Talk:Grassroots fundraising

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CandyMelara, Meklit7, Hallers16, Jellyfishjazzy, Kmoran350, JuanEsquivelNIU, Gio 12 17. Peer reviewers: Cooldudeeli, Dinomtn4, Zahraniu2018, Tblack12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR
Grassroots fundraising is not mentioned in either of the articles cited as sources. The fundraising efforts may have utilized a grassroots movement, but as it stands this article violates WP:OR, specifically, WP:SYNTH. Burzmali (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the tagging. Now, intuitively, I do think that there's a link between the topics here and so this article may be worthwhile, but I'd like to see better sources to confirm this, so this doesn't come off as an "opinion" piece. --Elonka 18:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I put up this article mainly as a way to deal with issues emerging from the moneybomb page. I mention this on that article's talk page. I was hoping other editors would quickly strengthen this article. However, all the same, I've added two sources for both campaigns where the term is used explicitly or clearly associates the two terms.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even with those additions, none of the articles actually address "What is grassroots fundraising?" and, more importantly, "Why is it anything more than a footnote on Campaign financing?" Burzmali (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I found some interesting sites that explain grassroots fundraising but they all refer to its use for non-profit groups, as opposed to campaign finance.
 * Would those be sufficient, provided the introduction changed a little?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can work those into the article that would be great, but linking it to Paul and Dean still breaks WP:SYNTH if you can't source it. Burzmali (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I already have a source for both of them where that link is made. Do you think those sites I gave above would serve better as references or just external links?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have sourced that they have done fundraising that you have decided should be called grassroots fundraising based on the accounts of grassrootks fundraising from unrelated sources. Thats WP:SYNTH.  Burzmali (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I said before, sources were given for both candidates. They're references one and three for the article: Both say the candidates used grassroots fundraising.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

<--- reset indent The Dean article does, but the Paul article only say that he is running a grassroots campaign, and he is successfully fund raising. It does not mention the specific concept of grassroots fundraising. Burzmali (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not explicitly use that exact term with those two sides right by it but it does say this: he spends his free time at the helm of the grassroots Web site that conspired in online chat forums and meetup groups to send a fundraising bomb in support of Paul.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I shake a glass of milk have I made a milkshake? That's why WP:SYNTH interprets what you are doing is OR.  If the concept is simply the overlap of the concepts of fundraising and grassroots campaigning, I would argue that this article is redundant and the information should be added instead to the Fundraising, Grassroots and the respective campaign articles.  Burzmali (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What a stupid analogy. Mentioning someone setting up a grassroots site for a fundraiser and saying that is grassroots fundraising is not synthesis. It's basic logic. How can a grassroots website be set up for a fundraiser without being grassroots fundraising? It is fundraising set up by grassroots.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am making a milk shake by shaking milk. Baseball players score home runs by running to home plate.  But hey, this article is a WP:COATRACK already so the OR isn't the only concern.  Do we need a third opinion on this?  Burzmali (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't make a milk shake by shaking milk and they don't score home runs by running to home plate. It seems you like to cite the policy, but don't really understand what it says. A grassroots website being set up for fundraising is grassroots fundraising because it is fundraising set up by grassroots. There's no original research or unpublished synthesis there.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommend move
Now that I've weighed available sources deeper, with the benefit of distance, it appears "grassroots fundraising" would be expected to refer to any nonprofit or charitable organization, while the thrust of the current content relates only to politics. Accordingly I recommend moving to "political grassroots fundraising", and then populating "grassroots fundraising" with references such as grassrootsfundraising.org (the Grassroots Fundraising Journal) plus a summary and link of the political article. Because this article was originally created as an overflow of moneybomb content, the controversy appears dead now and this move should not be problematic. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the wikippropriate way of doing it would be to have it listed as Grassroots fundraising {politics}. I wouldn't object to such a move, though I think the usage for NPOs and such is not nearly as notable. Grassroots fundraising is usually a reference to political fundraising.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the title suggests some general views on an important aspect of "Political funding", the article is far too U.S. specific and puts too much emphasis on current events. What about the good old Telethons or mass fundraising via direct mailings by the RNC in the 1980s or yard sales to raise funds for local candidates? Because of its great title this article needs and deserves a lot of additionasl input! Khnassmacher (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grassroots fundraising. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080719223425/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/06/post_184.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/06/post_184.html

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) 18:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Article tips.
The introduction of the article needs a source to back up the claim of those stated politicians using grassroots fundraising. Elijah B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldudeeli (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

class review
Very informative article, needs more sources though.Cooldudeeli (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is very well organized and informative. However, lacks further connection to anything besides American political campaigns. This article would benefit from additional sources that place its foundation and influence globally. One would need to provide additional research into the origins and classifications behind what consists of grassroots fundraising. Gio 12 17 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

NNGO 350 Review
The first section (Strategies of Grassroots Fundraising) features several spelling and grammatical errors, and should be cleaned up considerably. Overall, the article seems to be prone to being influenced by editors' personal views and opinions (specifically the segments about lobby groups and Ron Paul's campaign). This can be remedied by increased citation, and from simply more objective editing.

DylanSchweizer (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Candy's Peer Review
I like how organized, connected and informative your edits. Your selection of sources, and adding links, PDF, and citing for all the provided information. I believe adding more information about the history and dates of establishments, founders, of the Grassroots fundraising will help understand it better, in addition, visual or pictures can help the visual audience understand your point better.(Zahraniu2018 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)).