Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

message: The following confusing text was in the article, and I first tried to fix it by referring to the cited sources -- then brought it here for discussion.  I'd like to be clear on what it is we're trying to convey to the reader with this paragraph:
::In a March 2011 New York Times article about conservative issue-advocacy group American Crossroads, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan stated (about an American Crossroads initiative) “It is incredibly ironic that Crossroads wants to take [sic] about openness when they are highly secretive..."[36] For example, when contacted by The Weekly Standard for information on CREW's own sources of funding, CREW communications director Garrett Russo responded that "CREW does not discuss its donors," and upon further prodding, "CREW does not discuss its donors," and "That's about all I can tell you."[37]
It appears to be inserted into our article to "criticize" CREW in some way, but I'm not sure what that criticism is.  Sloan commented on the irony that Karl Rove's group was demanding transparency while not being transparent itself, and Michael Warren of the Weekly Standard agrees that Rove's group, CREW, etc., are legally allowed to keep donor lists secret. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Public perception

message: At the style guideline WP:DASH we are instructed not to use two hyphens to stand for an en dash. Binksternet (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted my edit and replaced your en dashes.  En dashes do look much better than two hyphens.  Veriss (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  En dashes 

message: Could someone with the time replace footnotes (4-10)that refer to a part of the topic with footnotes to the related original text original.
The paragraph  and the footnotes I copied below.  They all mention the CREW lists, but the footnotes do NOT take you to the lists and at least some of the lists are available as I found the one I want for 2006 on Google.
Since Santorum and CREW lists are NOW in the news, it should be improved SOON.
"CREW’s Most Corrupt"
CREW has published seven annual reports since 2005 of the politicians that CREW identifies as the most corrupt members of Congress. The 2005 report included 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats;[4] the 2006 report included 17 Republicans and 3 Democrats;[5] the 2007 report included 18 Republicans and 4 Democrats;[6]; the 2008 report included 17 Republicans and 7 Democrats;[7] the 2009 report included 7 Republicans and 8 Democrats;[8] the 2010 report included 16 Republicans and 10 Democrats;[9] the 2011 report included 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.[10]
4^ "Ethically Challenged?". Roll Call. 27 September 2005. 
5 ^ O'Brien, Tim (28 September 2006). "Sweeney official admits `error'". The Times Union. http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=6360686. Retrieved 15 June 2011. 
6^ Warner, Bob (19 September 2007). "Murtha is on list of 'corrupt'". The Philadelphia Daily News. 
7 ^ "The Buzz". Sacramento Bee. 12 September 2008. 
8 ^ Spillman, Benjamin (16 September 2009). "Watchdog group adds Ensign to list". Las Vegas Review-Journal. http://www.lvrj.com/news/Watchdog-group-adds-Ensign-to-list.html. Retrieved 15 June 2011. 
9 ^ "Group takes bipartisan slap at La. senators". The Associated Press State & Local Wire. 13 October 2010. http://www.wwltv.com/news/politics/Landrieu-Vitter-make-list-of-most-corrupt-members-of-Congress-104880049.html. Retrieved 15 June 2011. 
10^ Boyle, Matthew (20 September 2011). "CREW names ‘most corrupt members of Congress,’ critics raise questions". The Daily Caller. http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/crew-names-%E2%80%98most-corrupt-members-of-congress%E2%80%99-critics-raise-questions/. Retrieved 21 September 2011.
I Googled "crew most corrupt 2006" and got this, so the original listings should be available
<http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report>
Areader2 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is exactly the problem........the list changes every year and we are WP:NOTNEWS. We don't jump on something just because it is in the news at the moment. See WP:RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   Footnotes 

message: The description of CREW as "non-partisan" in the lede does not match the rest of the article, CREW's founding, or CREW's current description of itself.  
Based on the article itself, the organization was founded to be “a counter-weight to conservative watchdog groups.” More recently, as the article notes, “current Democratic activist David Brock was elected chairman of CREW’s board.” The longest section of the article is titled “allegations of partisanship.”
CREW itself does not describe itself as “non-partisan” in its “About Us” section on its website. Similarly, a 501(c)(3) organization does not equate with non-partisanship (it simply means “it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”).
While the article does not state it clearly, it appears the “non-partisan” description comes from CREW's inclusion of “25 Democrats and 63 Republicans” on its list of most corrupt politicians since 2005. However, CREW has not published one of those lists since 2013.
Pin go (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't oppose it. When you say you're there to be a watchdog against one side, you stop being non-partisan. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

text: *When you say you're there to be a watchdog against one side, and that side is a political party, you stop being non-partisan.  CREW is non-partisan.  It says so in their mission statement (still present in our article), and in its description of itself in its press releases here, for example, and in its overview description here, and is routinely referred to as such in reliable sources, as in here.  In addition, it is a 501(c)(3) organization in good standing, which it would not be if it participated in partisan activities, per IRS regulations.  For a detailed explanation of what constitutes partisan activity, this is a good source -- granted, it is complicated and nuanced set of rules, but can be summarized as "an organization that is operated for the benefit of private parties, including political entities, rather than for the benefit of the public will not qualify as an IRC 501(c)(3) organization."  I've returned the appropriate descriptor. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "CREW is non-partisan. It says so in their mission statement (still present in our article), and in its description of itself in its press releases here, for example, and in its overview description here, and is routinely referred to as such in reliable sources, as in here.  In addition, it is a 501(c)(3) organization in good standing, which it would not be if it participated in partisan activities, per IRS regulations." @Xenophrenic -- are you kidding me? You believe everything in its mission statement? Seriously. anyway, what matters is not verbiage but actions, and CREW's history is that of partisan ("progressive") conduct and actions. Quis separabit? 05:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Rms125a@hotmail.com, reliable sources is what matters, and a bit of careful reading couldn't hurt, either.  If CREW's status has been revoked, you'll have to provide evidence for me to review, before removing the nonpartisan descriptor. (And FYI: "progressive" isn't a party, although there are progressive parties - but CREW is not affiliated with them.)  Alternatively, we could raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and try to generate more input on the matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "non-partisan" from lede 

message: The addition of Category:Foreign Members of the Royal Society by User:The$park seems baseless and confusing. The addition of Category:Non_State_Actor (also by User:The$park) seems bizarre. Is every NGO, corporation, organization, glee club and individual supposed to be tagged with this? 2001:4998:EFFD:519:54AD:F184:595A:2C42 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just glee clubs, I think.  Regardless, categories should first be supported in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre Categories 

message: It would seem to me, that with the Washington Post and the New York Times calling them "liberal," Wikipedia shouldn't have any problem calling them that. Their recent filings have been nearly all anti-Republican. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should refer to them as what they are, and nothing more.  Defining them as "liberal" could be seen as unnecessary puffery. As for your assertion that their "recent filings have been nearly all anti-Republican", I'd be interested in seeing the reliable sources making that claim.  (I'm fairly certain their filings are "anti-corruption", and I'm fairly certain "she is a Republican!" is not sufficient grounds for filing.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal, Conservative, Nonpartisan, Nonprofit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20151202225914/http%3A//www.citizensforethics.org/pages/mission to http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/mission
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130414112615/http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/family-affair-report-reveals-nepotism-abuse-in-congress/ to http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/family-affair-report-reveals-nepotism-abuse-in-congress/
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) 07:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120905201513/http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/about to http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/about
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130719153401/http://www.sulphurdailynews.com/article/20100923/NEWS/309239969 to http://www.sulphurdailynews.com/article/20100923/NEWS/309239969
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705063158/http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt to http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt
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) 09:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've reverted this this edit, which purports to remove content per the essay WP:MISSION and per the essay WP:COPYQUOTE.  But the content removed was neither the subject's mission statement (it was, instead, a no longer used statement presented for historical context) nor was it a non-fair use of a minimal quotation.  Perhaps the editor's concerns could be better expressed here?  Xenophrenic (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Our copyright policy is clear: "Articles...may...use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" (Ital. mine) WP:NFCCP. The content you added comprises almost 40% of the source. That is not fair use. Your addition is a copyvio.– Lionel(talk) 02:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Our copyright policy is indeed clear: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."  I disagree that the excerpt does not qualify as fair use.  The content I returned to the article comprises less than .01% of the source (the website), and less than 30% of that specific webpage from the website (which can be further reduced by citing other pages from their first months of operation, i.e.; link).  But I don't think copyvio is the real concern motivating the deletion of the content here, otherwise a briefer (or paraphrased) replacement would have been proposed instead of wholesale deletion. No? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why it's important to feature such a large chunk of a mission statement that's not even the current mission statement. I think it should be removed. Marquardtika (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I can help your understanding.  Back in 2008, media sources made a bit of a clamor over CREW's evolving mission statement (led by Singer's Roll Call article, which is featured prominently in its very own sub-header).  Rather than pick and choose between which old and/or new mission statements to display, and to avoid the WP:OR speculation over why certain statements were changed or dropped, the brief original mission statement was simply included verbatim.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text: To be clear, I see no reason why the section can't be improved and updated (and I now note that instead of a 'mission statement', they instead have greatly expanded 'Who We Are/What We Do' sections).  Have any ideas?  My initial comment here was simply to note my objection to the grounds given for the cited content deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This massive coverage in the article to a 3 year span in the life of a mission statement sourced to only 1 reference is the epitome of WP:UNDUE. Not to mention this "scandal" happened more than 10 years ago. Not to mention--and most importantly--this is a copyright violation NFCCP. – Lionel(talk) 18:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Lionelt, it is not a violation of WP:NFC.  As for your assertion that the content is undue, I'm not seeing "massive coverage", but at least you have grounds for a weak case.  But taking your queue, may I assume you would be okay with removing the whole "Daily Caller" section (10 years old, cited to the very same one source, and just as "massive") as the epitome of undue?  Xenophrenic (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

text: IMO, the existing "mission" section prose perfectly adequately represents the shift in the organization's mission without the need for the verbose block quote. We have a good encyclopedic summary, so no need to quote heavily from the primary material. Marquardtika (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I somewhat agree with you, especially after seeing some of the very same verbiage contained in the box-quote appearing in the adjacent paragraph as well.  And framing of quotes should be reserved for information that is vital and still current.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits (Feb 2018) 

message: Why are we using an archive of a 2012 mission statement in the lede? CREW has a newer mission statement available. Marquardtika (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that we have a citation because a citation was requested.  Citations in the LEAD can probably be removed as unnecessary, as long as the content in the lead is already cited in the body of the article.  Fun fact: we currently have citations in our article to the various evolving mission statements from 2003, 2012, 2015, and Present.  Each is probably relevant to the content for which they were cited. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated mission statement 

message: Is it worth adding their case(s) on this?  AndrewRT(Talk) 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump 14th Amendment