Talk:Common Cause

Non-Compliant / Advertisement

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 [1]. I think the problem is obvious if you glance through the piece, especially the use of "we". Vudicarus 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sorry Kpws8

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)

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)

Conflict of interest edits

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)

• 208.201.146.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Common Cause
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8 - sections 3 & 4
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 14 - section 1

It is a real problem. — Athaenara ✉ 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Added COI/N archive 14. — Athaenara ✉ 06:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly related

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

Conflict of interest edits removed NPOV information

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)

Question about removal of category

To user Dbarnold1 (talk · contribs): why did you remove (in this edit) the Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities? — Athaenara ✉ 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The article has been in that category since 20:24, 27 December 2004 (UTC) when it was added by user Kevin Baas (talk · contribs). — Athaenara ✉ 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The category seemed irrelevant since the page does not address the issue of the 2004 presidential elections. It seems misleading if you are looking for info on the 2004 election to bring you to this page. You can add it back if you want. — Dbarnold1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. There is a discussion on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Common Cause article may need attention again. Your participation would be welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A site-specific google search (2004 election site:commoncause.org) indicates reasons why the category was originally added. I'll replace it. — Athaenara ✉ 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A site-specific google search on any political issue with site:commoncause.org brings up just as many references. I agree that the category is OK to add back, but under that reasoning countless additional categories, not all relevant, could be added. — Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, for example another search (2004 "presidential election" controversy OR irregularity site:commoncause.org) yields 15. [See also: Cliff Arnebeck article.] — Athaenara ✉ 22:38 & 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, and I hope you don't mind being asked, have you read the conflict of interest guideline? — Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a student volunteer for this organization. However, I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest that would require me to withdraw from editing this article. I volunteer for their media and democracy department, which I made sure to not comment on as to avoid bias. I also made sure to cite credible sources for each statement made, pulling only from the organization's website for the mission statement, membership/funding data, and only two references to issues.

On the category issue, it is my belief that that reasoning opens the flood gates for additional categories, many of which may be related to the page but not relevant. Example: (Democratic Party presidential primaries site:commoncause.org) yields 35 on Google, (Green Party site:commoncause.org) yields 47, (Political parties in California site:commoncause.org) yields 112, (State Political Party Chairs of the United States site:commoncause.org) yields 45. I was unaware of the reference from Cliff Arnebeck's article, however, his article addresses how he personally filed a lawsuit contesting the 2004 election. — Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs)