the notability issue does not apply here. Even if it did Wikipedia rules say to "Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors" rather than revert or delete.
:I use the notability guideline for a somewhat indirect purpose. The content in question is not directly related to the group, but is about a seperate but very related topic; a lawsuit filed against the group. If this seperate topic is itself not worthy of being an article, its presence in the parent article is called into question. If a fact is not citable to a reliable source, then it is usually not worth mentioning at all. As for the "objective evidence," the mere fact that a lawsuit exists grants no new understanding of the company, and is probably not worth noting, by itself. Mentioning anything contained in the lawsuit would possibly violated neutral point of view. And mere mention of the lawsuit can be considered violating neutral point of view. "The company has been sued", while making no unverifiable accusation, implies "the company is accused of doing something wrong." As for whether the link itself, it meets the second criterion (and essentially twelfth, as well) for "links to be avoided" in the external links guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the deletion process is mentioned just a few lines down from the tagging process. Tags are for when content seems to violate policy/guideline, or when such a violation is in disupute. When you are sure that content violates a policy or guideline, you are free to jump to deleting it, provided you openly discuss with anyone who disagrees (and be civil, and don't break 3RR, etc). Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Primary Sources and Notability 

message: As you can see in the two threads above, there is a disupte over inclusion of a lawsuit against the company. The only source for this lawsuit is the lawsuit itself (and a website dedicated to it). While I have no contention that the lawsuit's existence (and the fact it has made certain claims) is readily verifiable, I feel its mention is inappropriate. The lack of any secondary sources on the lawsuit prevent the presentation of any viewpoint on this other than that of those filing the suit. The opinions of any number of individuals, unbacked by the credibility of a reliable source, are granted undue weight by their mere mention. Further, the lack of secondary sources calls into question whether it's worth mentioning in any capacity at all; if no secondary sources have taken note, we probably shouldn't either. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heretofore independent RfC comment: NO! We use primary source only when secondary sources provide them with context and WP:WEIGHT. Anyone can file a law suit by paying some court fees, and including every lawsuit would be absurdly undue weight. This looks perilously close to original research to me. Come back when the press finds the lawsuit significant and prints stories on it. Cool Hand Luke 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on inclusion of lawsuit 

message: Since the last discussion, I have noted Someguy1221's objections and have modified the portion on the lawsuit considerably while also removing the contested link to the actual lawsuit document.  I also listed TWO primary sources instead of just one:  First I referenced the web page (put up by attorneys) that describes the lawsuits complaints, contains a press release, and has a PDF of the legal document itself. The second reference lists the federal Court it was filed with and the official filing number.
I also welcome comments on this subject!  I feel that the lawsuit is at least mentionable in one sentence (as it is now) due to the  
fact that it effects ALL current and former canvassers of Environment California. (The plaintiffs website claims it includes 30,000 canvassers- but I didn't put that in the article) It is also appropriately listed in an area about canvassing for Environment California.  Also please read my comments above Regarding Primary Sources and Notability. ````richprentice  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richprentice (talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications made 

message: I removed “citizen-based” because it really doesn’t mean anything at all. It is a word that seems to have been invented by FFPIR and is much too POV.  I also consider it a stretch to list new laws as “victories” for Environment California when it was actually legislators that did it (and other groups lobbied as well). Other minor changes were made to make less POV. I removed the “politics” section because it was redundant and moved the relevant contents up to “history”.
Not sure how to respond to this any other way.  Your changes have vastly narrowed the description on the issues that E.C. works on, so I'm going to rewrite some of those.  I'll try to rework what I called victories and see if you think it's neutral enough. Aagon (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you guys will both save yourselves a lot of trouble and wasted breath if you seek media coverage in reliable sources to form the basis of the article, and only use things like the environmentcalifornia.org web site to fill in factual details. -Pete (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits March 3rd 2008 

message: I see the preceding discussion of the citation to a lawsuit.  The most recent version of this page includes only one link -- that link directs you to the commercial page of a class action law firm.  It contains many self-serving commercially-oriented descriptions of lawsuits that the firm claims to have settled.  One must dig for the article on the alleged parent of Environment California.  It has no case number, no relevant information.  The lawyers' website therefore has been edited in the background and now the link only serves to boost their commercial presence and SEO.  Therefore, the arguments made in this talk page for keeping this entire discussion are no longer valid.  I recommend however that the entire reference be kept as someone may be able to find a link to an actual credible news source.  Without it, keeping the link to the law firm is just giving them free press for no information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltwolf (talk • contribs) 
:Maybe? The case is (was?) "Rich Prentice, et al. v. The Fund for Public Interest Research, Inc." Case No. C-06-7776 SC. Settlement filing can be read here, and there is one news report I could find here. As is typical, defendant denies any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. Maybe it's DUE, maybe not, I'm not going to express an opinion right now. But there you go. Information and stuff. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing citation that has been stripped of news-worthy content -- should entire paragraph be removed?