Talk:ONE Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U2 Portal
ONE Campaign is part of the U2 WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of U2 and U2-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
U2 WikiProject and notice board • U2 Portal

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)

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 03:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bono??

Was this founded by Bono? --Gbleem 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.