Talk:Clean Water Action

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Water Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

I actually like the group this article describes, but this is too much. Very biased text, reads like one of their newsletters. Little sourcing, yet has sweeping statements. I'm tagging this NPOV.

I'd like to see citations, less biased and broad language, among other improvements. --NightMonkey (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to address the NPOV issue on this page. I've added citations, removed the bias (or tried to) and cleaned up the language. Do you think this needs more, or is the NPOV issue resolved? Thanks. Creekyt (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking much better, however there is language that is not encyclopedic, and lacks specific notable and reliable sources in some key areas. For instance, anywhere it says CWA "succeeded" - well, who is saying that they succeeded, how is "success" measured, and how do we know that CWA actually contributed to the "success"? Without good sources, or less sweeping language, it is _Wikipedia_ which is stating, categorically, that CWA succeeded. Also, some sources are not as reliable as they could be. CWA's own web site isn't a reliable source, and the same goes for the NRDC (for Wikipedia purposes, that is). Major media (or even minor, but reputable) minor media would be better sources than CWA or its affiliated organizations. Also, the sources must be shown to back up the conclusion which the article statement makes. Cheers! --NightMonkey (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creekyt, While I see that you are working on the article, I don't see it improving as an encyclopedia article about CWA, but resembling more and more CWA's own press releases, action alerts, and campaign slogans. You edit without comments, and seem to ignore the content guidelines and policies by citing CWA's web site as if it is a notable, reliable, and authoritative source. I also see that you have not edited any other articles besides this one, which makes me suspicious that you are not a disinterested editor, and may have a conflict of interest in editing this page. Please read and understand the WP:Five Pillars and know that the article and its text can be heavily redacted and even deleted if it doesn't meet up with Wikipedia's standards. --NightMonkey (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NightMonkey, I appreciate your feedback and am trying to address the NPOV issues as best I understand, and with the time I have available. As you've pointed out, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I'm learning as I go (thus the lack of comments -- I'm not even sure how to add them). I'm not sure how to make this entry more encyclopedic -- maybe you can provide some specific examples? I've removed all the unnecessary descriptive language, and am only using CWA's website as a source for things like their mission (which, I'd assume, one should source from the organization in question). Everywhere else, I've inserted citations from outside news organizations. What else should I be doing? Thanks for any advice you can offer. -- Creekyt (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and apologies about removing those other tags without discussion. I didn't realize it was necessary (it's not specifically mentioned in those tags like it is in the NPOV tag), and I thought I'd addressed the issues. Guess I was wrong. -- Creekyt (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is blatant promotion for CWA. I tried to edit it by taking out the mission statement, but it still seems overly biased. All of the language has positive connotations, and no negative aspects of CWA are included while all possible positive ones are. I have tried to find more detailed info on it, but the main source to find anything is really only its own website. I believe this is because it is a small organization that few people know about, and therefore should also be marked for relevancy. It is obviously an organization designed to promote its own political views, and this article does the same.Iloveclay (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that someone other than creekyt needs to rewrite this article from scratch. I have yet to put much time into it, but a cursory search showed me that it is difficult to find sources on this organization other than its own website. I question its relevance, but hope that someone can come up with better sources and a non-biased article.--ThebestIcan (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inter alia, can someone clarify the extent to which Ralph Nader is or is not still associated with this group? Nandt1 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to source or write this correctly in wikipedia but there is a pop culture reference to Clean Water Action in the Netflix series "House of Cards" directed by David Fincher. It's a mostly negative portrayal that places the main character's wife as the head of the fund/charity and goes into some pretty gritty detail about the inter-office politics as a fictionalized account. Can someone who is more familiar with the correct way to format that please write a brief reference to that? I don't want it to just kicked out by a robot, which always happens when I try to add stuff myself. Thanks. 69.245.239.174 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edit

This edit doesn't appear to me to be an improvement to the article. Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding office information and campaign information, current IRS statement, and including references to 3rd party sources. Not sure how that merits deletion. - 1 September 2016 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not undo the change you made to the IRS statement. That edit was fine. You deleted the entire political advocacy section without stating a reason, and you added a long list of issue areas and state offices. Sourcing is sketchy or non-existent, and your edits were not made in prose style but rather in lists. Please revert your edits or I will have to file a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard and you will likely be blocked from further editing. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Proposed Changes

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Please see the Reply section below for further information regarding your request.

Hi all. I am currently an employee of Clean Water Action and have taken some office time to try and put together something to expand this wikipedia page. So yes, I have an obvious conflict of interest, but will be moving on to another job soon and don't want the work I have done to go to waste. As it stands, the current Clean Water Action wikipedia page is extremely underdeveloped and there is no page at all for Clean Water Fund.

I tried my best to make all proposed edits as fact-based as possible with solid sources (legal documents especially, I thought, held a lot of legitimacy).

You can see the edits that I am proposing on my sandbox page: [[1]]

I tried to add a lot under the "Political Advocacy" section and this is where almost all of the proposed changes are.

I am proposing to change the word "revenue" to "budget" as revenue can be confusing, making it sound like the organization is for-profit. Other non-profit groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club) use the word "budget" as well.

From my perspective, the most controversial edit I am proposing is to add "and lobby" to the intro paragraph. I couldn't find any source that simply says 'clean water action lobbies', but lobbying is a big part of the organization -- it is the whole purpose for being a 501c[4] instead of a 501c[3] -- so I felt like it was important to add.

Thanks all! I hope you can root out any bias that may have seeped in and help expand this underdeveloped page.

Superpositionn (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 27-JAN-2018

YPartially implemented.

Many of the proposed additions concerning successful causes with lasting impact were mentioned. These include the Group's work on California A.B. 888, which has its legacy shown in the Microbead-Free Waters Act 2015.
Specific causes whose importance and/or successfulness were in doubt were not listed, per the unofficial guidance suggestions at WP:NOBLECAUSE.
The prose found in the History section was altered to remove unencyclopedic entries (e.g., "David Zwick was a young law school student when Ralph Nader recruited him...", and "...water pollution was spreading in many parts of the country, with a burning Cuyahoga River in northeast Ohio and biologically dead Lake Erie among the visible examples...")
Additional WikiLinks and other minor copyedits were implemented.

Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]