Jump to content

Talk:Citizens Against Government Waste

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

a few mechanical problems that need fixing

[edit]

Brought to this page as a result of a Google search related to Open Source software, I have no interest in taking a position for or against the content here (not now anyway), but I did notice a few mechanical problems that need fixing. Below I quote two paragraphs from the current text, with my personal comments added in square brackets:

Those opposed to the CAGW criticism ["position" or "argument" would be better], most already irked by CAGW's support of Microsoft, maintained that by not allowing the governor's "Freeware Initiative" to proceed it ["CAGW" or "the organization" would clarify the referent; my brain initially reached back only as far as the nearest singular noun, "initiative"] increased the [omit "the," which sounds non-native here] Microsoft's monopoly (which at that time was at a critical controversial stage) [one can only guess what is meant by this "stage" comment] with their operating system and products ["in operating systems and productivity software"].

Newsforge [link leads to a page with no information], an open-source journalism source, [some piece of text is obviously missing here; this is my original reason for deciding to contact you] and reported, "Despite conceding that every man, woman, child, and dog in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would not actually be forced to use FOSS [why not spell out the acronym in brackets, which would be useful in Wikipedia but not necessary for readers of the original article] for their computing, CAGW stood by its contention that the Bay State's move could give businesses and citizens compatibility problems in exchanging documents with all of the [is "all of the" necessary? If not, use elipses?] state agencies."[8]

This is my first time to "talk back" to Wikipedia. I tried glancing through your advice sections, but don't have time now to do anything but leave this note. Maybe next time... RN


I changed the heading to "Postions and Criticisms" rather than "Criticism/Accusations", this is just a list of views of the organization, albeit likely posted by someone who disagrees with them, page really needs to be cleaned up more, but I don't have time now66.72.215.225 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just removed the reference to "rabid right-wing Republican Alan Keyes" and replaced it with "Republican Alan Keyes." I don't think he has rabies, and that description was pretty blatantly not neutral point of view. I am going to read over the whole article again, and might want to tag it for broad NPOV violations. Huadpe 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged this article for lack of references and NPOV violation. I cite this paragraph as exemplary of the problems in much of this article. "The 47 volumes and 21,000 pages of the Grace Commission Report constituted a vision of an efficient, well-managed government that is accountable to the taxpayers. CAGW has worked to make that vision a reality and, in a little over two decades, has helped save taxpayers $825 billion through the implementation of Grace Commission findings and other recommendations." That reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia. I also fact tagged the $825 billion number, I'd like to see third party verification on that, but don't have the time to investigate right now. Huadpe 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a little sleuthing (aka opening a couple webpages) and found that the intro to the article is WORD FOR WORD lifted off the CAGW website[1]. I am doing a full delete of any material that is lifted in this manner for obvious resons of bias and copyright. I added a shorter intro citing both their stated goal and some criticism. Any help in expanding this and in cleaning up the remainder would be appreciated. Also added a bit to the pig book section. I'm wating to finish my cleanup before I untag it. Huadpe 01:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the first part on a bias cleanup. That part seemed strongly skewed in favor of the group. Next target is the criticisms section which seems slanted against them. It's not nessecary, but while I'm working on this, I'd like to hear from anyone else making changes to the article. Anyone who could write something up on the Abramoff thing would also be appreciated, I saw them mentioned in the NY Times but don't know enough to write the entry on that. Huadpe 22:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-partisan? you have to be kidding me 12.226.237.65 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


major edits

[edit]

I did some major edits, as can be seen in the history. Comments are welcome. Dlabtot 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand why you took out the Grace Commission info in History. That seems to be an important fact in the founding of CAGW. And it can be verified by outside, critical sources; this article confirms: http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2005/09/you_know_citizens_against_gove.html Trulyaside (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which edit you are referring to... it's awhile since I worked on this... I stepped back through the history... maybe I missed it... fwiw, Mr. Smith's article has some good info that would be helpful if included, but I'm not sure it qualifies as WP:RS Dlabtot (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you take EVERY thing out? I can find outside sources for everything if you like. Doesn't it seem crazy to have only criticisms and NO information on an organization's wiki page? Trulyaside (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, add sourced information to the article, if you can find any in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. I would suggest incremental changes, rather than dumping huge amounts of this organizations self promotional material on the article all at once. Dlabtot (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took an old version and edited it. Likewise, if you find things you don't like, don't just delete it all - make incremental changes. Trulyaside (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna actually have to try to find sources, otherwise, yes, all this self-promotional material will be deleted. Dlabtot (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. Trulyaside (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see, the first 'source' I checked, ref fourteen, turned out to be a press release by Ralph Nader. Perhaps in your single purpose role here you haven't had time to read WP:reliable sources. I suggest you do so. Are you affiliated with CAGW? Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used that first source because it is dated Dec. 2001 - backing up the claim that CAGW was one of the first to criticize the deal. So just because Ralph Nader is associated with it means it did not happen? There are other newspaper articles (though anything more than a few months old is very difficult to find in general) but they are from 2003 and thus did not back up the claim. What about the other sources I cited, how are those? Much of that stuff was on wiki way before I came across the page, I just added sources to it so you wouldn't erase the whole thing.
I guess I really don't understand how this wikipedia thing works - I thought it was supposed to be like an encyclopedia. But wouldn't an encyclopedia include information about an organization's history and other publications? The way you had it, all this information was taken out and only criticism was added.
I am one of the million members of CAGW - does that disqualify me? Just because I like the organization and pork politics doesn't make what I add incorrect. What is your connection or, more likely, grude against CAGW? Why do you take out everything but criticism?
Trulyaside (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no knowledge that this organization existed until I came across this article, which at the time, was based almost entirely upon the organization's promotional website. I again suggest you read the relevant wikipedia policies, including WP:COI. Those policy pages will give you a better understanding of how wikipedia works than I can. Dlabtot (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to read more about relevant wiki policies, but I do believe that most if not all my contributions have been neutral, informative, and backed up by third party sites. There should be no reason for you to erase multiple sections as you have done in the past. Perhaps instead of erasing items, you can instead improve and add to them. Trulyaside (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section edit

[edit]

Did a cursory search on internal industry database...quite a few documents implying a relationship between the tobacco industry and CAGW, so added a bit of information. For anyone who wants to do a more in-depth search, I suggest you visit: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.108.79 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

Why do you say CAGW is not a charity? User:Dlabtot According to " Governing Nonprofit Organizations, Marion R. Fremont-Smith, Harvard University Press, 2004" as quoted in Charitable organization section 501 is the definition of a charity in US law. It appears that in the USA the word charity is not used as widely as in some other countries. If they are tax deductible under this section they are charities.Rathfelder (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rathfelder: Because CAGW is a " a think-tank, 'government watchdog', and advocacy group for fiscally conservative causes" (to quote the lead of the article), not a charity per the common English language definition of the word, i.e. an organisation that "centers on philanthropic goals as well as social well-being (e.g. charitable,educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good)" (to quote the lead of that article). Whether they're tax-deductible or not... Thomas.W talk 22:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CAGW is a political advocacy group, not a charity according to the commonly accepted definition of the word. https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=charity+definition Dlabtot (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a charity as defined in US law, according to the article you refer to. I don't think there is a common English language definition of the word. The definition depends on the law in force in the country concerned. It's a legal status. Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia is an international English language encyclopaedia, using common English language definitions of words and terms, not an exclusively American encyclopaedia using definitions that are used only in US law, but not in common everyday English even there... Thomas.W talk 22:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think there is a common English language definition of the word." That is absolute nonsense - and you know it. 'Charity' is a simple, ordinary English word that has been used and understood for centuries. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Dlabtot (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your contributions would be more illuminating if they were supported by references and not marred by accusations of bad faith. The meaning of the word charity has changed considerably over the years, as any etymological dictionary will tell you.[1]. And the meanings of words alter across different countries. If you say that section 501 is not a good definition of charity in US law I would be grateful if you could point me to a better one.Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates by consensus, and there never will be a consensus that CAGW is a charity, since it clearly is an advocacy group and not a charity. Suggested reading: WP:PACT Dlabtot (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.oed.com
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Citizens Against Government Waste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens Against Government Waste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citizens_Against_Government_Waste&oldid=1206702338"