Talk:Restore the Fourth

It's not non-partisan
The restore the fourth group is decidedly partisan. It's pro-Rand Paul, anti-Obama. The group is heavily promoted on the Rand Paul websites. Rand Paul has endorsed the group.

http://www.randpaulreview.com/2013/06/senator-rand-paul-addresses-reddit-coms-restore-the-fourth-movement/


 * Sen. Rand Paul has endorsed Restore the Fourth, not vice versa. kencf0618 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm their National Chair, and I voted for President Obama in 2012. The group involves a wide spectrum of progressive and libertarian people. Marthews (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not relevant. See our verifiability policy. If you want to include that RTF is nonpartisan then you have to find a reliable source that says so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You cite to an endorsement of our movement by Rand Paul, not an endorsement of Rand Paul by our movement. We're open to endorsement by (almost) anyone, as is proper for a nonpartisan movement. Our press coverage in major publications has not used the word "nonpartisan" - I've checked - but has not made us out to be partisan either. Our work shows that we do not have a partisan agenda. For example, our scorecard at www.DecideTheFuture.org grades legislators strictly by their voting records on surveillance issues, and there are Republicans and Democrats who score A+s as well as Fs. You will search in vain for any statement by any of our chapters endorsing any presidential candidate in particular, though obviously some (like Paul and Sanders) are better on our issues than others (like Christie or Rubio). That's all to be expected. Marthews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.210.204 (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Since when is the US Constitution "partisan" ?
To get back to the "original intent" of the Constitution can be Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, or Liberal; even Libertarian or Green. For example, Liberals and Conservatives both do not like the government spying on citizen eMail to an intrusive extent. Hence the protest against the NSA Utah Data Center by a small group of Restore the Fourth people. and "The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Concluding what is reasonable is at the center of the national debate over the NSA's data seizure ..." according to the protestors today. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please guys, this is NOT how Wikipedia works. You find a reliable source that says the organization is nonpartisan, then we say it's nonpartisan. You don't, we don't. It's that simple. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the wisdom, N.Strauss! Here is one from a Google-search.  I just picked the first one of several at the top: "The protest was part of the non-partisan Restore the Fourth movement"  — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)  Why would anyone assume the Fourth Amendment is partisan?

WP:PROMOTION
This article smacks of promotion. I propose its deletion. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What they are promoting is the US Constitution, Fourth Amendment. It is a viable movement that catches the wave of anti-surveillance sentiment in America and also the world.  Give it a week or two. I oppose deletion of this article. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, what's they're promoting is the organization. Hence the heavy reliance on their own website. I don't care how politically or legally agreeable their cause might be or how "viable" their movement is. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose they are promoting both. The page is still important, in-my-humble-opinion, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)  So let's make it non-promotional, (not me, though.)

Merge proposal
I propose this article be merged into Global surveillance disclosure. There hasn't been coverage of this organization for months and in my view it should be seen from a historical perspective as part of the reaction to the disclosures. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah that article's huge Anonymouscoward2421 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)