Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Non-partisan?

CREW is kind of a joke... someone making a list of corrupt congressmen and women that doesn't put Alcee Hastings on there must be a hack. It would be nice if they actually were non-partisan, but sadly, this isn't the case. --198.185.18.207 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alcee Hastings was convicted in 1989 and removed as a judge by the U.S. Senate. He was elected to the House in 1992 by folks who apparently weren't bothered by that. What would be the point of CREW including him? They're focusing on folks who have NOT been punished for corruption, and whose alleged ethical issues are RECENT.
I'd appreciate your listing other Democrats who you think should be included in CREW's list - thanks! John Broughton | Talk 16:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement regarding whether this group is effectively non-partisan (official group pronouncements aside). Therefore, I am removing the "non-partisan" category from the article until consensus can be achieved on the talk page. --TrustTruth 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The group is not officially aligned with any political party. Unless you have evidence which demonstrates that they are, the category stays in. Nonpartisan does not mean non-political. FCYTravis 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on the reasoning in the article you cited, CREW is technically a nonpartisan organization but functions as an adjunct of the Democratic Party. The fact that the organization was founded by Melanie Sloan, a well-known Democratic political operative (and former staffer to two Democrat senators) only strengthens the case that CREW is not, for all intents and purposes, non-partisan. I have added the category to the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coalition, and to the NAACP. Depending on how editors respond to that, I may or may not agree with you. --TrustTruth 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Americans for Fair Taxation is a conservative interest group which overwhelmingly supports Republicans while pushing for a national sales tax. Be that as it may, it is not officially linked with any political party and is thus also properly placed in the nonpartisan category. I agree with your placements. None are officially linked with political party groups. FCYTravis 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The POV in this article is ridiculous - how could anyone write this thinking they are writing in a NPOV manner. What you say about it being a Democrat organisation for attacking Republicans may be true, but surely you can present this in a better manner - like not beginning with the sentence "[CREW] is a far-left fascist Washington, DC-based organization", and then doing the old quotation mark thing ("they say this but as you can see they are lying") around "progressive". - Matthew238 05:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew - what you're commenting on is (in my opinion) a VANDALIZED version of the page; the page was changed by an anonymous user, User:69.218.203.51, one minute before you stuck the POV tag on it. So it's not like the page that you saw represents any kind of consensus. (As to how "anyone" could write this - well, the world's a big place, and on a bell curve, there are always a few folks way out at the edges.)
I don't think it's actually that useful to comment about transitory, trash edits on a talk/discussion page, nor to stick a POV tag on articles which have (essentially) been vandalized. The better course is to simply fix (revert) the article, as FCYTravis did. John Broughton | Talk 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I didn't know it was a vandalised edit; you sometimes come accross people who write actual article in that way. - Matthew238 05:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Someone put an NPOV tag on the article with no discussion as to why (after the vandalism discussion discussed above was resolved). Accordingly, I removed it.207.69.137.205 04:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

hahaha. Ok this is ridiculous. I'm deleting the entire section about Diane Feinstein. -Laikalynx 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Beyonddelay.jpg

Image:Beyonddelay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest.

This article is in need of a rewrite. An employee of CREW has rewritten the article removing all criticism. I don't think it should be reverted completely to the version prior to the conflict of interest write up, but it does need to be re-written. Arzel 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Those edits took too much from the article with no justification. I have reverted them en masse. Even so, the NPOV tag still applies. --TrustTruth 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of background on director

First of all, I am ambivilent about this organization, and I am not a Republican. That being said, editors continue to delete background information on the CREW director. The background had no citation when it was deleted again this morning, so I researched it and added citations from MSNBC, the Washington Post, and even Joseph & Valerie Wilson's legal defense website. However, the background was again deleted, along with the citations, with no real justification. I will now restore the background. Again, I am ambivilent about CREW. But I do feel strongly about maintaining NPOV. Thanks. --TrustTruth 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider FrontPage to be a reliable source. Furthermore, the word "operative" has a distinctly negative connotation, inferring links to espionage or other underhanded activities. The article already states the fact that Sloan was an aide to a pair of Democratic lawmakers. We can allow readers to draw their own conclusions from that. FCYTravis 00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on FrontPage; I didn't realize that was still in there. I have restored some of the information you deleted last time and reorganized the article a bit. I don't agree with you on the 'operative' word, but I'm not going to fight you on it. I don't think it has a negative connotation. The critical thing, I think, about putting the Plame connection on the list of cases vs. in Sloan's bio is whether her involvement is separate from CREW, or if it is an official CREW activity. Based on what I've read, it is separate. Feel free to prove me wrong. --TrustTruth 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)