Jump to content

Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)
Being "not affiliated" and "non-partisal" are two different things. In fact, one can only prove not affiliation, while saying that someone is "partisan/non-partisal" is a subjective value judgement.--Sum (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think everyone can agree that CREW leans a little too the left, but this seems a little over the top. 1 June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.103 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been no modifications to the page in over a month since the last flurry of edits, which seemed to balance the article out. I'm removing the POV tag at the top of the page, but left the tag in the Politics section. Also edited the statement regarding why they are labeled liberal, as it is unsubstantiated conjecture. 216.15.24.185 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)

Partisan activism

The partisan political activism of this group and it's Director are obvious.[1] I think it's great that this group is keeping track of corruption in Washington, and calling individuals to account for wrongdoing. However, let's get real and call a Spade a "spade" here, while maintaining a NPOV. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

30 June 2008 Changes

The edits done on June 30th disabled some of this articles functions (see 30 June history first edit). It needs some additionsl input and editing. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Liberal"

Besides the news story reference I added from the Washington Post calling it a liberal organization, I also have references to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Roll Call all doing the same. Drrll (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been reported at WP:RSN.Mk5384 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Article has been dramatically changed on Sep 20 to make it appear as if they are a partisan organization, probably due to the publicity they're getting over the O'Donnell case. Someone has edited in several new paragraphs such as a listing of solely their democratic supporters in the attempt to undermine their charges against O'Donnell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.120.212 (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you deleted was from put in the article much earlier--not on Sept 20, and was well-sourced to non-conservative sources. Drrll (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Then why don't you include those sources?

You also quote a "Roll Call" article several times which has itself been exposed as having several factual inaccuracies. http://mediamatters.org/research/200802010004

The sources are there in the article. What specifically do you feel is unsourced? Roll Call is a respected reliable source. Media Matters' opinion of something does not trump a reliable source. They are self-described "progressive" and have a vested interest in protecting CREW as it is another "progressive" organization and has shared beginnings and funding. Drrll (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Their opinion is irrelevant. They point out that Roll Calls article is factually misleading. They are self-described as non-partisan. I can't find anywhere that they call themselves "progressive" other then right-wing websites. Most of the information in this article is simply a restatement of some groups opinion on "Crew" presented as fact. How about we stick to simply what is FACTUALLY verifiable concerning the organization and leave everything else out, particularly since this is going to be a "hot" wiki article in the coming weeks and months.

That's not how Wikipedia works. Reliable sources are what matters in WP. Media Matters can say what it wants about the Roll Call article, but reliable sources form the basis of WP articles. No, they do self-describe as "progressive": http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/ . Please give specifics as to what you feel is not "factually verfiable." Drrll (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing CREW, not Media Matters. Crew is self-described as "Non-partisan" not "progressive." Claiming that Crew has never taken action against Democrats is misleading as they have submitted requests to have the laws changed in order to close loopholes exploited by democrats. The Roll Call article also insinuates that the money preceded the investigations, implying that CREW was conducting investigations at the request of donors, which is factually inaccurate. In the part that was edited out, there was also a part that claimed that "crew refused to disclose its donors," followed by a list of "liberal" donors to crew... but without any actual citation.

The article didn't state that CREW has never taken action against Democrats; it stated that when it comes to actual formal complaints against Democrats (the most serious action they take), as opposed to other actions they take, "all but a handful...have targeted Republicans" (direct quote from the Roll Call article). But then the CREW article went on to discuss how that CREW filed a formal complaint against Democrats Mary Landrieu, and later, Gregory Meeks. Neither the Roll Call article nor the WP article imply that CREW conducted investigations at the request of donors; it simply stated that CREW "investigated 'groups and individuals who are foes of CREW's donors'", nothing more. That CREW "refused to disclose its donor list" is sourced to the Roll Call article. The donors listed in the WP article are sourced more than anything else in the article--to Roll Call, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
As far as the "we are progressive" quote, that is sourced to the Billings Gazette, although the footnote appeared in the sentence before the quote rather than after the quote as it should have been. Drrll (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that they are "sourced.." but if you actually check the links, they are all broken or link to articles that briefly mention "CREW" but don't contain any information about CREWS donors. Simply including a number with a citation at the end doesn't make it a source. Same with the "we are progressives" comment.. And clearly the article very strongly implies that they are conducting investigations at the request of donors.. TO suggest otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.

Deleted 2 changes. One stating that CREW is solely staffed by democrats, which isnt verifiable or sourced. The other states that the O'DOnnell complaint was made "so that democrats could gain the upper hand in the election" which is clearly opinion and borders on partisan vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.226.71 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only broken link was that to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, because CREW took down the article from their website. The replacement link is http://www.allbusiness.com/print/13032572-1-22eeq.html . The Roll Call article link is actually http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_85/news/21796-1.html?type=printer_friendly (it wasn't there before). The Washington Post link has always worked. All 3 articles do discuss CREW's donors and that's where the whole list comes from. If you go to the Billings Gazette link, you'll see the "we are progressive" quote. There is no implication of conducting investigations at the request of donors--only the question of whether CREW may target opponents of their donors. Drrll (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

From your same "Billings Gazette" article btw.. "Contrary to Republican charges, Seligman said her group has not received money from billionaire George Soros, who helped fund the unsuccessful 2004 push to unseat Bush." So you can't have it both ways. You can't use their article as a link to substantiate one claim, while ignoring the fact that it refutes another claim you're making in the same section. The intent of the Roll Call article is clear. The fact that you continue to debate that shows your intent.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.226.71 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Soros is not mentioned in the current version of this Wikipedia article. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That's fine to add the denial of Seligman, even though by itself it doesn't refute the claim. Drrll (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to an edit I made about 30 minutes ago. That section has been removed and added a few times today, though there is no evidence to support the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.226.71 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel West

crew'S recent representation of Lt.col West is full of lies and misstatements..see Lt.col. West's representation of the facts here..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnrIppYp8y4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.199.183 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I found this comment lost above the talk page infoboxes and created a section for it that is roughly in chronological order with the rest of the discussions. I did not alter any of the poster's text during the move nor do I personally endorse the comments, I am merely doing some light housekeeping. Veriss (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Investigations section

This section is broken. Why is there only one investigation listed of all the investigations and allegations concerning relevant high profile and powerful politicians that CREW has involved itself in. Furthermore, why is the only listed investigation an apparently failed and defenseless politician, Christine O'Donnell, who has never had any real power and is currently nothing more then a source of cheap jokes for late night comics and a straw man for certain partisans?

I recommend that we populate this section with discussion of investigations into politicians who are actually relevant or we get rid of it until someone is willing to make the section meaningful. I would delete the O'Donnell paragraph tonight but that would leave the section empty and I think the section is a valid component of an article about this organization if it is populated with useful and meaningful information. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: CREW Associate. Wholeheartedly agree, there have been numerous investigations/complaints filed vs both Dems and GOP, too many to name them all. I would suggest that an accounting of the most "well known" and their outcome would be more appropriate. 70.91.64.85 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

After 3 months I deleted the O'Donnell investigation and replaced the content with the Template:Empty section tag. Veriss (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite no reference to the site in the article and being edited out multiple times, a link to "Profile of CREW, at "A Guide to the Political Left", by the David Horowitz Freedom Center" continue to reappear in the external links section. DHFC is clearly not a NPOV source, its website states that they are "devoted to defining the left" and defining "the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.64.85 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the source is not an acceptable source. In the same vein, would you say that Media Matters for America is not an acceptable source and that CREW itself is not an acceptable source? BTW, I have to wonder if you are associated in some way with CREW, as you are located in northern Virginia and have almost exclusively edited CREW-related topics (including favorite target John Ensign). If you are, keep in mind that conflict of interest editing of articles in Wikipedia is highly discouraged. Drrll (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am associated with CREW, sorry I was ignorant of the proper etiquette regarding disclosure. As per the WP:COI page my edits have "exercise great caution" and primarily been of the "non-controversial" variety. We've steered clear of getting involved in the disputes that have been documented in the discussion area, because you guys have done a pretty good job of sorting them out.
I do have concern regarding the overall tone of the entry due to it primarily being a battleground of partisan/nonpartisan edits instead of a NPOV informative entry. Rather than focusing on activities of the organization, the entry is primarily focused on remarks made about the organization - the majority of which are negative, without any corresponding rebuttal (of which there is plenty.) Similar organizations such as Judicial Watch do not have a "Criticism" section or "Politics" section, nor a focus on the he said/she said of the organization. I'm not attempting to whitewash criticism, I would like to bring some balance. We work with, and receive praise/criticism, from both sides of the aisle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.64.85 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate you disclosing your association. The way you are handling the situation now--by asking for improvement of the article here on the talk page--is the way to go.
Please point out specific quotes from the Wikipedia article where you feel it is not following NPOV. If you believe that more material should be included about your organization's activities, please provide proposed text that you want in the article, along with supporting sources. As far as rebuttals, that shouldn't be a problem, again if you provide supporting sources. Sourcing to CREW itself is fine for most things, since the article is about CREW, but please keep in mind the policy WP:ABOUTSELF:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Because of that policy, rebuttals shouldn't come from CREW, but sources like The Washington Post. Please note that the vast majority of sources used in the article currently are not from sources that could be considered conservative.
I'm surprised that the Judicial Watch article doesn't include Politics or Criticism sections, since Wikipedia has plenty of editors who aren't politically aligned with the politics of Judicial Watch. Drrll (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Looks like someone used this to make the article.

What a crazy article. From this article a reader would learn almost nothing about what CREW actually does, but they get to hear over and over and over again every single news article citing them as "liberal". This probably needs rewriting from scratch. Gamaliel (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You know an uphill battle is ahead when you have to cite NPOV in a section titled NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Find some articles that support the opposing views and include them as sources. I have found that most POV debates get sorted very quickly once the sources are reviewed. Many of the articles that seem to paint CREW in a partisan light seem to come from media that has been historically sympathetic of the political left such as the WP, etc.. Veriss (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you read my initial comment. I'm not objecting on the basis of opposing views. I have no objection to citing them as liberal or progressive or whatever. I object to the lack of solid factual information in this article about what they actually do. Instead this article is filled with liberal liberal liberal liberal liberal liberal liberal liberal instead of information. Gamaliel (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, we need more sources from various view points presented and the POV of the article will naturally be sorted out. Veriss (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, I don't think you read my comment, because it wasn't about viewpoints, it was about facts. Gamaliel (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Why would you cite NPOV about a comment made in a discussion? My comments don't have to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)
It think you misunderstood my remark. I was trying to emphasize that whatever our opinions about CREW and its actions, our article must adhere to the core policy NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion and miscommunication here, perhaps because it is so late at night. I suggest we start this section over tomorrow. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more information in this article about CREW's activities. In the section above this one, I asked a CREW associate who complained about the article to provide proposed additions that cover their activities, along with sourcing. I also asked that they point out exactly what is not NPOV in the article. Drrll (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. There are some CREW complaints cited in the article about some media reports, perhaps they can point us to some secondary sources that they feel accurately portray CREW. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Observation: Ages ago (a few months ago in internet time), my view is that many editors felt this article was much too biased in the other direction. There were minor slow edit wars and new sources added and now we have this version which may be tilted a bit too far towards the right's view of the organization. I suspect there may be some undue weight discussing it's partisanship because of lack of content in other sections. I suggest the first place to start would be to populate the investigations section of the article since that would be the heart and fruit of their activities. Also, perhaps the politics and criticism sections can be merged and the order of the sections altered to place the politics and criticism after information about their activities. Veriss (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I took a first stab at reordering the sections. I am open to suggestions, please feel free tweak it. Veriss (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Your changes look good so far. I think you're right about WP:UNDUE with the amount of the discussion of politics and criticism without much discussion of their activities, and I like the idea of putting in stuff for the Investigations section. I see your point about merging the Politics and Criticism sections, but I think we should keep them separate, since putting in some of the material into a Criticism section would not be NPOV (e.g. the Hillary Clinton material). I think some of the Politics section could go into the Criticism section and I think we should transfer the various Roll Call material into the Politics and Criticism sections (it's not like Roll Call is a partisan critic of CREW--it is a relatively neutral news organization). Drrll (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I made over 40 edits last night attempting to balance the presentation and undue weight within the article. Most of my effort was toward adding information about their activities. What do people think of them? (Please address the chart issue separately in the new section below.) What else needs to be done to alleviate the NPOV concerns that led to the article being tagged? Veriss (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I like the changes you made. The only thing I wonder about is whether the list of the 26 Most Corrupt for 2010 should go in Reports instead of Investigations since they represent just who CREW thinks are the most corrupt as opposed to the instances where CREW actually formally filed complaints with the IRS, FEC, Congressional ethics organizations, etc. I think those formal complaints should go into the Investigations section. What do you think? I think once we get some more material into the Investigations and History sections we could remove the NPOV tag, but Gamaliel would be better suited to answer that since he placed the tag there. Drrll (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello again gentlemen, CREW associate here. I appreciate the edits of the past week, the entry is much improved. Thanks for focusing more on actions. I made 2 small factual edits; the 2010 report "Most Corrupt Candidates" was changed to "Crooked Candidates" - which was the actual name of the report, and Sen. Ensign was changed as being from TX to his home state of NV.
I'm attempting to stay out of the discussions re the Politics/Criticism section, but if you are looking for some specific sources I can help with that. One word regarding criticism, like a lot of political organizations praise/criticism comes depending on which side of the fence the commenter is standing on a specific issue. We've been hailed as "Great Americans" by conservatives when it helps them make a point, and assailed as "crazy" by libs when we have an opposing view. 70.91.64.85 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for limiting your edits to factual corrections. Please bring up specific issues you have with the article, along with your proposals for changes, including the sources, and we'll discuss them here. As far as sources, please provide some non-CREW sources that praise CREW, as well as sources that further expand on CREW's activities (most of those sources can be from the CREW website). Drrll (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
CREW Associate - Re sources: Since February, we've been keeping a running tally of CREW mentions in the MSM at http://www.delicious.com/citizensforethics if you guys want to pick through those. The 6th paragraph of the AP report here [[2]] said "[CREW] has a history of targeting members of Congress representing different races, philosophies and both major parties."
Conservative Senator Inhofe (R-OK) includes CREW Director Melanie Sloan on his list of 'Great Americans' in this video [[3]] for our work on earmark reform. Conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has brandish our work when going after the Obama admin's Education Dept [[4]] a subject which has brought us significant criticism from the left. Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, certainly not NPOV, has said "CREW may lean left, but they have indeed been equal opportunity when it comes to holding Democrats as well as Republicans accountable for ethics/corruption scandals." [[5]]
We've also called for prominent Democrats such as John Murtha [[6]] and Maxine Waters [[7]] to step down from committees because of investigations, as well as calling for both Charlie Rangel [[8]] and Anthony Weiner [[9]] - to resign. 70.91.64.85 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Jumping on the majority bandwagon doesn't strike me as terribly "non-partisan". Obama is suggesting Weiner should resign. CREW isn't exactly taking a controversial stance. And resigning from a committee isn't quite the same as resigning from congress, which is what 50% of those examples are. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
CREW Associate: Wasn't trying to highlight any particular stance, just that CREW doesn't solely target Republicans. 70.91.64.85 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The AP story looks like a good source to use for positive material. I think that the CREW references are good sources as well for the calls for members of Congress to step down (they possibly would not qualify on the basis of making claims about third parties, but I think the claims made really are about CREW). Youtube is not a good source for Wikipedia. Do you know of a publication or broadcast outlet that mentions Inhofe's remarks about CREW (I couldn't find one myself)? The Coburn source doesn't appear to indicate praise for CREW by him, but perhaps there is a source that mentions him speaking positively about CREW's letter to the SEC? Michelle Malkin is a noteworthy blogger, but most blogs aren't allowable as sources. Drrll (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CREW Associate: re the YouTube video, the official congressional record transcript of Inohofe's speech on the floor can be found here [[10]]. 70.91.64.85 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CREW Associate: re Coburn, a Daily Caller (debatably NPOV) article on Tom Coburn/Education Dept. where he states that CREW uncovered "“very significant inappropriate behavior " here [[11]] 70.91.64.85 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CREW Associate: Also made a few small factual additions: reworked the 501c3 language - we are by law a 501c3, we don't just "describe ourselves" as one. Added 3 other similar organizations to the See Also content. Added "Whistleblower support" and "non-profit in DC" to the categories footer. Done for the day. 70.91.64.85 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being labelled "liberal." It's not like it's some kind of insult. Did it occur to anyone that maybe they attack Republicans because they are more corrupt than Democrats? I actually think it's a little funny that conservatives think you have to be liberal to call out a Republican for corruption. It honestly says more about them than anyone or anything else. The article is fine the way it is. There are citations, and if some media organizations want to label them with an ideology, then it's notable. StarDust787 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Republicans are a little less likely to act corruptly than Democrats, given the increased scrutiny that they are under by the national and big city news media. That doesn't mean that they are less likely to actually be corrupt. Drrll (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, telling the truth doesn't make you a liberal. And members of the MSM, that are far more qualified than you, believe there is a liberal bias in the MSM. You look more like a POV warrior every time you respond. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Colbert put it quite succinctly at the 2006 White House Correspondents' dinner when he said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." But seriously, you guys are diverging down the name-calling path now. Getting back to the subject, CREW director Sloan gave this response during an interview when asked about going after Democrats instead of Republicans:
"...I think one of the things I’ve learned is that it’s the power that corrupts. I don’t think anyone starts off good or bad, I think you have to have power to abuse it. For a long time the Democrats didn’t have any so they couldn’t abuse it, and now they have plenty and so they are."
When pressed as to why the imbalance between Republican and Democrat investigations, she said, "Well, as I said, for many years the Republicans were in power and they had all the power to abuse. I think that you’ll be seeing more and more Democrats on the list as the Democrats are in power longer." That was back in early 2009; have there been indications that things have balanced out with the power shifts? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If you looked before you leapt in to kibbitz about "name calling", you'd notice that Stardust is relatively new account (about 5 weeks old) and that his limited number of edits do have a pattern to them. So let's not pretend that the term POV warrior was just thrown around on a whim. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I was fully aware of Stardust's edit history before I commented, which makes your post nonsensical. If you'd like to balloon this into an argument wherein you try to justify commenting on editors instead of content, I'll be quite happy to engage you on the appropriate administrator noticeboard. Or you can heed the intent of my comment and help steer this back to a discussion on article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not "nonsensical", unless of course you've redefined the word. Secondly, you're commenting on editors too my friend. I have an better idea: Just comment on the POV issue and stop trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't do and acting like mentioning ANI scares someone. BTW, maybe you could point out what name I called him? I said he is looking like a POV warrior. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"Nonsensical", as in words or language having little or no sense or meaning. Please let me know if you need assistance with the definition of any other words. As for your commenting on other editors, you actually said, "You look more like a POV warrior every time you respond." Please let me know if you need assistance recalling any of your other comments. If you would like me to point stuff out for you, my friend, please make your request of me at ANI. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There is your first problem: reading comprehension. I know what "nonsensical" means. The issue is your misuses of it. My words made perfect sense. Second, my friend, I know what I actually said (I can scroll up) and I did NOT call him a name, making your allegation false. Thirdly, you should consider not offering to point things out "again" since the only thing you have been asked to point out turned out to be a) wrong and b) something I'd already pointed out. Lastly, I don't need to run to ANI. It was you, my friend, that came in here, making allegations and spouting bullshit about ANI. Now, if the use for "bullshit" makes your panties bunch up, I'm sure you know the route to report that too. Now, let's see if you want to get back to the topic or keep playing this game where you pretend like you're superior and I show you that you aren't (again).?Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's wonderful that you now know what "nonsensical" means. I also am quite impressed that you can "scroll up"; let your pride shine, my child! ("BTW, maybe you could point out...") ... ("...you should consider not offering to point things out..."); yes, as you say, your words make perfect sense. Of course they do! ;-) It is unfortunate that you consider "reading comprehension" to be a problem; I find it to be more of a blessing. It allows me to read and understand your words, such as "pretend that the term POV warrior" and "pretend like you're superior" and "acting like mentioning ANI" and "keep playing this game"; but I'm left wondering how much time you spend in the world of make-believe. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, one of us has to be the adult and it clearly isn't going to be you. So I'll revamp my response and leave you to play with yourself (and your hypocrisy). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating. Seeya soon. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Colbert is hardly an objective political analyst.

Sloan's comments sound reasonable in theory, but CREW's practice doesn't bear that out. From CREW's Most Corrupt lists since Democrats took the House and Senate in late 2006:

2007: 18 Republicans / 4 Democrats
2008: 17 Republicans / 7 Democrats
2009: 7 Republicans / 8 Democrats
2010: 16 Republicans / 10 Democrats

All but one year had a much higher ratio of Republicans to Democrats even though the Democrats were in control all 4 years. I know that at least up until a few years ago, the ratio of Republicans to Democrats that CREW requested be investigated was even starker (something like 30 to 2). I'd like to know if that ratio has changed in recent years. Drrll (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Colbert quote was just a bit of humor -- moving past that. Those 2009 quotes from Sloan illustrate her theory that "the more power one has, the greater likelihood that power will be abused". (That's my personal interpretation, anyway.) That seems to have remained consistent as far back as at least 2005, when she said (this is from the 2005 Washington Post source already in the article): ""This reminds me of 1994," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group. "The House Democrats had been in control for 40 years and were incredibly arrogant and had all kind of ethical scandals ... the House bank scandal, the Rostenkowski scandal. Jim Wright. [The Democrats] lost in large part because of the ethics problems. Now only 11 years later, we have the Republicans acting just like the Democrats and maybe even worse. Worse yet, they're acting like nobody cares even though their approval rating is only 36 percent, a low comparable to the '94 approval rating [of the Democrat-controlled Congress]."
I know that for the first 18-24 months, starting in 2003, CREW was all about Tom Delay. Then they moved their focus "Beyond Delay", but still investigated mostly Republicans. Looking at the numbers you listed for 2007-8-9, their list numbers trend increasingly more from Republicans to Democrats ... but then the 2010 list bucks that trend. I'm with you in wanting to know where that ratio is now. There's no denying that CREW's staff is mostly liberal; that CREW's financing is mostly liberal; and that CREW's origin was as a liberal version of the conservative Judicial Watch -- but how do we most accurately describe today's CREW? Is their focus on "corruption regardless of party affiliation" or are they still operating as a liberal counter-balance to Judicial Watch? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It makes sense what Sloan said about a Party being more likely to engage in corrupt behavior if they are in power. I didn't realize that CREW was so focused on Tom Delay in their first couple of years, but the "Beyond Delay" slogan makes that evident. Their ratio of investigations requested by party in recent years can probably be determined by looking through their press releases, but we couldn't put that information into the article per WP:OR (a couple of articles now cited in the article give the statistics as of 2006 and January 2008). Good question about whether to describe today's CREW as not playing favorites or as a liberal-leaning group. I would tend to go with liberal-leaning unless I see evidence that things have evened out since 2008. It is understandable that they would focus more so on Republicans and conservative Democrats since much of their funding is from liberal sources and since they have seen themselves as a counterweight to the conservative Judicial Watch. Drrll (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

!!!Request to get back on topic!!! What needs to be done to address the POV tag on the article? Much has been done to address the WP:UNDUE concerns but the discussion has devolved into useless partisan snowball fights. There are many people making drive-by comments but very few are actually doing any of the grunt work or making useful and actionable suggestions. Veriss (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The chart (Reports section)

I want to separate this out from the general discussion here since I think the discussions are going well and the edits to the article in general are positive. My initial impression of this chart is that it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The OR problems are because it appears to be a self-generated chart cherry-picking particular aspects of the primary source that some editors which to highlight. If there are reliable secondary sources which criticize or discuss the political tilt of the various CREW lists, they can be cited in the appropriate sections of the text. For us to highlight those aspects in purportedly neutral charts, infoboxes, etc., violates NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your initial concerns about WP:OR but the simple mathematics used to create the columns headed "Totals" and "Percent Republican" is permissible under WP:CALC. There are no mysterious black boxes and all calculations can be easily replicated and approximated with simple mental math. The totals column was created from the sum of the previously existing tally of Democrats vs. Republicans. The percent Republican column was created by dividing the number of Republican targets by the total (sum of both parties). Veriss (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to the means with which you derived the numbers. I'm sure your calculations are correct. My objection is about presenting these numbers at all. To highlight these percentages is to push the POV that CREW favors Democrats. The proper place to discuss that issue is in the text with cited secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Any objection to restoring the table, with or without the percentages, sourced accordingly, in place of the tedious text that gives the party breakdowns? Drrll (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
CREW comes out with their "Most Corrupt" list once a year every September or October, so it does have the most recent information. Drrll (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's the most recent, only if you aren't willing to do any work beyond looking up a single source. Perfect example: Rangel is not under investigation. That is over and done. Mentioning in a little block that he was censured isn't adequate. He should be removed. Which brings us to the same issue we had n another article....... are we going to leave an allegation about living people up for a year without any attempt to keep the information current? For a year, it will say Senator X is under investigation when Senator X may have been cleared the next month after the list was released. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The table/chart just lists year, # of Republicans listed, & # of Democrats listed (see thisearlier version of the CREW article)--it doesn't give specific names from the list. It's a historical record of the party breakdown for each year that the "Most Corrupt" list is published by CREW. BTW, the list represents who CREW regards as the most corrupt that year, not those that CREW requested be investigated or those who are under investigation in general. Drrll (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm talking about the only chart currently in the article. The one that says current investigations as of 2010.....which clearly has become outdated before the new list is released. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I see. That chart really doesn't need to appear in the Investigations section, shouldn't say "Current Investigations" and needs a disclaimer. Drrll (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The objection appears to have two parts: 1) Is the content being presented simply to convey that CREW favors democrats? (Which then begs the question, is that a neutral and factual representation of the current CREW?) 2) Presenting content in graph or chart form elevates that content in importance and weight, compared to the surrounding "tedious text", and draws the reader's attention to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who originally added the chart nor what their reason for doing so was (does it matter, as long as verifiability and a neutral presentation is observed?). I think it is a fair representation of CREW's "Most Corrupt" list, as it includes their most recent list (which came out 8 months ago) and it includes every year's list, so as to not pick and choose. You're right that putting it in table form highlights the information and thus increases its weight. As far as I can tell, their "Most Corrupt" list is their highest profile project (at least with regard to the 'Reports' section), so I don't think that it unduly highlights a minor aspect of 'Reports' or even CREW as a whole. Drrll (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored the chart in question without my previously added column displaying the percent of Republicans accused since I think that the chart is an essential summary of the annual reports. I still think the percentage by political party is relevant given the political and criticism sections of the article but will refrain from restoring that column until a reasonable discussion takes place. Veriss (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's address the concerns raised here, namely that this chart endorses criticism of CREW that it is partisan by presenting the party breakdown as "essential" factual information. This is exacerbated by the prominent placement of this chart, while CREW's rebuttal is limited to a single quote buried several screens below the chart. Gamaliel (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By stating that the chart unfairly emphasizes a political ideology is identical to complaining that the chart of the Olympic gold medal winners in 2010 is excessively pro-American because the US has more gold medal winners which would be ludicrous. The chart simply lists the very well sourced political affiliations of the accused along with the total members of congress accused in CREW's report each year. This is all information any reasonable and intelligent reader would attempt to summarize in their own head as they wade through the very dense text description of the reports. This information is summarized within a simple chart for the convenience of the reader. All of these elements are relevant, factual and sourced. I am reverting your deletion of the chart for the reasons I have stated. Veriss (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Veriss1's reasoning on this. It is merely a neutral representation of the tedious text description of each year's reports. I can see how the percentage columns might be construed as POV, especially if just the Republican % is included. I will remove the text description and replace it with the table. We can move the table to somewhere else in the 'Reports' section if it appears too prominent. Drrll (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Choosing what facts to present in a table of course affects the neutrality of the presentation. Here the chart under discussion presents only facts which back up one particular line of anti-CREW criticism. If we were to attempt to be neutral, we would also present not only percentages of each party highlighted by CREW but also facts backing up their defense, which would be percentages of how each party was represented in the government and how much power that party held. Or, better yet, we don't go down this road at all. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't advocate putting percentages into the table (if we do, we would need % of both parties, plus we could have the party breakdown % at the time of the list's publication, as you suggested). I don't care if we add as many columns as you want. What all do you suggest? Drrll (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Not including any information about the party breakdown at all. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
That is definitely choosing what facts to present and affecting the neutrality of the presentation when you are talking about the most basic data from their list. It means that either we have a meaningless table or we have six enormous tables detailing each year's list. Drrll (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Or no table at all. If "the most basic data" creates neutrality issues, then that is the most logical outcome. Gamaliel (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I would say that the table is undue weight. Also, from a historical perspective it is not tenable. When the 2011 list comes out logic would dictate that a table must be created for 2011, in which case it begs the question why wouldn't you create a table for each year? This would result in a large unwieldly article of little more than tables. Arzel (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This section is referring to this table, a summary of the six years of CREW's Most Corrupt reports, I suspect that you may be referring to the table about "CREW's Most Corrupt:2011". Its confusing, I know, as two tables are being debated on this article. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge current 'Investigations' section table with 'Reports' section & replace with a new table

I believe that the table (with associated paragraphs of text) currently in the 'Investigations' section actually belongs in the 'Reports' section. It doesn't represent investigations of the people named; it instead represents CREW's "Most Corrupt" list, those deemed by CREW to be the most corrupt members of Congress for 2010. I think we should limit material in the 'Investigations' section to that which deals with investigations requested by CREW of public officials, organizations, and government agencies. Perhaps we could have a table in the section of CREW-requested investigations that includes the investigation request date, the target, the party of the target (if applicable), the allegation, the government agency that the complaint is filed with, the status off the complaint (unknown, dismissed/never investigated, under investigation, cleared, found guilty, and so forth), and the punishment. It would require going through the long list of CREW press releases and may end up being so long that the table is collapsed by default. Drrll (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to point out, in close proximity to the investigation section etc that 1) CREW has no authority outside of what any citizen has and 2) Just "calling for" an investigation doesn't mean that one ever happens. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that can be fixed by changing the section title to something like 'Investigations requested by CREW' Drrll (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
CREW as an organization has more influence than an average citizen. You can downplay them if you want, but it's just not reality. StarDust787 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that I could't make it more clear the first time. I said they don't have more AUTHORITY. I didn't say jack about "influence". Did the bold type and caps make it easier for you this time? Try reading what I write, not what you think I said. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what's so confusing for you? I know you're a right-winger so logic isn't exactly your friend, but come on. You're trying to downplay what CREW does, and I'm simply pointing out that they are an influential organization. You used the word "authority" as a way to make them seem like they don't matter as much as they really do. Like I said before, try not to be so partisan. This is Wikipedia, not your livelihood. StarDust787 (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There isn't anything here confusing to me. I was quite clear about what I said. It is YOU that was unable to comprehend a simple statement. Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. I used the word authority (yes, authority, not influence) to make it clear that CREW isn't a regulatory body. It is a watchdog, but one without teeth. It can make noise, but not bite. I made no comment about their influence. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear. Please stop attacking one another, right now. I would prefer to avoid making this an administrative matter. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I apologize. But at the same time, I must say that I won't let someone be partisan and make personal attacks without saying anything back. If that's a problem, then so be it. Most of Niteshift's edits are full of attacks, and I admit mine are too. But honestly, who would attack an organization for trying to end corruption? Of course, you know the type. StarDust787 (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You've been partisan and made personal attacks all along. You act like it is only in "self-defense". The first comment of yours that I responded to was a partisan comment you made. Stop pretending like you have only acted that way because you were provoked. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Dial it back, folks. Take a breath, walk around the block, sleep on it, whatever, before you guys post here again so we don't prolong this. Gamaliel (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, don't you know who this guy is? He's an internet tough guy. Better not mess with this one. StarDust787 (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've closed the above discussion. If the parties involved wish to continue their dispute, they should take it to personal talk pages, mediation, or a noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I added the content of the current "investigations" section and I have no problems with moving the content of the current "investigations section", including the table, into a subsection of the reports "section". That will however leave the "investigations" section empty once again. I am not personally a fan of CREW or any other partisan organization though so have little interest in trawling through six years of their press releases for information on the status of their investigations. What is being suggested will need to follow WP:BLP policies very closely and be very well cited, is a major project, and huge time sink unless concise references including strong sources can be located. Veriss (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right that it would be a major undertaking, especially if the current status column is included. I think it might be necessary to have that column for BLP reasons. I could start the project and see how it goes for the first couple of years. Drrll (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington/Archive_1&oldid=647856967"