Talk:One Campaign

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): Jacobmolga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

1% increase
A 1% increase or an increase to 1%? The article seems to state both. 62.79.178.150 07:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remind me again why this article has an opinion section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.58.228 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

Dead Aid Controversy
This section used to say:

ONE also claim that Dambisa Moyo calls for people to "cut-off all aid"[20] to Africa despite Moyo stating that it is only Government to Government aid and not "emergency and charity-based aid" that she is referring to.

There is development assistance and there is emergency assistance. When people talk about aid, they generally refer to non-emergency aid. If Moyo is only in favour of "emergency and charity-based aid", then she is against aid from govenments, whether it's direct budget support or not. Aid from governments and aid are often used interchangeably. It is a matter of opinion whether ONE's characterisation is reasonable or not.

National Review Online questions whether donors would be happy that their money is being used to pay for attack ads and a campaign against Dambisa Moyo.[19]

This is opinion stated as fact: that their money is being used to pay for attack ads and a campaign against Dambisa Moyo. Some money, probably not a lot, is being spent on what One would probably describe their actions as an important defense of aid spending by governments. Part of One's core missions is to increase aid spending by governments, something which Moyo seems to be completely unaware of. Dead Aid has the potential and intent to undermine both public and political support for aid.

surrounding their recent high-profile attack on the African economist Dambisa Moyo

This is also a characterisation that is a matter of opinion.

I suspect that whoever wrote the controversy section didn't think it was a controversy at all, but rather that one side was right and One side was wrong.

Their tactics have also been called in to question given that they monitor Dambisa's schedule of press appearances and write letters to the hosts in advance of these.

This appears to be a straightforward conspiracy theory. If you watch the source, the Fox reporter refers to the One Campaign. Clearly the reporter was familiar with One's views. That's all you can deduce from the video. Neither Moyo nor the reporter say a word that backs up the quote above. Neither discuss let alone question One's tactics.

I've edited the section in an attempt to represent the controversy more fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.151.135 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable?
It seems that all of the information in this entry is just a copy of the ONE.Org web site and offers only one other Verifiable source and that to only a part of the article.

If Wikipedia is a place for free publicity (regardless of the "value" of the person or group seeking the publicity) then self-verification should be allowed for all and not just for the rich, the richer and the richest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billedward (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 March 2006

Disputed?
Is the campaign disputed by no one? Yes or no, I'd like to hear about it in the article. (Either response would be interesting.) And I agree: This really needs to be more than just propaganda from the website. -  El Americano ( dímelo ) 03:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bono??
Was this founded by Bono? --Gbleem 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No criticism?
I don't really see what this campaign is about. I know it's "ONE campaign to eliminate poverty", but all I see is wrist bands and celebrities. What is the plan? I hope someone will amend a criticism section to this article. --RITZ 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed much of the article
The article was basically a campaign webpage for ONE, which is not appropriate for wikipedia. I took out the huge lists of supporters, links to the website and other "how to get involved" pieces and tried to condense that into a small paragraph about the campaign's methods. We could really use some verified information on the campaign's impact on achieving its stated aim. Criticism of the campaign (good and bad) would also be a nice addition. May be we could build up some independent, reliable sources on the talk page that we can build the article from? -- Siobhan Hansa 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Undo of Previous Removal of much of the article
I agree that this page needs some major clean-up. However, I didn't think the fair way to handle was to just get rid of almost the entire page. I think the more proper thing was to ask for clean-up instead of just getting rid of it all. I suspected that foul play might have been involved since Bono was on American Idol tonight to plug the ONE Campaign. Why not just add one of those needs clean-up boxes? Ilxaau 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding the tag is just requesting another editor to do it. There are already concerns raised on this talk page that current editors have not responded to. Since I had the time why wouldn't I do it myself? I'd just like to say in my defense that my timing wasn't motivated by bad intent. I didn't realize Bono was on TV last night though that might explain the egregiously promotional edits that did bring me here.     In any case, this page is not a continuation of the campaign.  The current article needs the promotional material removing - which means the sections that plug engagement with the campaign, the long lists of supporters and the links to signup pages and other activities for stakeholders.  I appreciate that it is  good campaign, and there's a lot of value in it, but we're an encyclopedia.  We should be providing independent information about the campaign from a dispassionate angle.  What about my edits did you think were inappropriate?  -- Siobhan Hansa 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So I've started by removing the noncitation external links that were embedded within the text of the article and trimming the external links section so that it complies with our external links guidelines. I've also added a few fact tags in some places that would need independent sources to keep. But I don't actually think most of them should be kept anyway. I'd like to see us cut out the individual sections that read like a "here's how to get involved" script and have instead a section on campaign methods that briefly covers the networking aspect, use of individual and organizational "declarations" and use of celebrities; and a section that talks about actual impact (if we can find any sources, this kind of thing is notoriously difficult to demonstrate). If there are any major news articles that take a critical (in a good or bad way) look at the campaign, we should probably cover anything that they bring up too. The current lists of celebrities and cities makes for a spectacularly uninteresting article and really doesn't address the impact or history of the campaign at all. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This page needs some serious attention. It reads like a press page from the One Corporation. The fact is One is a lobby wing for big charity to pressure a 1% reallocation of federal budget into big charity. When I looked this article up on wikipedia I was hopeful it would explain what One is rather than just what their sales pitch is. Wikipedia is better than this. We should aim at an informative article about what One is, who they represent, and who the board and who does their lobby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs).

Since people seem to be failing to add information in an NPOV manner I'm going to stub this article until we can get some encyclopedic sources to build it back up. The current state of the article is totally unacceptable. This should not be a promotional piece - it needs to be neutral and encyclopedic. All additions will need to be supported by appropriate sources. -- SiobhanHansa 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a start. As I went through the article I realized that as much as plain verification, what we really need is good editorial judgment.  Much of the stuff I got rid of was basically press release stuff - It had references to reliable sources, but the info just wasn't encyclopedic.  A listing of well known supporters or of each time some celebrity has been televised talking about the campaign is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article. More clean up is still required, and additional encyclopedic information would be great.  I ha difficulty finding anythingon the organization's leadership and structure for a start. -- SiobhanHansa 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ONE Vote '08
The ONE Vote '08 page talk section redirects here. I've eliminated a paragraph from the ONE Vote '08 page that could be viewed as advertising, and now the page should be considered entirely factual and revolving around the goals/methods of the initiative.

Ben & Jerry's
A Ben and Jerry's near me is sponsoring One. Are all B+J stores doing this? If they are, that should be mentioned in this article. Tojo940 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bono Controversy
I removed the comments about Bono and his band, because it had nothing to do with One. I'm not saying that it's not valid criticism of the band, just not relevant to One. It also doesn't seem to be common within Wikipedia to list all advocates and criticism for activities unrelated to there actions within the organization. It might be interesting to see a list of contributers and how their world views are served by the organizations actions, but even that might get out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.121.136 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ONE Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713191857/http://www.abcnews.go.com:80/print?id=3266459 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3266459

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on ONE Campaign. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130122174256/http://www.one.org/us/inside-one/leadership/ to http://www.one.org/us/inside-one/leadership/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091007202604/http://www.hoover.org:80/multimedia/uk/48899787.html to http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/48899787.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Review
Each fact referenced does have adequate citations. Better sources are needed with the ONE campaign, especially with regard to American legislation and the legislation in Africa. The article is heavy on Bono and his contributions towards the ONE campaign. This weight on celebrity appearances is attributed to the increase in media towards high profile figures. Since there is a large media backing, there are more sources geared towards his contributions. A good proportion of the sources are from news outlets, which can also be attributed to the celebrity backing which attracts popular news sources. Around half of the citations are dead links, which could be updated to newer links that are attached to archived articles.

Jacobmolga (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ALLCAPS
This might sound like a dumb question, but why should't ONE be reduced from ALLCAPS to sentence or title case? Other than their own style preference, I don't see a reason for ALLCAPS. It's not an acronym, and as far as I can tell, doesn't stand for anything except for the word "one." I'd like to hear others' opinions on this, I'm scratching my head about it and wondering if I'm missing something. Thanks for reading. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you're correct, this isn't an acronym and it is counter WP:CAPS. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ONE Campaign. 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/20070929024222/http://www.saworship.com/article-page.php?ID=1213&Page=ministry.php to http://www.saworship.com/article-page.php?ID=1213&Page=ministry.php

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) 08:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename to "One (advocacy organization)"
I think the name of this article is a little out of date and is not reflective of the entire topic it is covering. The One Campaign was founded in 2004 and in 2007/2008, it merged with DATA in the US and took on the simplified name of One. If you look at their website, this is on their FAQ page: "ONE is made up of two legally distinct tax-exempt organizations that have been incorporated in the District of Columbia under US law: The ONE Campaign, which is recognised as a public charity under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code and which educates the public and raises awareness about extreme poverty around the globe and the progress being made against it through life-saving programs; and ONE Action, which is recognised under Section 501(c)4 of Internal Revenue Code and which presses lawmakers to support smart, effective policies and programs which are saving lives and helping those living in the world’s poorest countries lift themselves out of poverty."

If this article is meant to cover just the 501(c)3 charity, then the current article name is accurate. But it doesn't seem reasonable that only a segment of an NGO would be the topical focus of a Wikipedia article, but another segment of it would not. I wanted to see what others thought about renaming it to "One (advocacy organization)". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Gayle Smith
According to the article about Gayle Smith, she is no longer CEO of One. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)