Talk:Public Interest Research Group/Archives/2020/September

Requested edit
Hello there my name is Dan Cook. I am a paid editor hired to improve the main Public Interest Research Group article and others related to it. I would like to request a quick fix to the first paragraph of the History section. The reason for the request is that the two citations at the end of the graph--5 & 6--have been left out, leaving only the numbers. My suggestion is to NOT include 5, because it does not support any information in the graph, but to add in 6, which does. So my COI edit request is as follows: Thanks in advance for your assistance. DanDavidCook (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ – Thjarkur (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I will put future requests on the talk page. DanDavidCook (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

COI editor requests discussion of describing PIRG as “liberal”
Hello editors User:Marquardtika, User:Dr._Van_Nostrand, User:Spintendo, User:%C3%9Ejarkur, and User:Some1. (And any other editors who see this note.) I am Dan Cook, and I am being paid by PIRG to edit this article. Because all of you have edited this article, I am hoping you will participate in this discussion. We would like to discuss how to describe PIRG in the opening paragraph, specifically, the use of the word liberal to describe PIRG’s political agenda.

The organization's position is that its advocacy is neither liberal nor conservative. It also believes that no similar term generally associated with a political party or politician accurately describes PIRG. Rather, PIRG advocates on behalf of the welfare of consumers (payday loan legislation, toy safety laws, lemon laws), public health (maintaining the effectiveness of antibiotics, opposing youth vaping), and wise use of public resources (state budget transparency, stopping unneeded highway expansions). (A more detailed list of its initiatives can be found in the second paragraph of the PIRG article under the subhead Policy Positions, which we plan to propose to revise to include more examples. A much broader and more representative list of priorities can be found on the organization’s website.)

But if the organization does not believe liberal is an accurate descriptor, what does it propose for the initial paragraph that would help readers quickly understand what it does in a general way?

We reviewed the Wikipedia articles of several organizations similar to PIRG to find out whether they were described as “liberal” and, if not, how they were described in the first paragraph. Among them were the Consumer Reports, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Food and Water Watch. None were defined as liberal or conservative, but rather were described by what they advocated for.

We suggest that a description similar to the following would more accurately describe PIRG:

'''Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) are a federation of U.S. and Canadian[1] non-profit organizations that employ grassroots organizing and direct advocacy on issues such as consumer protection, public health and transportation. The PIRGs are closely affiliated with the Fund for the Public Interest, which conducts fundraising and canvassing on their behalf.'''

We would really value your input on this description so that a full discussion of the description can take place and consensus among neutral parties can be reached. We will, of course, abide by your consensus decision. DanDavidCook (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but mainly because "affecting liberal change" is far too vague. The proposed version is more descriptive, so ✅ – Thjarkur (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Thjarkur! One small addition: the word advocacy should follow the word direct in the description. Do you mind implementing that as well? DanDavidCook (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thjarkur (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)