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. 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)


 * Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8 - sections 3 & 4
 * 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)
 * 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 : 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. — 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 Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.  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) —Preceding comment was added at 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you post your first paragraph (and any other comments you wish to add) to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.


 * I was also unware of Arnebeck until I did a wikipedia site search for instances where Common Cause and the 2004 election were both mentioned. The Arnebeck article describes him as "Chair of Legal Affairs Committee of Common Cause Ohio."  — Athaenara  ✉  00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I posted on the conflict of interest noticeboard.
 * The Cliff Arnebeck page specifically says "Cliff Arnebeck, representing a group of thirty-seven Ohio-resident voters, filed a lawsuit in Ohio Supreme Court contesting the U.S. presidential election. The lawsuit is known as 'Moss v. Bush'". I believe that it is misleading to draw a conclusion that because he is the Chair of Legal Affairs Committee at Common Cause Ohio that he only represents one organization. Especially when it mentions him representing a separate group. — Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I should point out as well that the original addition of the election category didn't open "floodgates for additional categories" in 2004. — Athaenara  ✉  00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IS PROCESS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?
Most members of Common Cause try mightily to avoid being labeled as they are a process organization and generally do not deal with policy. They avoid partisanship.

I see a reference to the Washington Post reportedly describing Common Cause as "Liberal" but when I checked the link, it simply connects with the Washington Post homepage. So I question the validity of the statement which is not properly referenced.

The article does go on to define the 'process' issues which are the focus of the organization. The number of 'policy' issues addressed by Common Cause are very narrow: ie.'the Bottle Bill' (pertaining to the recycling of glass bottles.

It is also clear that Common Cause has an extensive history of forming broad coalitions to promote 'process' reforms.

So I would recommend that the Wiki Editors modify the first paragraph's second sentence which define Common Cause as a liberal organization and Common Cause resists ideological labeling and I think the article--right of the bat--inaccurately labels this organization without proper citation.

Thus the article appears to be biased as it prejudices the Reader without proper citation. 75.6.247.87 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement used is that the Washington Post refers to Common Cause as liberal; the statement does not say that Common Cause is liberal. The WaPo article is not available freely online.  It is available through paid databases such as Lexis-Nexis.  I can quote the relevant parts of the article if you would like. Wikipedia policy states that free online access to a source is not necessary for inclusion. Drrll (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The quite from WaPo is this: "Eight organizations -- from liberal Common Cause to conservative Judicial Watch -- said the ethics committee has taken action on only five cases since 1997, when the panel ended an investigation of then- Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was forced to pay a $300,000 fine after the probe on charges he used charitable funds for political purposes." While that is indeed the Post calling the organization liberal in its own voice, I would argue strongly that such a throwaway statement (the purpose of which was to emphasize the non-partisan stance being taken) is not sufficient to prejudice the organization as "liberal" in the opening paragraph. It might be worthy of a mention further down in the article in a section about Common Causes' perceived ideology, but not the opening paragraph. The Washington Post did *once* call the group liberal, but many other sources at many other times have identified the group as non-partisan. That statement is misleading and should be removed, or at least moved out of the opening paragraph. Statyk (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support moving it out of the opening paragraph. Where do you suggest it go? Drrll (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed that sentence. This article being as basic as it is, I'm not sure there's a place for it unless someone wants to write a section fleshing out the perceived ideology of the group.  I'm not an expert on the group (nor a member), but I understand them to be widely perceived as genuinely nonpartisan, so I think that citation without any context or an opposing viewpoint does more harm than good.  Note that I forgot to log in before I made the edit; it was me.  Statyk (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it back, modifying a section name. There are other Washington Post news pieces describing them this way, such as http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501370.html .  Please add other sources if you find some that contradict this characterization. Drrll (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other online newspaper sources that describe the organization as nonpartisan. I agree with Statyk - the liberal label does not belong in the opening sentence.  Neither does a nonpartisan label.  These types of labels are more opinion than fact.  Better to let the reader come to their own conclusion.  If someone thinks this info is important for the article, the Controversy section would be a more suitable place.  --Mcp92 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

removed "Against Conservatives" from "Activism" head--the activism had no obvious link to the targets' political leanings.
I removed the reference to "conservatives" in this head. No evidence is cited of generalized activism against any group, as the heading implied. Only one case was cited, and could as easily been characterized as "activism against supreme court justices," or activism against men over 60."Elinde7994 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)elinde7994

Removal of critcism section
I removed the one entry in the criticism section because it seemed non-substantive, thereby removing the entire criticism section. The citation supporting it was a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and a response from Common Cause. This did not seem like criticism worthy enough for an entry. Instead, it seemed like a prank that was played on Common Cause. Rather than a criticism, I think it fit more into the category of a "manufactroversy." I realize deleting sections like this can be controversial, so I'm happy to hear other opinions. Ideally, if the organization had faced more substantive criticism, such instances would make sense for this section. Ahuertas (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions Verified by Reliable Sources
There are over 200 citations available in RS that describe Common Cause as "liberal". The New York Times, Washington Post, National Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, the list is endless. It is entirely appropriate and even required to accurately describe this organization in its article. It is its defining characteristic, if you believe the Washington Post and such.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and many other non-partisan, non-profits articles have a descriptive adjective in their lede. We have massive reliable sources for this. It is entirely appropriate to add this descriptor. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed extensively here and elsewhere. We don't add opinion (yours or a published writer's) and state it as if it were fact. This is particularly true when the group identifies as non-partisan and it is phrased as synthesis specifically to contradict them. There's already a (fairly extraneous) mention of how they're described in the article. There's no need to make that the very first thing we say abou them in the lede, as if that were the most notable thing about them. Please don't add it again without consensus. See WP:BRD for further guidelines. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's interesting. You assert that it doesn't matter that the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, USA Today, etc. state that this organization is liberal. You suggest that because it is (in your words) an opinion. This is flat wrong. None of those references are anything but straight news stories. There are hundreds of news stories, not opinion pieces, that describe it as a liberal organization. If multiple reliable sources state something as a fact in multiple articles we can not delete it because you think it is an opinion.


 * You suggest that because they are a self described "non-partisan" organization it is not right to describe them as liberal. It may come as a shock, but you can be non-partisan and liberal, you can also be non-partisan and conservative. Non-partisan means not being aligned with a "party". It doesn't foreclose falling somewhere on an idealogical spectrum, as this organization plainly does. WP:V applies here. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having had no responses to this discussion that valid references (NYT, WaPo, National Journal, etc) that are news stories (as opposed to opinion pieces) that explicitly refer to Common Cause as "liberal" for almost half a year I take it that there is little debate and will therefore add that descriptor. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are raft of academic sources for the use of the descriptor "liberal" as well. I am aware that this is piling on, but I intend to and can easily add a dozen academic references. These include Cambridge University, Princeton University, the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, Cal State, University of Tampa, Cambridge University (again), and Yale. Interestingly, one of the books is entirely about Commom Cause and is an in-depth study of the organization. It will add much to this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed extensively, not just in the context of this article but within many other articles in the political space. It doesn't matter how many people share that opinion, is still unprovable opinion and cannot be stated as fact.  Also, please be aware that as the editor seeking to add or restore this material, the burden is on you to get consensus which you have not done. The fact that you added something and it sat unnoticed for several months does not make it "stable."  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I should note that any number of other articles have descriptors that include "liberal" and "conservative" so I'm not sure how that statement helps or is accurate. We operate on Verifiability. Not only do straight news stories refer to this organization as liberal, large number of academic sources do as well. I'll add a few below,


 * Cambridge University Press
 * Cal State University
 * Princeton University Press
 * J. Richard Piper, University of Tampa
 * Cambridge University Press
 * Cambridge University Press
 * Houghton Mifflin
 * University of Pennsylvania Press
 * Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections By Larry J. Sabato
 * There are many additional academic sources but this is a beginning. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Capitalismojo. Loonymonkey's argument (that the "liberal" label is opinion and therefore unprovable) has no basis in policy or guidelines and directly contravenes WP:V and WP:TRUTH. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

First sentence: "liberal" vs "nonpartisan"
has removed the reliably sourced "liberal" from the first sentence (source here, representative of many) and replaced it with "nonpartisan" based on Common Cause's own website. This is a pretty blatant violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. "Liberal" is verifiable based on reliable sources, "nonpartisan" is not--at least, not based on the subject's website. Nitsuj88 claims that "nonpartisan" satisfies all five parts of WP:ABOUTSELF, but this is incorrect, as "nonpartisan" is clearly self-serving. In addition a single organization can be both nonpartisan and liberal, so no reason has been given why Common Cause shouldn't be labeled as liberal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I agree with everything wrote in the discussion thread above, so while you're responding to my arguments here you might as well respond to his/hers as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would note that not only has this been fully discussed here, but that at the completion of the previous discussion an editor who is a veteran admin weighed in supporting the "liberal" formulation in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Common Cause often criticizes both liberal and conservative politicians for allowing themselves to be influenced by large campaign donations. If I provide verifiable evidence, would that make it nonpartisan? Kchwe (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting additional content
Hello all - I work with Common Cause (see my userpage) and would like to see this article expanded to include more information about our activities, history, etc. I can provide articles and verifiable sources, but obviously I shouldn't be the one editing the page.

What is the best process to request an expansion of the page? Drop some articles about our campaigns and activities here?

Thank you Jlittlew (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, and thanks very much for declaring your affiliation with Common Cause. Please see Edit requests, where you'll find information on how to make edit requests. In short, you're on the right path--please post suggested content and sourcing here on the talk page with a request that other editors implement it, rather than editing the article yourself. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

First, my apologies for the long post below. If you want me to split it into different sections, I'm happy to do that.

Please reply if there is more context, or different sources, would be helpful.

Suggested content and sourcing: Adding a "States" section would be helpful -- each of the 35 state offices (http://www.commoncause.org/states/) have their own state-based policy priorities and campaigns. This is not currently reflected on the page. Here are some examples:

- Common Cause New Mexico's recent nonpartisan legislative scorecard: http://krwg.org/post/common-cause-new-mexico-releases-first-ever-legislative-summary-and-scorecard

- Common Cause of Wisconsin working to keep the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board: http://fox11online.com/news/elections/eliminating-nonpartisan-wisconsin-elections-board-considered and http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/01/12710/gop-injects-partisan-politics-gab-elections-board  and  http://www.thonline.com/news/article_5ca7f5de-a46e-11e5-ad17-c7cfff23579a.html and http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/national/political/story/2015/oct/24/wisconsgop-abolishes-john-doe-probes-seeks-ot/332334/

- Common Cause Maryland's work on redistricting reform http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-redistrict-20151103-story.html and  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/in-maryland-anti-gerrymandering-activists-take-message-to-their-target/2014/09/21/2f3dce36-4180-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html  and   http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/constitution-check-finally-a-test-of-partisan-gerrymandering/

- Common Cause North Carolina's campaign for the Judicial Public Financing program http://www.smokymountainnews.com/news/item/15628-republicans-ask-for-more-partisanship-on-ballots   and  redistricting reform  (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article10873580.html)

- Common Cause Connecticut's public campaign finance law  http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-karen-hobert-flynn-common-cause-president-20160613-story.html   and petition to CT Citizens Ethics Advisory Board for the State Insurance Commissioner to recuse herself from overseeing a proposed merger of her former employer   http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/wade_fires_back_at_critics/

- Common Cause New York's official complaint that New York Mayor Bill De Blasio's nonprofit "Campaign for One New York" violate the city charter and campaign finance law   (de Blaosio later shut down Campaign for One New York http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/nyregion/watchdog-group-asks-for-inquiry-into-nonprofits-tied-to-de-blasio.html?_r=0  and  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/common-investigation-de-blasio-funders-article-1.2540374 and http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/02/de-blasio-defends-his-nonprofits-amid-calls-for-investigation-031493 and http://nypost.com/2016/03/17/mayor-de-blasio-shuts-down-his-controversial-non-profit-fundraising-arm/

- Common Cause Rhode Island's biennial Legislative Scorecard http://www.golocalprov.com/news/common-cause-scorecard-how-did-each-senator-do

- Common Cause Indiana's work to reform judicial selection  http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/09/judge-rules-marion-county-judicial-election-system-unconstitutional/16977637/

- Common Cause Oregon's work on amending the state constitution and Multnomah County charter to allow for campaign contribution limits: http://www.bendbulletin.com/newsroomstafflist/3640518-151/activists-angle-for-oregon-campaign-finance-measures

- Common Cause Michigan's opposition to removing straight-party voting options in Michigan (which recently were held due to an injunction)  http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/08/house-panel-oks-eliminating-straight-party-voting/76982326/  and

- Common Cause California's work to put the Overturn Citizens United Act as a ballot measure in California: http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17746/20140722/californians-will-asked-november-ballot-whether-want-overturn-citizens-united.htm

- Common Cause Georgia's calls for investigation into potential violations of election day laws: http://www.wtoc.com/story/30484827/ga-secretary-of-states-office-to-investigate-illegal-election-day-campaigning-in-chatham-county

- Common Cause Massachusetts's successful campaign for public record reforms: http://baystatebanner.com/news/2015/nov/12/mas-broken-public-records-laws-targeted-pending-re/  and   http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/gov_charlie_baker_signs_public.html

The "Activities" section could be expanded with more thorough description of our work, including:

- Redistricting reform (commoncause.org/redistricting -- note that this page contains a unique resource that descriptions how each state draws congressional districts -- a dataset I believe no one else has). This includes the "Gerrymander Standard" writing competition: http://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/first-amendment-gerrymander-standard-writing-competition.html and urging the Census Bureau to count prisoners in home localities, not prisons

- Transparency and accountability of elected officials, including calling on President Obama to shut down Organizing for Action (https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/02/28/common-cause-calls-on-obama-to-pull-plug-on-nonprofit/)

- Ending gridlock in congress, including holds on public service nominees: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/23/public-service-nominees-become-pawns-in-political-squabbles

- Support of Net Neutrality: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Michael-Copps-former-FCC-commissioner-on-net-5626535.php

Other: Good background on early days of CC from this NYT obit of David Cohen, 2nd CC President http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/politics/david-cohen-pioneer-of-public-interest-lobbying-dies-at-79.html

Please let me know what else would be helpful.

[edited 8/8/16 with requested edit tag]

Jlittlew (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

OK this has been updated an added to the Conflict of Interest Request Board. I encourage anyone following this page to please either: 1) look at, and implement some of these suggested edits and / or 2) give me feedback on what will make requesting edits easier for other editors

Thank you! Jesse Jlittlew (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jesse, and thank you for your suggestions. It is usually expected that edit requests specifically state the exact wording of the sentences to be added to the article&mdash;be sure to avoid promotional phrases that attempt to persuade, rather than inform the reader. General suggestions like the ones you posted above are not unwelcome, but with a backlog of 120+ edit requests, editors will prioritize specific requests. In the case of this article, I would advise you to trim the number of suggestions you've made. Only include events where Common Cause was directly involved and had a noticeable impact. For example, Common Cause was behind the Indiana lawsuit concerning judicial elections, and I think that can be added. On the other hand, Common Cause was only tangentially involved with net neutrality, as I assume Copps only joined Common Cause after leaving the FCC.


 * Additionally, please summarize by topic. So for example, write along the lines of "One of Common Cause's goals is campaign finance reform. The organization's California branch did X, in North Carolina they did Y, and in Oregon they did Z." Hope this helps. Altamel (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting adding a new section: "Redistricting" under "Activities"
Redistricting

The organization has sought to end the practice of gerrymandering. In 2016 they filed a lawsuit in North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of district maps. The organization's North Carolina chapter has led a campaign to create a nonpartisan redistricting process which has bipartisan support in the state. Jlittlew (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Hi, I've performed this edit for you. st  170  e  15:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Coh848en (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)== Requesting the addition of new section under activities: "Ethics" ==

The organization seeks to hold elected officials as well as judges to high ethical standards and reduce conflicts of interest. During the 2016 presidential elections, Common Cause suggested that the Clinton Foundation would create ethics and conflict of interest challenges for Hillary Clinton should she become president. They criticized Hillary Clinton's plan to give Chelsea Clinton control of the Foundation and called for an independent audit and full disclosure of the Foundation's donors.

The public interest group also criticized Donald Trump on his refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential elections. The organization has been outspoken about the potential conflicts of interest from Mr. Trump's businesses and called for Mr. Trump to put his assets into a blind trust  instead of handing over control of his businesses to his children.

Jlittlew (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ Hi, thanks for your edit request. I do appreciate the effort that you've put into this, but I do have a few concerns. As a COI editor, you will of course face much harsher criticism of your work as you have to fight between neutrality and your company's views. However, I do believe that the edit that you're proposing is too promotional and not conforming to a neutral point of view. Describing the organisation as 'outspoken' isn't neutral. Instead, you should aim for more neutral words as it subconsciously portrays the organisation as 'the good guys'. Although you have a long list of references (which need formatted), you need to re-word it entirely so that it's entirely neutral. There are facts there, but they aren't portrayed in a neutral way. All the best, st  170  e  15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear, Thank you for your reply -- it is *very* helpful to get this kind of feedback, and your concerns make sense. I'll work to re-draft this, format the references correctly (I'm still new at this) and post it again here. Should I overwrite the original entry or post a new one? Thanks again, Jlittlew (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't overwrite. You can copy and paste parts of the old one, if that's easier. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with . You can use the same information that you've posted but just make it sound a lot more neutral. Post it below when you're finished with the edit request template again. You can also ping me or contact me on my talk page if you'd like further input. All the best, st  170  e  19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I reedited the section based on suggestions and fixed references.


 * looks like another editor has edited that section and cleaned up the references. How does it look now? Thanks again. Jlittlew (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reinstatement of certain reverted edits
I'd like to raise the issue of whether three recent edits removing content set forth below should be reinstated:

Coh848en (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Let's start from the beginning here. My only purpose is to develop an objective page that summarizes what Common Cause actually does, not what it doesn’t do. I don’t know why the other editor's content was added, but at best it's irrelevant and, along with the other attempts to label Common Cause as liberal, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish CC's reputation for political or ideological reasons.


 * Was removal of the list of coalition partners in this edit proper? According to WP:LR, "Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." In addition, the that broken link has an archived address here, so should that reversion be reinstated with this archived link?

Coh848en (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Why was the section added to begin with? The reason for removing it is that the “Partners” section is outdated, which is why it’s not on the CC website. There is no rule that outdated or irrelevant information should be used, whether those pages are retrievable from or not.


 * I do not think it follows logically that just becuase a link is dead or a page removed from an organization's website, the information automatically becomes "outdated" or "irrelevant." Could you provide some justification that the list of coalition parters, which was accessible via a viable link not even two weeks ago, is necessarily "outdated" or "irrelevant" beyond the fact that the webpage was removed? The much more likely explanation for CC removing the coalition partners page is that they decided that information wasn't needed on the website anymore; I highly doubt that within the last two weeks, CC suddenly dropped all ties and connections with each one of those multiple organizations. And if that were the case, I would, of course, be glad to update this page with a citation to an article addressing such a change of heart by the organization. It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

From other similar organizations, "coalition partners" isn't a common item to have on the page. As I understand it, Wikipedia strives to list only important matters on the page. Why would it be important in this case but not in others? It appeared to be an unnecessary dated addition that offered no benefit, wasn't important, and should be removed to keep the page clean and readable. I see history here on the talk page as well on the edits that items have been removed or edits rejected because they weren't notable enough. I'm trying to follow Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight. Coh848en (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Was this edit right to remove the minimum wage content? Based on the edit summary, the only reasoning for removing the minimum wage content was because "[t]hat citation is from one person with no evidence because CC doesn't do that stuff." According to WP:VERIFY, the source cited for this quotation is a reliable one. I don't think we should rely on an edit summary as justification for whether cited content is accurate or not.

Coh848en (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)This is not about removing minimum wage content. The full section removed was “Common Cause has sought to address climate change, gun control, student debt, and the minimum wage. Common Cause has also targeted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group, partially on the grounds that ALEC opposes climate change legislation.”

The only source for that claim is made in a National Review (clearly not a bastion of liberal thinking) article (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418021/common-causes-georgia-purge-ian-tuttle) The source for the quote was one of two members (a Republican and a Democrat) who were replaced on the Georgia Common Cause Board. The lead sentence in that National Review article is this: "Common Cause — “the original citizens’ lobby” — is “committed to . . . encouraging citizen participation in democracy.” Well, maybe not all citizens. Down in Georgia, where the nonpartisan, if generally left-leaning, Common Cause has been led by a balance of Left and Right, the national organization has just carried out a purge."

Even if CC addressed the issues one ousted Georgia CC board member claims, how does a change in leadership in Georgia rise to a regular activity of a national organization in 35 states? it doesn't.

According to Common Cause http://www.commoncause.org/about "Common Cause is a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process." And one National Review article mostly agrees.


 * Can you point me to a Wikipedia authority that states that if only one reliable source cites something, it is grounds for removal? I don't think editors should be in the business of picking apart the veritability of claims made by the sources cited by reliable sources, either. If that was the case, I think it would be hard to cite anything in Wikipedia without risking getting it removed. Your arguments may have merit if they were found in the substantive content of another published article, but even so, the content would not be removed - rather, the alternative viewpoint would be added to provide balance. Furthermore, removal of the ALEC material and Common Cause Magazine material has not been addressed, so I maintain that that content be reinstated as well. It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think to the standard of what is 'due weight.'

As far as a reliable source, in the National Review article you can find evidence of Common Cause advocating against ALEC but no evidence, beyond reporting in that article about the organization firing people in Georgia that they have involved in advocacy in these other issues. (Here's the removed citation again: “Common Cause has sought to address climate change, gun control, student debt, and the minimum wage. Common Cause has also targeted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group, partially on the grounds that ALEC opposes climate change legislation.”) There is/was no citation of this 'agenda' and I haven't been able to find something that corroborates that. Given the ample evidence in the media and on their own website of what Common Cause DOES do, it seems quite strange to include activities that aren't listed in the news or on their website, and seem to come from someone disgruntled (who knows, justifiably) about their treatment by the organization. Does seem to pass the verifiability test to me, but I'm new here, and would welcome additional help from other edits. I'll repeat what I wrote in the preface once again: My only purpose is to develop an objective page that summarizes what Common Cause actually DOES, not what it doesn’t do.Coh848en (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In this edit, content was removed becuase, according to the edit summary, it was not "newsworthy or representative of CC" and "[e]ven if it were relevant, the editor’s own source contradicts the claim that CC somehow condones what happened at the small rally: 'Common Cause Condemns Hate Remarks.'" Based on my reading, the fact that it was reported on by the Wall Street Journal would make it newsworthy, and there does not appear to be any language in the section as previously-written indicating that Common Cause condoned any of these remarks. Hence, shouldn't this edit be reinstated as well?

Coh848en (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)You're right, it may be newsworthy because the media loves conflict. This is in the Ethics section of the page, something that Common Cause does work on. So whether reported or not, one small rally, where a few protestors who may or may not have been affiliated with Common Cause, is not representative of a public interest organization or good government group that has been working in the policy arena ethics for 47 years. Furthermore, Common Cause condemned it. The source states "Common Cause Condemns Hate Remarks at SoCal Rally" : “A political watchdog group that organized a rally at a weekend meeting of conservative political donors near Palm Springs apologized Thursday for hateful comments made by some attendees that were videotaped by a conservative activist and circulated online… ‘We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form," Common Cause said in a statement.’ ”

It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * before I respond to your further points, I noticed your edits in Wikipedia have only been to the Common Cause page. It looks like you have a lot of knowledge about the organization. Do you happen to have any affiliation with them? It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope I know their work and I am interested in objective coverage of it.Coh848en (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you care to expound on how you have become so familiar with their work, and why you have taken such an interest in the subject matter to have joined Wikipedia to edit the article? Thanks. It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Introductory descriptor
As multiple reliable sources - NYT and Politico to name two - describe Common Cause as liberal, anyone seeking to remove this descriptor should first participate on this talk page and provide their justification. The most recent edit (which I just reverted) citing CC as "non-partisan" is sourced from CC's own website, and that is a self-published source so it's not as reliable as the NYT or Politico. Please seek WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page before re-adding any material. It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I find that to be factually incorrect. It certainly appears that AllinthePhrasing selected two articles from NYT and Politico because they labeled Common Cause "liberal" and then called that "multiple reliable sources." In fact, most of the articles cited in the References (and probably elsewhere), including at least five other NY Times articles and the one other Politico one, refrain from labelling Common Cause with any political label. That's because — as stated in the page edits below — "a group may be both liberal/conservative and nonpartisan. "Nonpartisan" means having no political party, not having no political view." In addition there is general agreement about Common Cause issue areas: voting and elections, money in politics and ethics, transparency, etc. These are mainstream, democratic small d values rooted in our Constitution. IMHO, it's only in the extreme partisan times we're living in that someone would portray those issues or the group that promotes them as left or right.

Secondly, I find the suggestion that from now on editors "participate in the talk page and provide justification,” interesting since it looks like they have already and the issue remains unresolved. See, for example, "liberal" vs "nonpartisan" and IS PROCESS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? or the justification for the last two page edits that AllinthePhrasing undid: 03:41, 13 April 2017‎ Neutrality (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,649 bytes) (-6)‎ . . ("while" is not appropriate because there is no inconsistency with the two clauses; a group may be both liberal/conservative and nonpartisan. "Nonpartisan" means having no political party, not having no political view.) 05:15, 7 April 2017‎ Alittlew (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,008 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (I deleted the word "liberal" in the description. Common Cause is non-partisan and indeed is currently being attacked by the far left for its position on a Constitutional convention.)

The latest it's AllinthePhrasing undos to these are somewhat contradictory any way: "Liberal advocacy group" in the opening sentence and "Sometimes identified as liberal[5] or liberal-leaning, Common Cause is nonpartisan... " in the first sentence in the second paragraph.

If this isn't enough "justification" then I suggest we get a moderator or whatever the procedure is to resolve this so we don't have to keep going back and forth. Coh848en (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the response I got for a moderated dispute resolution: "General close due to lack of response. If there are any remaining issues, discuss them on the article talk page. A request for moderated dispute resolution can be filed here, but only after extended inconclusive discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)" But I've been waiting a month to play by those rules so If I don't hear back then I guess I'll just have to make the edit the page again so it's at least consistent.Coh848en (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried to come up with a compromise solution for all the reasons above, but especially to avoid the conflict that CC was described as a "liberal advocacy group" in the opening sentence and then "Sometimes identified as liberal[5] or liberal-leaning, Common Cause is nonpartisan... " in the first sentence of the second paragraph. So I lost the first liberal — also because it says nothing about what they do — and kept the second as "Sometimes identified as liberal-leaning, Common Cause has also been identified as nonpartisan..." Even though I don't love it I think it's a reasonable compromise since most footnotes refrain from labelling Common Cause with any political label, but liberal or liberal leaning is at least sourced to two footnotes there. I hope this puts the labeling issue to rest.Coh848en (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)