Jump to content

Talk:Public Interest Research Group/Archives/2020/January

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


Criticisms -- too much or too little?

This is article seems very much against PIRGS, with little written about their accomplishments but a lot written about the negative aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.15.238 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI More complete Canadian lists at opirg.org and http://www.lpirg.org/Links-002.htm Thanks. Turq 21:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the criticisms section due to factual error (about wages) and lack of neutrality. Moved the LA criticism to main body, though I'm still not sure it belongs there. Also editing that section for NPOV.

Also deleted section about Minnesota PIRG. MPIRG is not a member of the Fund for Public Interest Research, and thus I don't think the unionization of its staff is really important to the conflict in the PIRGs as a whole, which relates only to the Fund.

I've taken a crack at building on the improvements started by anonymous editor above. I've expanded the explanation of how the Fund works and clarifying the relationships between the Fund, U.S. PIRG, and the state PIRGs. I also created a whole FFPIR section (which maybe could be a stub for an FFPIR article at some point) that I hope more accurately describes the Fund as a whole. A few other minor edits as well, moving things around, listing Canadian PIRGs after U.S. ones, clarifying header on the section re: the state PIRGs to make it clear that the PIRGs are independent, etc. Not perfect by any means, but I am hoping it's an improvement. I struggled some with wording at times, and I'm not sure my information about how canvassers paid is verifiable online. --Inonit 15:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted some edits that removed anything that could possibly be construed negatively. I'm open to removing the stuff about the LA office (I don't think it's important enough to include here), but I'm suspicious about removing something like "canvassers are paid largely on commission." I mean, they are, and that's a pretty basic aspect of the canvass model. Seems POV to want to not mention it, as if it's embarrassing.--Inonit 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added in mention of the street canvass and the fact that directors make commission, Also made a first attempt at including the state environment campaigns. -- kirstkat 12 March 2006

Student fees

I haven't noticed much mention of the controversy regarding the PIRG's efforts to develop mandatory student fees to fund its programs. I may return later to develop this, but for now, here are links regarding the fee's mechanics as well as a lawsuit that happened in 1981 at Rutgers University.

Additionally while on the topic, this past year, members of Rutgers_Centurion have been active in helping students "recover" the PIRG fee charged on their term bills. I believe that this phenomena should be examined and if widespread, it should be mentioned as well. -- MJKazin 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue is dated, to be honest. When I was following the PIRGs more closely (in the 1990s) this controversy was already discussed (within the PIRGs) more with the tone of history than with the tone of existing threat. I haven't heard much else about it since then, though I easily could have missed it. But my guess is that there are different things for people to argue about nowadays (the plaintiff in the case you cite probably would have sued today to protest his student activities fee supporting a gay/lesbian group on campus, for example). Or maybe it's more routine for political groups to get student activities fee funding these days? That guy mentioned that his College Republicans didn't get campus funding, but our partisan political groups at my school did, let alone the innumerable other quasi-political groups. The PIRGs go out of their way to get the consent of the student body by having these elections to approve the fee, which no other student group typically does. (These "elections" are just recruitment drives in disguise, but that's another matter.)--Inonit 13:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I did add a note about student fee controversy to the introduction while I was copyediting it. I also made a number of changes in an effort to make some of the language more NPOV and clarify a number of points. Feedback welcome.--Inonit 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Is it just me, or is the first paragraph of this section very POV? Also, there's no sources cited for anything else in the section. -- LGagnon 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's not just you. Based on my personal knowledge (which is a bit dated), I'd say it's not without some basis in fact, but it belongs on the talk page, I'd say. I'm not sure how to clean it up; I suspect it should be removed. The unionization stuff is all that could be objective (assuming it's true), and I'd say it's not significant enough to warrant inclusion in an article like this. --Inonit 16:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The criticism has beeen changed. If there are concerns about facts call The Fund and ask for their policies, it's there in black and white. Clearly this is significant, as people should undertstand the whole picture.

I'd say that's a problem right there -- the policies you're talking about are FFPIR policies, not PIRG policies. Yes, FFPIR and the PIRGs (or most of them) are intertwined. And, just to choose an example of a factual error, FFPIR does not have a nationwide "quota." But I think the larger issue is that the author's own criticism of PIRGs, much of it apparently based on his/her personal experience, does not belong in an encyclopedia, any more than me adding a section entitled "Criticism of United States Postal Service" to the United States Postal Service page, with: "The Postal Service often suffers from inefficiency. Recently, at one post office in the Midwest, a customer was forced to wait for hours in line while several postal workers dithered, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he was in a hurry." Even the controversy over the LA office, in my view, doesn't rise to the level of an encyclopedia entry (though the link to the source is a welcome addition -- thanks for that). Right now 50% of the prose is about "criticism" of one very narrow aspect of PIRG (or FFPIR), which is, in my view, undue weight -- and there's no presentation of opposing points of view. But I think (to continue with examples) a "Praise of PIRG" section would be inappropriate as well ("PIRG provides perhaps the most accessible entry-level opportunities for would-be activists who wish to pursue activism as a career, rather than hobby, and has provided education and training to a disproportionate number of activist-minded individuals, often leading to a lifetime of civic engagement"). And my reading of the first section doesn't seem very NPOV either, now that I look at it ("innovative" and "robust" seem particularly over-the-top).--Inonit 16:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside from being kind of "newsy" in content and tone, the Criticisms section essentially Americanizes the PIRGs, as there is no such funding body in Canada. Also, Canadian PIRGs are very different from American PIRGs, which in my understanding are essentially membership-driven lobbying organizations. Canadian PIRGs, to my knowledge, are attached to universities.

Canadian university-based PIRGs are typically supported by a student levy. Canadian PIRGs have been critiqued on this basis, for example, by members of Student Unions who hold ideological positions either against Dedicated Fee Units (basically, any service student must 'opt out' of, rather than 'opt-in') or against the general direction of work in PIRGs themselves. There is some talk about the anti-DFU people at our university being motivated by a certain legal decision in Australia that Student Unions restricting the use of opt-out-organized services.

But all the same, this has consisted largely of speculation and verbal grumbling rather than substantial, organized campaigns that have web pages, foundations, high-profile and visible opponents, etc. and thus wouldn't really merit a mention in a Wikipedia article.

I used to be (very) temporarily employed at a PIRG in the US and ran into the same difficulties as the writer of the criticisms section. I am not against mention of PIRGs being contested, tensions within PIRGs or obstacles that PIRGs or their employees face, but this is essentially a labour dispute that doesn't yet amount to "historical information."

Oxygen Smith (APIRG) 216.123.231.152 02:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Putting an end to "speculation" and "verbal grumbling," let me direct you to the current state of affairs in the LA door and phone offices. These two offices unionized with Teamsters Local 848 on June 9, 2005, and September 22, 2005, respectively. Since then, the Fund's reactions have been completely irrational, self-destructive, and hypocritical in the worst way. I know this, because I am the union steward in the door canvassing office. Our union rep, Emilio Arias, who is used to negotiating with the likes of Coca-Cola, and major grocery chains, has never seen an employer go to such extreme measures to prevent employees from exercising their rights to unionize. After firing five out of eleven employees in the phone office in one day in November (including the three union stewards) FFPIR broke the National Labor Relations Board Region 31 (most of LA) office's record for most charges filed against a single employer. This nonprofit, which is supposed to be the champion of fairness, and is supposed to be training the next generation of social change leaders, is demonstrably and indisputably anti-union. As stated on the main page, more information is available at http://www.ffpir.us, where you can email me at info@ffpir.us. Thank you, Christian Miller

Welcome to Wikipedia, Christian. I've reverted your edits as well as those of a later editor who attempted to remove any critical mention of FFPIR (they come through here every once in a while as well, always anonymous so far). Wikipedia is governed by three main content policies: "no original research," "verifiability," and "neutral point of view." I removed your contributions because of the No original research policy, which essentially states that we can't publish things that we know just because we know them -- they need to be verifiable; the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ffpir.us is not a credible source (see the "Dubious sources" section of the verifiability page) by Wikipedia standards. I certainly am inclined to believe much of the material on there (having done my own "original research" regarding FFPIR), but we need better sourcing. The site mentions an article that will be published soon; when it is (and presumably it will have FFPIR's answers to the charges, which will make it easier to write from a Neutral point of view), we should add some material on the subject, I think. If you have material that can be sourced better than that on ffpir.us, we may have something we can add now.--Inonit 13:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any documented criticism of the term "public interest" in "PIRG"? I find it a little misleading, as there is no guarantee that the ends pursued by a particular PIRG will be in the interest of all potential publics. QuinnHK 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cited claims should not be changed

When we have a citation for something, it shouldn't be changed to something completely different. Even if you find a contradicting source, add the info from it without deleting or altering the other sourced info. If you change cited info without any reasonable explaination, it will be reverted. -- LGagnon 04:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes by 66.51.219.147

Some of these changes might have merit, but as a whole, I think it's POV. Systematically removing the word "liberal" (or references to Ralph Nader) from an article about a liberal organization inspired by Nader seems to be an attempt to stifle the kind of categorization that an encyclopedia must do. Or if the editor wants to debate whether the PIRGs are "liberal" we can do that. The New Voters Project did not, shall we say, randomly sign up young voters (regardless of ideology) in random states, just to pick one example. And PIRG street canvassers don't randomly target events (see any at a right-wing church festival?). And PIRG canvass offices don't randomly target neighborhoods regardless of ideology or affluence. And the "oversight" provided by the Oberlin students for the PIRG in my state (Ohio) ... well, it's an interesting thing to call it. Readers can go to the U.S. PIRG website if they want material about the PIRGs that is scrubbed of all labeling or classification. Let's be realistic, is my view.--Inonit 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. The Christian Coalition is also non-partisan, and also runs voter registration drives.--Inonit 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited: "dismissed all of the claims against the Fund"

Tjfacts provided the following [1]: 

However, it appears these allegations were totally unfounded. The NLRB summarily dismissed all
of the claims against the Fund.

Does anyone have a citable source for this? I can't seem to locate one. MJKazin 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You will never locate one, because the above is false. Here is the notice to employees the LA FFPIR office was forced to post, following an NLRB finding that FFPIR unilaterally changed their quota policy following the June 9, 2005 union election. The notice is dated January 23, 2006, and is signed by director Jason Tipton. http://www.ffpir.info/notice2employees.pdf

More FFPIR issues

The section on the Fund for Public Interest Research asserts that the PIRGs primarily (exclusively?) canvass neighborhoods that are liberal and affluent. This is simply false. Canvass offices cover a wide variety of communities, from working class to upper middle class and everything in-between. They knock on doors in largely Republican towns and neighborhoods on a regular basis. This is necessary for both political and logistical reasons. Politically, the Fund only works with nonpartisan, issue-based organizations. Logistically, there simply aren't that many well-to-do, overwhelmingly liberal neighborhoods in the U.S., certainly not enough to keep a canvass office running for an entire summer, much less an entire year.

--Iketurner666 16:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PIRG funding as a "Spanish-American War teleophone tax"

For those who don't get the reference, just recently (after over 100 years in existance) a Federal telephone tax was eliminated that funded....the Spanish-American War of 1898. Like that tax, long forgotten by the public but still pouring in cash to the Fed, PIRG's funding (via a "buried", almost hidden fee onto MANDATORY student fees) was set up with that in mind, so that long after the fight on campus (if any) was over, students would continually and UNAWAREDLY be paying to fund PIRG...regardless of their own personal political views, even if in opposition to PIRG's.

It was clever and quite dishonest, but necessary I'm sure from the PIRG organizers' standpoint, as little student activism was occuring in the late 70s, early 80s...almost none liberal and they knew that if they ASKED for DONATIONS from the students they'd get maybe 1/10 the cash they get now via the "waivable" (if you find it or even know about it) fee.

That sneaky way to fund PIRG says more about their LACK of appeal, than anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.164.141 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Labor and reliable sources

I removed this section, because it lacks reliable secondary sources.

Sourcing to one litigating side's lawyers violates the secondary sources and suggests a bias. Sourcing to a community-operated, all-volunteer Oregon community-radio station has less obvious problems with bias, but still falls short of the reliable sources standards at WP.

Labor disputes

There have been labor issues surrounding street canvassing and tele-fundraising. Attempts have been made to unionize by staff from telephone-outreach projects and canvasses. Each of these efforts have been unsuccessful. Former employees allege that they were paid below minimum wage and required to work more than a 40 hour work week. These issues are the subject of a class-action lawsuit from former canvassers. The Fund for Public Interest Research pays its canvassers a minimum hourly wage in addition to any incentive pay they earn from fundraising. On Oct 12th the employees of the Telephone Outreach Project's Portland location won an election to have a union and are currently fighting for a contract. The FUND has responded with firings and what many would consider a refusal to negotiate in good faith.[1] [2] [3]

Discussion

Please find reliable secondary sources and write the section in a NPOV way. The phrase "fighting for" is POV; the last sentence is particularly POV.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The text had been restored a few hours after you removed it. I had just tagged the references before I saw that you had previously raised these issues. What I noticed (beyond what you've outlined) was that the text mentioned a strike, and then cited three sources which don't say anything about a strike or anything else about October or April events. I also couldn't tell what year this took place; I think it's 2011? Anyway, I'm removing the section, again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request- Introductory Section

Hello, Wikipedians! I’m a relatively new editor – just started this September. I recently saw that the U.S. PIRG page is a little neglected and thought maybe I’d help it along. However, I have conflict of interest, as I am a policy analyst for the Public Interest Network, the larger organization that includes U.S. PIRG. My organization would also like to see a more updated Wiki entry. Thus, I am submitting edits for your kind consideration.

I have done the wikicoding for the format, links to other entries, and sourcing edits for the changes I am suggesting. These changes to the existing wikicode of the Public Interest Research Group page are viewable at my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjxca/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload

I am posting my suggested edits by section on the suggestion of an experienced Wiki user who suggested I do so on my talk page. (Post view-able under "Public Interest Research Group edit request" on my user talk page.)

Introductory section:

I’d like to suggest the addition of two sentences to the first paragraph (after the existing sentence) to give a more comprehensive view of the org. These suggested sentences are:

In the U.S., the federation is known as U.S. PIRG, whose mission statement says it “stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public.” The groups work on issues such as “product safety, public health, campaign finance reform, tax and budget reform, and consumer protection,” and are active on college campuses, state capitals, and Washington, D.C.

Suggesting the first sentence instead of modifying “motto” in the Infobox since this motto only applies to the U.S. groups and not the Canadian groups.

The sourcing for both of these sentences (wikicode available in my sandbox): “About Us” page of the U.S. PIRG site (see sandbox for coded reference): https://uspirg.org/page/usp/about-us-pirg-0

no Declined Unclear — Please specify which sentence is to be deleted and which is to be added. See below for example.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
Tate purchased, then lost, a yellow ball. Tate purchased, then lost, a red ball.
Tate lost the yellow ball after he purchased it. (delete)
(blank space) Tate lost the red ball after purchasing it.
Thank you for the chart - I wasn't very clear in my first comment. Instead of replacing any of the text in the introduction, I'd like to simply add to the existing text. Hopefully this is a clearer presentation.
LIST OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS
Current text Proposed addition
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) refers to a federation of U.S. and Canadian non-profit organizations that employ grassroots organizing and direct advocacy with the goal of effecting liberal political change. Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) refers to a federation of U.S. and Canadian non-profit organizations that employ grassroots organizing and direct advocacy with the goal of effecting liberal political change. In the U.S., the federation is known as U.S. PIRG, whose mission statement says it “stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public.” The groups work on issues such as “product safety, public health, campaign finance reform, tax and budget reform, and consumer protection,” and are active on college campuses, state capitals, and Washington, D.C.

Rjxca (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: History section

Hello, Wikipedians! I’m a relatively new editor – just started this September. I recently saw that the U.S. PIRG page is a little neglected and thought maybe I’d help it along. However, I have conflict of interest. Thus, I am submitting edits for your kind consideration.

I have done the wikicoding for the format, links to other entries, and sourcing edits for the changes I am suggesting. These changes to the existing wikicode of the Public Interest Research Group page are viewable at my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjxca/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload

I am suggesting edits to every section of this Wikipedia entry, but to make the edits more manageable, I am posting my proposed changes by section.

Here are my proposed changes for the existing History section:

History:

First paragraph:

Suggesting slight modifications to the existing language and the addition of six sentences to this section.

In the first existing paragraph, suggesting the second sentence is slightly modified to provide more info. Currently the sentence reads: “The PIRG model was proposed in the book Action for a Change by Ralph Nader and Donald Ross.”

Suggesting the sentence be expanded to say:

"The PIRG model was proposed in the book Action for a Change by Ralph Nader and Donald Ross, in which they encouraged students on campuses across a state to pool their resources to hire full-time professional researchers and advocates to make a difference on social problems of concern to students."

Source: Nader, Ralph; Donald Ross (1972). Action for a Change: A Student's Manual for Public Interest Organizing. New York: Grossman Publishers. P 29.


Second paragraph:

Suggesting the addition of this sentence at the end of the second paragraph to better provide continuity to the next paragraph:

"PIRGs subsequently formed in additional states."


Suggesting the removal of the next sentence, which currently reads: “The PIRGs were supportive of the container deposit legislation in the United States, popularly called “bottle bills.” Totally factually true, but I would like to expand the existing “Policy positions” section and include this piece of information there instead, as it seems to make more sense there than floating somewhat randomly in the “History” section.


Also suggesting the removal of the next sentence, which currently reads: “In 1982, the PIRGs established the Fund for the Public Interest as its fundraising and canvassing arm.” Also true, but would like to move this to the “Affiliated non-profits” section, as it seems to make more sense there as well.


Then suggesting a new paragraph with text reading:

The state PIRGs created U.S. PIRG in 1984 to have a national lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. (1) Douglas Phelps, president and chairman of U.S. PIRG (2) played a key role in U.S. PIRG’s formation. (3)

By the 1990s, there were PIRGs in twenty states, and by 1996, the PIRGs had more than 350 people on staff, including scientists, organizers and lawyers. (4)

Andre Delattre is the current U.S. PIRG director. (5) U.S. PIRG's long-time Consumer Program Director Ed Mierzwinski has repeatedly been named one of the top grassroots lobbyists on Capitol Hill. (6)

Sources: (coded language on my sandbox)

1- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8.

2- Phelps’ staff page on U.S. PIRG website: https://uspirg.org/staff/xxp/douglas-h-phelps

3- Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994.

4- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8.

5- Delattre’s staff page on the U.S. PIRG website: https://uspirg.org/staff/xxp/andre-delattre

6- The Hill’s list of top grassroots lobbyists from 2015, 2016 and 2017: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/358125-top-lobbyists-2017-grass-roots, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/303852-top-lobbyists-2016-grassroots, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/258317-top-lobbyists-2015-grassroots


That's it for the History section! Thank you in advance for your time! Rjxca (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

no Declined The Brobeck source's page numbers are not delineated. Unable to corroborate.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You're 200% right- I really thought all my book citations had page numbers included in my sandbox. Including them in the sourcing below.

Also putting the above into a hopefully more readable chart like you suggested previously,

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
The PIRG model was proposed in the book Action for a Change by Ralph Nader and Donald Ross. The PIRG model was proposed in the book Action for a Change by Ralph Nader and Donald Ross, in which they encouraged students on campuses across a state to pool their resources to hire full-time professional researchers and advocates to make a difference on social problems of concern to students. (1)
The PIRGs were supportive of the container deposit legislation in the United States, popularly called “bottle bills." (move to "Policy positions" section)
In 1982, the PIRGs established the Fund for the Public Interest as its fundraising and canvassing arm. (move to "Affiliated non-profits" section)
(new text) The state PIRGs created U.S. PIRG in 1984 to have a national lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. (2) Douglas Phelps, president and chairman of U.S. PIRG (3) played a key role in U.S. PIRG’s formation. (4) By the 1990s, there were PIRGs in twenty states, and by 1996, the PIRGs had more than 350 people on staff, including scientists, organizers and lawyers. (5) Andre Delattre is the current U.S. PIRG director. (6) U.S. PIRG's long-time Consumer Program Director Ed Mierzwinski has repeatedly been named one of the top grassroots lobbyists on Capitol Hill. (7)

Sources:

1- Nader, Ralph; Donald Ross (1972). Action for a Change: A Student's Manual for Public Interest Organizing. New York: Grossman Publishers. P 29.

2- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 470.

3- Phelps’ staff page on U.S. PIRG website: https://uspirg.org/staff/xxp/douglas-h-phelps

4- Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994.P 389-390.

5- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 468.

6- Delattre’s staff page on the U.S. PIRG website: https://uspirg.org/staff/xxp/andre-delattre

7-The Hill’s list of top grassroots lobbyists from 2015, 2016 and 2017: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/358125-top-lobbyists-2017-grass-roots, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/303852-top-lobbyists-2016-grassroots, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/258317-top-lobbyists-2015-grassroots

Rjxca (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Funding model

Hello, Wikipedians! I’m a relatively new editor – just started this September. I recently saw that the U.S. PIRG page is a little neglected and thought maybe I’d help it along. However, I have conflict of interest. Thus, I am submitting edits for your kind consideration.

I have done the wikicoding for the format, links to other entries, and sourcing edits for the changes I am suggesting. These changes to the existing wikicode of the Public Interest Research Group page are viewable at my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjxca/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload

I am suggesting edits to every section of this Wikipedia entry, but to make the edits more manageable, I am posting my proposed changes by section.

Here are my proposed changes for the existing Funding model section:


Funding model

On the order:

First, I would like to submit that the “Funding model” section be moved to later in the article, below the “Affiliated non-profits” section. The many non-profit Wiki entries out there seem to have different orders, and I’d like to submit this page follow an order more similar to a page like that of Environmental Defense Fund, where the funding section comes below the key accomplishments sections. Funding information is obviously important to include, but in its current position it seems to break up the flow of the entry, particularly as the “History” and “Policy positions” sections blend into one another.


I have additional edits I would like to suggest for this section.

After the existing paragraph, suggesting the addition of this information:

The U.S. PIRG Education Fund is the tax-deductible entity connected to U.S. PIRG and is funded with grants from foundations. (1) Charity Navigator gave the U.S. PIRG Education Fund two out of four stars for accountability and transparency, and three out of four stars for financials. (2)

Sources (coding available on my sandbox):

1- Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994

2- The Charity Navigator page on U.S. PIRG: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5433

Including the Education Fund information provides a more comprehensive view of PIRG’s funding.

Currently, the U.S. PIRG entry includes an entirely separate section for the Transparency Rating. I believe folding this information into the “Funding model” section and deleting the current Transparency Rating makes sense, as the Charity Navigator’s rating currently cited on the Wiki entry is actually of the Education Fund and should be prefaced appropriately.

Those are my suggestions for the "Funding model" section! Thanks so much for your time!

Rjxca (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

no Declined Missing page number from this source.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Source with the page number!

1- Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994. P 390.

Rjxca (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Policy positions

Hello, Wikipedians! I’m a relatively new editor – just started this September. I recently saw that the U.S. PIRG page is a little neglected and thought maybe I’d help it along. However, I have conflict of interest. Thus, I am submitting edits for your kind consideration.

I have done the wikicoding for the format, links to other entries, and sourcing edits for the changes I am suggesting. These changes to the existing wikicode of the Public Interest Research Group page are viewable at my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjxca/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload

I am suggesting edits to every section of this Wikipedia entry, but to make the edits more manageable, I am posting my proposed changes by section.

Here are my proposed changes for the existing Policy positions section:


Policy positions

First suggesting a change of name for this section from “Policy positions” to “Key accomplishments” as the nature of the existing information, as well as the additions I would like to make, more document political accomplishments to do with policy rather than merely explaining policy positions. This is similar to the current format of the Environmental Defense Fund Wiki entry.


Next, suggesting the addition of this sentence at the beginning of the section as way of better introduction: "The PIRGs work on a range of issues, including consumer protection, product safety, public health, good government, campaign finance reform, and transportation. Some key accomplishments include:"


Next, suggesting the addition of the following information in a chronological, bulleted list. Format and references coding available in my sandbox.

Taking it point by point in order to (hopefully) make this easier to look at and evaluate sources for.


• NYPIRG helped create the first state Superfund hazardous waste cleanup law in 1981.

Source: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8.

• MASSPIRG ran a six-year bottle bill campaign, eventually winning container deposit legislation in 1982.

This is what I propose as a replacement for the sentence on container deposit legislation I suggested be removed from the History section.

Sources: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8.

Lanier Hickman, H. (2203). American Alchemy: The History of Solid Waste Management in the United States. ForesterPress, p. 386. ISBN 9780970768728.

• ConnPIRG and CALPIRG were involved in passing the first new-car lemon laws in 1982 that require manufacturers to repair or repurchase severely defective relatively new vehicles.

Source: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8.

• Since at least 1984, the PIRGs have worked to register young people to vote.

Sources: 1984 newspaper article from Boston College, available at http://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/bostonsh?a=d&d=bcheights19840130.2.45

For evidence of ongoing work on voter reg, this 2010 story on CALPIRG’s voter reg work in BeyondChron: http://www.beyondchron.org/calpirg-allies-work-to-boost-student-voter-turnout/

• U.S. PIRG has released toy safety reports every year since 1986, which has led to recalls of more than 150 toys.

Source: This 9 November 2017 story from the Washington Post, entitled "Fidget spinners sold at Target contain lead, advocacy group says" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/11/09/fidget-spinners-sold-at-target-contain-lead-advocacy-group-says/?utm_term=.c5d0ceeb6a0f

• PIRG and the National Environmental Law Center, started by the PIRGs, successfully sued Shell Oil Company in 1995 for illegal dumping in the San Francisco Bay.

Source: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8.

• In the late 1990s, U.S. PIRG helped collect postcards with signatures in support of banning construction of new roads in national forests, eventually leading to a roadless area conservation rule.

Source: This 2009 newspaper article in High Country News: http://www.hcn.org/articles/roadless-rule-ground-game

• U.S. PIRG actively lobbied for passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act in 2007, which reduced interest rates on student loans and increased funding for Pell Grants.

Source: This 2007 newspaper article in the Hartford Courant: http://articles.courant.com/2007-09-24/news/0709240522_1_college-cost-reduction-america-s-student-loan-providers-higher-education

• U.S. PIRG helped win passage of the Credit CARD Act in 2009, protecting consumers from certain predatory practices by credit card companies.

Source: Kirsch, Larry; Robert N. Mayer (2013). Financial Justice: The People’s Campaign to Stop Lender Abuse. ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-4408-2951-2.

• Suggesting inserting the existing text and sourcing of this section’s current first paragraph on U.S. PIRG’s role in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau here.

• U.S. PIRG and individual state PIRGs have spoken against some highway expansion or new construction projects as wastefully expensive and unneeded (1), helping to stop projects such as the Illiana Expressway in Illinois. (2)

Sources: 1- This 2014 op-ed by the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-illiana-expressway-edit-0929-20140926-story.html

2- This 2016 Chicago Tribune newspaper article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sta-illiana-environmental-study-st-0429-20160427-story.html


Also suggesting to edit the existing last sentence of this section. Currently it reads: “The PIRGs have worked to make same-sex marriage legal, to increase the minimum wage, to enact increased environmental regulations, to oppose Voter ID laws in the United States, build high speed rail in California, defend solar net metering in California, increase food labeling, expand open educational resources on campus, expand campus food pantries, and ban pesticides linked to colony collapse.”

However, the current source used to cite this sentence is A) only about Minnesota PIRG and B) only addresses the first three items in the list. As a result, suggesting to edit the existing last sentence to keep its current sourcing and instead read:

Minnesota PIRG (MPIRG) has worked to make same-sex marriage legal, to increase the minimum wage, and to enact increased environmental regulations.


Also suggesting adding the following sentences at the end of this section:

In addition to engaging in state-level advocacy work, many PIRGs have campus chapters, which offer activism training and leadership development to students interested in environmental and other social issues. (1) PIRG campus chapters received an American Civic Collaboration Award in 2017 “for their work supporting voter education, voter registration and creating safe spaces for dialogue between students with diverse perspectives.” (2)

Sources:

1- Shaw, Randy (2008). Beyond the Fields. University of California Press. ISBN 0520268040.

2- The American Civic Collaboration Awards page: https://www.civvys.org/2017-civvys-winners/


Those are my suggestions for the "Policy positions" section! Thanks so much again!

Rjxca (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

no Declined Missing page numbers from these sources.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Re-posting the bullet pointed list, with page numbers added to book sources!


• NYPIRG helped create the first state Superfund hazardous waste cleanup law in 1981.

Source: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 471.

• MASSPIRG ran a six-year bottle bill campaign, eventually winning container deposit legislation in 1982.

This is what I propose as a replacement for the sentence on container deposit legislation I suggested be removed from the History section.

Sources: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 469.

Lanier Hickman, H. (2203). American Alchemy: The History of Solid Waste Management in the United States. ForesterPress, p. 386. ISBN 9780970768728. P 386.

• ConnPIRG and CALPIRG were involved in passing the first new-car lemon laws in 1982 that require manufacturers to repair or repurchase severely defective relatively new vehicles.

Source: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 471.

• Since at least 1984, the PIRGs have worked to register young people to vote.

Sources: 1984 newspaper article from Boston College, available at http://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/bostonsh?a=d&d=bcheights19840130.2.45

For evidence of ongoing work on voter reg, this 2010 story on CALPIRG’s voter reg work in BeyondChron: http://www.beyondchron.org/calpirg-allies-work-to-boost-student-voter-turnout/

• U.S. PIRG has released toy safety reports every year since 1986, which has led to recalls of more than 150 toys.

Source: This 9 November 2017 story from the Washington Post, entitled "Fidget spinners sold at Target contain lead, advocacy group says" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/11/09/fidget-spinners-sold-at-target-contain-lead-advocacy-group-says/?utm_term=.c5d0ceeb6a0f

• PIRG and the National Environmental Law Center, started by the PIRGs, successfully sued Shell Oil Company in 1995 for illegal dumping in the San Francisco Bay.

Source: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 471.

• In the late 1990s, U.S. PIRG helped collect postcards with signatures in support of banning construction of new roads in national forests, eventually leading to a roadless area conservation rule.

Source: This 2009 newspaper article in High Country News: http://www.hcn.org/articles/roadless-rule-ground-game

• U.S. PIRG actively lobbied for passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act in 2007, which reduced interest rates on student loans and increased funding for Pell Grants.

Source: This 2007 newspaper article in the Hartford Courant: http://articles.courant.com/2007-09-24/news/0709240522_1_college-cost-reduction-america-s-student-loan-providers-higher-education

• U.S. PIRG helped win passage of the Credit CARD Act in 2009, protecting consumers from certain predatory practices by credit card companies.

Source: Kirsch, Larry; Robert N. Mayer (2013). Financial Justice: The People’s Campaign to Stop Lender Abuse. ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-4408-2951-2. P 34.

• Suggesting inserting the existing text and sourcing of this section’s current first paragraph on U.S. PIRG’s role in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau here.

• U.S. PIRG and individual state PIRGs have spoken against some highway expansion or new construction projects as wastefully expensive and unneeded (1), helping to stop projects such as the Illiana Expressway in Illinois. (2)

Sources: 1- This 2014 op-ed by the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-illiana-expressway-edit-0929-20140926-story.html

2- This 2016 Chicago Tribune newspaper article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sta-illiana-environmental-study-st-0429-20160427-story.html

Rjxca (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: State affiliates

Hello, Wikipedians! I’m a relatively new editor – just started this September. I recently saw that the U.S. PIRG page is a little neglected and thought maybe I’d help it along. However, I have conflict of interest. Thus, I am submitting edits for your kind consideration.

I have done the wikicoding for the format, links to other entries, and sourcing edits for the changes I am suggesting. These changes to the existing wikicode of the Public Interest Research Group page are viewable at my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjxca/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload

I am suggesting edits to every section of this Wikipedia entry, but to make the edits more manageable, I am posting my proposed changes by section.

Here are my proposed changes for the existing State affiliates section:

State affiliates

Suggesting additions to the existing text to reflect a more comprehensive list of state PIRG chapters, to link to ones with existing Wikipedia pages, and to alphabetize them. Also suggesting we change the list to reflect how the groups are referred to, which is as “PIRGs” as opposed to “Public Interest Research Groups”. Linking codes are in my sandbox.

List would appear like this:


  • Arizona PIRG
  • CalPIRG (California)
  • CoPIRG (Colorado)
  • ConnPIRG (Connecticut)
  • Florida PIRG
  • Georgia PIRG
  • Illinois PIRG
  • Maryland PIRG
  • MPIRG (Minnesota)
  • MoPIRG (Missouri)
  • New Hampshire PIRG
  • NJPIRG (New Jersey)
  • NMIRG (New Mexico)
  • NYPIRG (New York)
  • NCPIRG (North Carolina)
  • Ohio PIRG
  • OSPIRG (Oregon)
  • Penn PIRG (Pennsylvania)
  • PIRGIM (Michigan)
  • RIPIRG (Rhode Island)
  • TexPIRG (Texas)
  • VPIRG (Vermont)
  • WashPIRG (Washington)
  • WisPIRG (Wisconsin)

Those are my suggested edits for the state affiliates section! Again, formatting and linking to existing state PIRG Wikipedia pages is available on my sandbox. Thanks for your time!

Rjxca (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

no Declined Missing source references for these changes.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Upon realizing we don't have a list of all the state groups currently published online, one-by-one citations seems like the best way to source this list.
  • Arizona PIRG

Source: Arizona PIRG "About" page: https://arizonapirg.org/page/azp/about-arizona-pirg

  • CalPIRG (California)

Source: CALPIRG "About" page: https://calpirg.org/page/cap/about-calpirg

  • CoPIRG (Colorado)

Source: COPIRG "About" page: https://copirg.org/page/cop/about-copirg

  • ConnPIRG (Connecticut)

Source: ConnPIRG "About" page: https://connpirg.org/page/ctp/about-connpirg

  • Florida PIRG

Source: Florida PIRG "About" page: https://floridapirg.org/page/flp/about-florida-pirg

  • Georgia PIRG

Source: Georgia PIRG "About" page: https://georgiapirg.org/page/gap/about-georgia-pirg

  • Illinois PIRG

Source: Illinois PIRG "About" page: https://illinoispirg.org/page/ilp/about-illinois-pirg

  • Maryland PIRG

Source: Maryland PIRG "About" page: https://marylandpirg.org/mdp/about

  • MPIRG (Minnesota)

Source: MPIRG "About" page: http://mpirg.org/about/

  • MoPIRG (Missouri)

Source: MoPIRG "About" page: https://mopirg.org/page/mop/about-mopirg

  • NH PIRG (New Hampshire)

Source: NH PIRG "About" page: https://nhpirg.org/page/nhp/about-nhpirg

  • NJPIRG (New Jersey)

Source: NJPIRG "About" page: https://njpirg.org/njp/about?page=5

  • NMIRG (New Mexico)

Source: NMPIRG "About" page: https://nmpirg.org/page/nmp/about-nmpirg

  • NYPIRG (New York)

Source: NYPIRG "About" page: https://www.nypirg.org/about/

  • NCPIRG (North Carolina)

Source: NCPIRG "About" page: https://ncpirg.org/page/ncp/about-ncpirg

  • Ohio PIRG

Source: Ohio PIRG "About" page: https://ohiopirg.org/page/ohp/about-ohio-pirg

  • OSPIRG (Oregon)

Source: OSPIRG "About" page: https://ospirg.org/page/orp/about-ospirg

  • PennPIRG (Pennsylvania)

Source: PennPIRG "About" page: https://pennpirg.org/pap/about

  • PIRGIM (Michigan)

Source: PIRGIM "About" page: https://pirgim.org/page/mip/about-pirgim

  • RIPIRG (Rhode Island)

Source: RIPIRG "About" page: https://ripirg.org/rip/about

  • TexPIRG (Texas)

Source: TexPIRG "About" page: https://texpirg.org/page/txp/about-texpirg

  • VPIRG (Vermont)

Source: VPIRG "About" page: https://www.vpirg.org/about/

  • WashPIRG (Washington)

Source: WashPIRG "About" page: https://washpirg.org/page/wap/about-washpirg

  • WisPIRG (Wisconsin)

Source: WisPIRG "About" page: https://wispirg.org/page/wip/about-wispirg

Rjxca (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Affiliated non-profits

Hello, Wikipedians! I’m a relatively new editor – just started this September. I recently saw that the U.S. PIRG page is a little neglected and thought maybe I’d help it along. However, I have conflict of interest. Thus, I am submitting edits for your kind consideration.

I have done the wikicoding for the format, links to other entries, and sourcing edits for the changes I am suggesting. These changes to the existing wikicode of the Public Interest Research Group page are viewable at my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjxca/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload

I am suggesting edits to every section of this Wikipedia entry, but to make the edits more manageable, I am posting my proposed changes by section.

Here are my proposed changes for the existing Affiliated non-profits section:


Affiliated non-profits

Suggesting edits to existing second sentence, which currently reads: “In the past, they have also helped to launch a number of other independent public interest non-profits, including GreenCorps, the Toxics Action Center, Environment America, Environmental Action, and the National Environmental Law Center.”

Submitting the above text be changed into bullet pointed list. Also suggesting this is where the Fund for the Public Interest information from the “History” section is relocated, and the addition of Citizen Utility Boards. Suggested text might read:

They have helped to launch a number of other independent public interest non-profits, including:

• The Fund for the Public Interest (1)

• GreenCorps (2)

• The Toxics Action Center (3)

• Environment America (4)

• Environmental Action (5)

• Citizen Utility Boards, which are groups that advocate for utility customers and, (6)

• The National Environmental Law Center (7)

Sources:

1- Existing source from Wiki entry: Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994.

2- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/

3- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/

4- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/

5- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/

6- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 472.

7- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 470.


Suggesting the addition of this sentence after the bullet pointed list:

The PIRGs also started Green Century Funds in 1992, a mutual fund advisory company.

Source: Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 472.


Also suggesting the deletion of the two last sentences currently in this section: “In 1992, the U.S. PIRG launched Green Corps, an environmental organization that trains recent college graduates in a one-year post-graduate program. On November 5, 2007, Environment America separated from the state PIRGs and announced its intention to take control of the organization's national environmental advocacy program.”

Suggesting their removal as this level of detail seems both more appropriate on the respective organizations’ pages and inconsistent with the rest of the entry.


That's it for my proposed changes to the Affiliated non-profits section! Thanks so, so much for your time!

Rjxca (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

no Declined Missing page numbers for these sources.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Added page numbers!Rjxca (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

3/2/2018 Edit Request: Introduction

I am reposting my suggested edits to the Public Interest Research Group in hopefully a clearer and more readable format, implementing editor-suggested changes (viewable above).

Introductory section:

I’d like to suggest the addition of two sentences to the first paragraph (after the existing sentence) to give a more comprehensive view of the org.

LIST OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS
Current text Proposed addition
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) refers to a federation of U.S. and Canadian non-profit organizations that employ grassroots organizing and direct advocacy with the goal of effecting liberal political change. Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) refers to a federation of U.S. and Canadian non-profit organizations that employ grassroots organizing and direct advocacy with the goal of effecting liberal political change. In the U.S., the federation is known as U.S. PIRG, whose mission statement says it “stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public.” The groups work on issues such as “product safety, public health, campaign finance reform, tax and budget reform, and consumer protection,” and are active on college campuses, state capitals, and Washington, D.C.(1)

Sources: 1-“About Us” page of the U.S. PIRG site: https://uspirg.org/page/usp/about-us-pirg-0

Thank you for your consideration! Rjxca (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

3/2/2018- Edit Request: History

I am reposting my suggested edits to the Public Interest Research Group in hopefully a clearer and more readable format, implementing editor-suggested changes (viewable above).

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
The PIRG model was proposed in the book Action for a Change by Ralph Nader and Donald Ross. The PIRG model was proposed in the book Action for a Change by Ralph Nader and Donald Ross, in which they encouraged students on campuses across a state to pool their resources to hire full-time professional researchers and advocates to make a difference on social problems of concern to students. (1)
The PIRGs were supportive of the container deposit legislation in the United States, popularly called “bottle bills." (move to "Policy positions" section)
In 1982, the PIRGs established the Fund for the Public Interest as its fundraising and canvassing arm. (move to "Affiliated non-profits" section)
(new text) The state PIRGs created U.S. PIRG in 1984 to have a national lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. (2) Douglas Phelps, president and chairman of U.S. PIRG (3) played a key role in U.S. PIRG’s formation. (4) By the 1990s, there were PIRGs in twenty states, and by 1996, the PIRGs had more than 350 people on staff, including scientists, organizers and lawyers. (5) Andre Delattre is the current U.S. PIRG director. (6) U.S. PIRG's long-time Consumer Program Director Ed Mierzwinski has repeatedly been named one of the top grassroots lobbyists on Capitol Hill. (7)

Sources:

1- Nader, Ralph; Donald Ross (1972). Action for a Change: A Student's Manual for Public Interest Organizing. New York: Grossman Publishers. P 29.

2- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 470.

3- Phelps’ staff page on U.S. PIRG website: https://uspirg.org/staff/xxp/douglas-h-phelps

4- Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994.P 389-390.

5- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 468.

6- Delattre’s staff page on the U.S. PIRG website: https://uspirg.org/staff/xxp/andre-delattre

7-The Hill’s list of top grassroots lobbyists from 2015, 2016 and 2017: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/358125-top-lobbyists-2017-grass-roots, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/303852-top-lobbyists-2016-grassroots, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/258317-top-lobbyists-2015-grassroots

Thanks so much for your consideration! Rjxca (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

3/2/2018 Edit Request: Funding Model

I am reposting my suggested edits to the Public Interest Research Group in hopefully a clearer and more readable format, implementing editor-suggested changes (viewable above).

Funding model

On the order:

First, I would like to submit that the “Funding model” section be moved to later in the article, below the “Affiliated non-profits” section. The many non-profit Wiki entries out there seem to have different orders, and I’d like to submit this page follow an order more similar to a page like that of Environmental Defense Fund, where the funding section comes below the key accomplishments sections. Funding information is obviously important to include, but in its current position it seems to break up the flow of the entry, particularly as the “History” and “Policy positions” sections blend into one another.

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
(new text in addition to existing paragraph) The U.S. PIRG Education Fund is the tax-deductible entity connected to U.S. PIRG and is funded with grants from foundations. (1) Charity Navigator gave the U.S. PIRG Education Fund two out of four stars for accountability and transparency, and three out of four stars for financials. (2)

Sources: 1- Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994. P 390.

2- The Charity Navigator page on U.S. PIRG: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5433

Rjxca (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

3/2/2018 Edit Request: Policy positions

I am reposting my suggested edits to the Public Interest Research Group in hopefully a clearer and more readable format, implementing editor-suggested changes (viewable above).

Policy positions

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
Section titled "Policy positions" Change section title to "Key accomplishments" - Reason: the nature of the existing information, as well as the additions I would like to make, more document political accomplishments to do with policy rather than merely explaining policy positions. This is similar to the current format of the Environmental Defense Fund Wiki entry.
(Proposing to add sentence to beginning of section as better way of introduction) "The PIRGs work on a range of issues, including consumer protection, product safety, public health, good government, campaign finance reform, and transportation.(1) Some key accomplishments include:"


Proposing to put the following information in chronological, bullet pointed list.


PROPOSED BULLET POINTS
Change Existing Text or Add New Text? Proposed Text
New text NYPIRG helped create the first state Superfund hazardous waste cleanup law in 1981. (1)
This is what I propose as a replacement for the sentence on container deposit legislation I suggested be removed from the History section. MASSPIRG ran a six-year bottle bill campaign, eventually winning container deposit legislation in 1982. (2) (3)
New text ConnPIRG and CALPIRG were involved in passing the first new-car lemon laws in 1982 that require manufacturers to repair or repurchase severely defective relatively new vehicles. (4)
New text Since at least 1984, the PIRGs have worked to register young people to vote. (5) (6)
New text U.S. PIRG has released toy safety reports every year since 1986, which has led to recalls of more than 150 toys. (7)
New text PIRG and the National Environmental Law Center, started by the PIRGs, successfully sued Shell Oil Company in 1995 for illegal dumping in the San Francisco Bay. (8)
New text In the late 1990s, U.S. PIRG helped collect postcards with signatures in support of banning construction of new roads in national forests, eventually leading to a roadless area conservation rule. (9)
New text U.S. PIRG actively lobbied for passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act in 2007, which reduced interest rates on student loans and increased funding for Pell Grants. (10)
New text U.S. PIRG helped win passage of the Credit CARD Act in 2009, protecting consumers from certain predatory practices by credit card companies. (11)
Suggesting inserting the existing text and sourcing of this section’s current first paragraph on U.S. PIRG’s role in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau here. U.S. PIRG lobbied for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent U.S. government agency which was founded as a result of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in the wake of the late-2000s recession and the financial crisis.
New text U.S. PIRG and individual state PIRGs have spoken against some highway expansion or new construction projects as wastefully expensive and unneeded (12), helping to stop projects such as the Illiana Expressway in Illinois.(13)

Sources:

1- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 471.

2- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 469.

3- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 471.

4- Lanier Hickman, H. (2203). American Alchemy: The History of Solid Waste Management in the United States. ForesterPress, p. 386. ISBN 9780970768728. P 386.

5- 1984 newspaper article from Boston College, available at http://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/bostonsh?a=d&d=bcheights19840130.2.45

6- For evidence of ongoing work on voter reg, this 2010 story on CALPIRG’s voter reg work in BeyondChron: http://www.beyondchron.org/calpirg-allies-work-to-boost-student-voter-turnout/

7- This 9 November 2017 story from the Washington Post, entitled "Fidget spinners sold at Target contain lead, advocacy group says" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/11/09/fidget-spinners-sold-at-target-contain-lead-advocacy-group-says/?utm_term=.c5d0ceeb6a0f

8- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 471.

9- This 2009 newspaper article in High Country News: http://www.hcn.org/articles/roadless-rule-ground-game

10- This 2007 newspaper article in the Hartford Courant: http://articles.courant.com/2007-09-24/news/0709240522_1_college-cost-reduction-america-s-student-loan-providers-higher-education

11- Kirsch, Larry; Robert N. Mayer (2013). Financial Justice: The People’s Campaign to Stop Lender Abuse. ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-4408-2951-2. P 34.

12- This 2014 op-ed by the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-illiana-expressway-edit-0929-20140926-story.html

13- This 2016 Chicago Tribune newspaper article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sta-illiana-environmental-study-st-0429-20160427-story.html

Thanks so much for your consideration! Rjxca (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

3/2/2018 Edit Request: State affiliates

I am reposting my suggested edits to the Public Interest Research Group in hopefully a clearer and more readable format, implementing editor-suggested changes (viewable above).

Suggesting additions to the existing text to reflect a more comprehensive list of state PIRG chapters, to link to ones with existing Wikipedia pages, and to alphabetize them. Also suggesting we change the list to reflect how the groups are referred to, which is as “PIRGs” as opposed to “Public Interest Research Groups”. Linking codes are in my sandbox.

List would appear like this:

  • Arizona PIRG

Source: Arizona PIRG "About" page: https://arizonapirg.org/page/azp/about-arizona-pirg

  • CalPIRG (California)

Source: CALPIRG "About" page: https://calpirg.org/page/cap/about-calpirg

  • CoPIRG (Colorado)

Source: COPIRG "About" page: https://copirg.org/page/cop/about-copirg

  • ConnPIRG (Connecticut)

Source: ConnPIRG "About" page: https://connpirg.org/page/ctp/about-connpirg

  • Florida PIRG

Source: Florida PIRG "About" page: https://floridapirg.org/page/flp/about-florida-pirg

  • Georgia PIRG

Source: Georgia PIRG "About" page: https://georgiapirg.org/page/gap/about-georgia-pirg

  • Illinois PIRG

Source: Illinois PIRG "About" page: https://illinoispirg.org/page/ilp/about-illinois-pirg

  • Maryland PIRG

Source: Maryland PIRG "About" page: https://marylandpirg.org/mdp/about

  • MPIRG (Minnesota)

Source: MPIRG "About" page: http://mpirg.org/about/

  • MoPIRG (Missouri)

Source: MoPIRG "About" page: https://mopirg.org/page/mop/about-mopirg

  • NH PIRG (New Hampshire)

Source: NH PIRG "About" page: https://nhpirg.org/page/nhp/about-nhpirg

  • NJPIRG (New Jersey)

Source: NJPIRG "About" page: https://njpirg.org/njp/about?page=5

  • NMIRG (New Mexico)

Source: NMPIRG "About" page: https://nmpirg.org/page/nmp/about-nmpirg

  • NYPIRG (New York)

Source: NYPIRG "About" page: https://www.nypirg.org/about/

  • NCPIRG (North Carolina)

Source: NCPIRG "About" page: https://ncpirg.org/page/ncp/about-ncpirg

  • Ohio PIRG

Source: Ohio PIRG "About" page: https://ohiopirg.org/page/ohp/about-ohio-pirg

  • OSPIRG (Oregon)

Source: OSPIRG "About" page: https://ospirg.org/page/orp/about-ospirg

  • PennPIRG (Pennsylvania)

Source: PennPIRG "About" page: https://pennpirg.org/pap/about

  • PIRGIM (Michigan)

Source: PIRGIM "About" page: https://pirgim.org/page/mip/about-pirgim

  • RIPIRG (Rhode Island)

Source: RIPIRG "About" page: https://ripirg.org/rip/about

  • TexPIRG (Texas)

Source: TexPIRG "About" page: https://texpirg.org/page/txp/about-texpirg

  • VPIRG (Vermont)

Source: VPIRG "About" page: https://www.vpirg.org/about/

  • WashPIRG (Washington)

Source: WashPIRG "About" page: https://washpirg.org/page/wap/about-washpirg

  • WisPIRG (Wisconsin)

Source: WisPIRG "About" page: https://wispirg.org/page/wip/about-wispirg


Thanks so much for your consideration!

Rjxca (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Overtime Class Action Suit Against the Fund for Public Interest Research
  2. ^ Portland labor strife with the Fund for Public Interest Research
  3. ^ Portland labor strife with the Fund for Public Interest Research

Reply 2-MAR-2018

Please see individual request boxes for more information. Regards, Spintendo      08:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

3/3/2018 Edit Request: State affiliates

I am reposting my suggested edits to the Public Interest Research Group in hopefully a clearer and more readable format, implementing editor-suggested changes (viewable above).

State affiliates

Suggesting additions to the existing text to reflect a more comprehensive list of state PIRG chapters, to link to ones with existing Wikipedia pages, and to alphabetize them. Also suggesting we change the list to reflect how the groups are referred to, which is as “PIRGs” as opposed to “Public Interest Research Groups”. Linking codes are in my sandbox.

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
(New text) Arizona PIRG (1)
(Move existing text) CalPIRG (California) (2)
Colorado Public Interest Research Group CoPIRG (Colorado) (3)
Connecticut Public Interest Research Group ConnPIRG (Connecticut) (4)
(New text) Florida PIRG (5)
(New text) Georgia PIRG (6)
(Move existing text) Illinois PIRG (7)
(New text) Iowa PIRG (8)
Maryland Public Interest Research Group Maryland PIRG (9)
Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group MassPIRG (10)
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group MPIRG (Minnesota) (11)
(Move existing text) MoPIRG (Missouri) (12)
(New text) NHPIRG (New Hampshire) (13)
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group NJPIRG (New Jersey) (14)
(New text) NMPIRG (New Mexico) (15)
(New text) NYPIRG (New York) (16)
(Move existing text) NCPIRG (North Carolina) (17)
(Move existing text) Ohio PIRG (18)
(New text) OSPIRG (Oregon) (19)
Penn PIRG PennPIRG (Pennsylvania) (20)
(Move existing text) PIRGIM (Michigan) (21)
(New text) RIPIRG (Rhode Island) (22)
(Move existing text) TexPIRG (Texas) (23)
(New text) VPIRG (Vermont) (24)
(New text) WashPIRG (Washington) (25)
(New text) WisPIRG (Wisconsin) (26)


Sources:

1- Arizona PIRG "About" page: https://arizonapirg.org/page/azp/about-arizona-pirg

2- CALPIRG "About" page: https://calpirg.org/page/cap/about-calpirg

3- COPIRG "About" page: https://copirg.org/page/cop/about-copirg

4- ConnPIRG "About" page: https://connpirg.org/page/ctp/about-connpirg

5- Florida PIRG "About" page: https://floridapirg.org/page/flp/about-florida-pirg

6- Georgia PIRG "About" page: https://georgiapirg.org/page/gap/about-georgia-pirg

7- Illinois PIRG "About" page: https://illinoispirg.org/page/ilp/about-illinois-pirg

8- Iowa PIRG "About" page: https://iowapirg.org/page/iap/about-iowa-pirg

9- Maryland PIRG "About" page: https://marylandpirg.org/mdp/about

10- MassPIRG "About" page: https://masspirg.org/page/map/about-masspirg

11- MPIRG "About" page: http://mpirg.org/about/

12- MoPIRG "About" page: https://mopirg.org/page/mop/about-mopirg

13- NH PIRG "About" page: https://nhpirg.org/page/nhp/about-nhpirg

14- NJPIRG "About" page: https://njpirg.org/njp/about?page=5

15- NMPIRG "About" page: https://nmpirg.org/page/nmp/about-nmpirg

16- NYPIRG "About" page: https://www.nypirg.org/about/

17- NCPIRG "About" page: https://ncpirg.org/page/ncp/about-ncpirg

18- Ohio PIRG "About" page: https://ohiopirg.org/page/ohp/about-ohio-pirg

19- OSPIRG "About" page: https://ospirg.org/page/orp/about-ospirg

20- PennPIRG "About" page: https://pennpirg.org/pap/about

21- PIRGIM "About" page: https://pirgim.org/page/mip/about-pirgim

22- RIPIRG "About" page: https://ripirg.org/rip/about

23- TexPIRG "About" page: https://texpirg.org/page/txp/about-texpirg

24- VPIRG "About" page: https://www.vpirg.org/about/

25- WashPIRG "About" page: https://washpirg.org/page/wap/about-washpirg

26- WisPIRG "About" page: https://wispirg.org/page/wip/about-wispirg


Thanks so much for your consideration!

Rjxca (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Part of your request signaled that WikiLinks to the appurtenant chapters would be added and incorporated into this list, which this reviewer finds to be a solid, workable solution. The proposal states: "Linking codes are in my sandbox." Information which is germane to the edit request proposal but which is placed outside of the normal areas for these requests (such as another editor's own sandbox) runs the risk of not being considered. The proper place for edit requests is the talk page space of the article itself. This reviewer anticipates swift implementation of any list containing Wikilinks which is germane to the article. Please advise. Regards, Spintendo      08:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

3/4/2018 Edit Request: Affiliated non-profits

I am reposting my suggested edits to the Public Interest Research Group in hopefully a clearer and more readable format, implementing editor-suggested changes (viewable above).


LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
Some PIRGs are members of a larger network of non-profit organizations called the Public Interest Network.[10] In the past, they have also helped to launch a number of other independent public interest non-profits, including: (Keep existing text)
Green Corps, the Toxics Action Center, Environment America, Environmental Action, and the National Environmental Law Center. • The Fund for the Public Interest (1)

• GreenCorps (2)

• The Toxics Action Center (3)

• Environment America (4)

• Environmental Action (5)

• Citizen Utility Boards, which are groups that advocate for utility customers and, (6)

• The National Environmental Law Center (7)

In 1992, the U.S. PIRG launched Green Corps, an environmental organization that trains recent college graduates in a one-year post-graduate program. (Delete- seems more appropriate to include on the GreenCorps wiki)
On November 5, 2007, Environment America separated from the state PIRGs and announced its intention to take control of the organization's national environmental advocacy program. (Delete- Unsourced, and a misleading representation of the split which was an org-wide consensus decision to separate the groups' issue areas, rather than the coup the current language evokes)

Sources:

1- Existing source from Wiki entry: Brobeck, Stephen; Robert N. Mayer (2015.) Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1440829994.

2- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/

3- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/

4- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/

5- Existing source from Wiki entry: The Public Interest Network homepage: https://publicinterestnetwork.org/


7- Brobeck, Stephen (1997). Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-987-8. P 470.

Thanks so much for your consideration!

Rjxca (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply

 Implemented The bulleted list section which contained an outside reference was appended. Those sections of the list which were referenced back to Wikipedia were declined, per WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Spintendo      08:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Interest_Research_Group/Archives/2020/January&oldid=1164975037"