Talk:Stand for Children
|WikiProject Oregon||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
I'm also concerned about nonprofit executive salaries, but honestly don't feel comfortable with how Stand employee salaries are currently presented in this article because (a) is it notable,(b) it seems like it was copy-pasted from the IRS filing, and (c) is it fair to list an individual's compensation, especially without any context? I reviewed the DonorsChoose article referenced in the edit section explaining why it should be included ("Added Salary information. Common practice, see donorschoose.org."), but it seems there is some disagreement on the DonorsChoose discussion page as to whether or not salary info is notable. Also, director compensation doesn't appear to be presented in other Wiki articles about nonprofit organizations (Planned Parenthood, the National Rifle Association, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the American Red Cross, etc). I'm considering re-writing this section and, if possible, would appreciate some guidance from the editor. I found Stand on Charity Navigator and can cite the organizaton's rating for context. It would be great to have advice on how to present this fairly. Thank you! --Bestsidesspringtime (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Bestsidesspringtime (talk | contribs) (14,519 bytes) (Undid original research written with an objective point of view and lacking inline citations (one link was simply incorrect))
Bestsidesspringtime wrote "Undid original research written with an objective point of view" Why would anyone undo objective research? Did you perhaps mean subjective? From dictionary.com objective-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. Subjective- pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
Deleting something because it is objective is wrong. Let's assume you meant subjective.
Bestsidesspringtime deleted the following: Although the Illinois Stand for Children Chapter is a newcomer to the Illinois political scene as of Fall of 2010, (Illinois is not listed as an affiliate state in their 2009 Annual report)they made the single largest political donation to a legislative candidate ever since contribution records were put online sixteen years ago. They donated $175,000 to Republican Ryan Higgins, who ran to replace retiring state Rep. Paul Froehlich (D-Schaumburg). It was just part of the $650,000 that this brand new organization pumped into the Fall 2010 election campaigns.
Which of the above statements is a subjective opinion? Which of the above statements are provable facts? I am certain that each statement is provable, and backed up by the links cited. The facts are not perhaps the most flattering facts, or the facts that the organization would like to emphasize, but they are all factual. It is true the inline references are not done correctly. So that was the only change needed, unless there is some other reason Bestsidesspringtime would delete facts that are unflattering to this organization. Elephantsgerald (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the edit summaries, you might want to contact Bestsidesspringtime (talk · contribs) directly. I bet it was a typo. I don't time to look over the disputed edits but be sure to read over WP:POV, just in case. Valfontis (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Valfontis. It was a typo... I did mean to write subjective. If it comes up and if it helps, I'd more more than happy to pull up my edits and show what read as subjective. In any event, I'll be more careful next time. Also, I never heard from Elephantsgerald so am assuming all is ok now. --Bestsidesspringtime (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Phrases like "mobilize citizen activists who care about children to fight for real changes in public education" don't really say anything meaningful but use biased language. Of course any "citizen activists" who "care about children" are good, right?
Other phrases, like "The organization fearlessly challenges the status quo" are simply marketing puffery.
Intro also talks about "changing the public educations system", but doesn't explain what this organization means by that -- there are many ways in which it could be changed. Is this organization really just for any change whatsoever, or are there some sort of policy tenets?
The criticism section also does not use neutral language, attempting to soften complaints with phrases like "Although a few people are upset about the process". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- The entire article reads like a press release. It smells as if someone has been grooming this for quite a long time. Rorybowman (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. & many of the citations come from the group itself. This article needs serious work. groupuscule (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
How do people feel about "Mission" & "Core Values" sections? As written they read like advertising. I'm undecided about simply deleting them and unsure of how they might be revised. groupuscule (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted this language which was all opinion and cited no sources. Left in mentions to large donors and questions about the organization's beginning in the Chicago: "Stand for Children Illinois claims to be a "grass roots" organization, but at public events, it turns out very few parents, teachers or supporters. One Chicago event was attended by two Illinois Stand staffers, one, single parent supporter, and around 30 union and community activists. Organizations that set up offices, buy influence among politicians with large campaign contributions and connections are colloquially known as "astro-turf" organizations. The term is a play on the fact that such groups attempt to present themselves as "grass roots", but are actually not rooted in the ground, and are artificial. Stand for Children's advocacy work for SB7, in conjunction with Rahm Emanuel, undoubtedly led to the very strike they and Emanuel sought to make impossible. Emanuel, thinking the union was chained, and that he was free to impose whatever demands he liked, provoked the strongest response from a teachers union anywhere in the country in decades. Many union activists called to congratulate Edelman when the strike was announced." March 5, 2013
It is not opinion at all. Those are facts, and a source is the article that is referenced. I happen to have been at the meeting, and can attest to those as facts. It would also be pretty naive to think that SB7 did not contribute to the strike -- a fact alluded to in the quote of David Benn, but only loosely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)