Talk:Brennan Center for Justice

NPOV

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a press release. 71.247.249.236 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to still be a NPOV problem; wording has been added to specify but is reverted. Specifically impartial tone and words to watch; endorsing a view that the center doesn't by citing a single article expression of 'liberal think tank' while the other referenced source doesn't agree and notes 'sometimes viewed as' which clearly does not specify an endorsed or commonly agreed view. The sources should be updated to provide adequate representation of 'progressive, liberal...non-partisan' is being used as a factual descriptor vs. opinion. Avoid stating opinions as facts. 80.216.23.80 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brennan Center for Justice. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121195230/http://brennan.3cdn.net/6a990d231fa8ab0e67_q3m6b36nz.pdf to http://brennan.3cdn.net/6a990d231fa8ab0e67_q3m6b36nz.pdf

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) 05:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk: affiliation

Quick question, how exactly can something be liberal or progressive but be nonpartisan? Isn't that a contradiction?

It's not a contradiction because partisan refers to affiliation with a political party. Being nonpartisan means there is no affiliation with a political party. It doesn't mean there is no ideology (e.g. liberal or progressive)--just no official relationship with a political party. Marquardtika (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It may not be a contradiction, but I don't see anything stating that this is a factual representation. I see a news story from CBS mentioning it as a 'liberal thank tank' and the other document notes that 'it is sometimes seen as' liberal/progressive but that it also has helped conservatives (i.e. John McCain getting on the GOP ballot). So I'm not sure stating that it unequivocally as a sourced article is valid; unless of course 'opinion' is enough to be cited as fact. 80.216.23.80 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is a contradiction. Reference wiki entries for partisan and nonpartisanism. Partisan says affiliation, where the nonpartisan entry refers to affiliation and bias. The difference seems to stem from a disagreement between the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries. The center itself does not claim partisan or nonpartisan status, but rather comes from the reference noted in the supporting article. It is worth noting, however, that the referenced article states in the exact same sentence, that "the center is generally seen as espousing a progressive or liberal point of view" (and unless you demonstrate those ideologies are shared equally among parties then a bias exists). Depending on which definition wins out, the entry should be revised to partisan the chosen definition should be propagated by revising other entries to explicitly state their non-partisan status. NRA and Federalist society perhaps? Given that the center does not claim one way or the other, the point should just be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3C8F:3400:90FF:FBFB:E925:E17F (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The center itself does claim non-partisan and many reference materials exist agreeing. There is no reputable source saying otherwise, there is an article that notes that it is 'generally seen as' but no actual data backing this comment up. As such, it barely deserves the mention it already has on the page. I'd propose we remove that comment altogether unless there is more than subjective text of an article that otherwise highlights their non-partisan work. Quote: 'The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute.'; source: Brennan Center About Page. Your comment about NRA and Federalist is just being sensationalist to highlight your own view; the Federalist wiki article already mentions their non-partisan claim and the criticisms/rebuttals directly as it actual has documented conflict, whereas the Brennan society does not. The NRA doesn't claim to be non-partisan, so likewise is irrelevant. Remember, this is Wikipedia not conserva-paedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.23.80 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The text about its liberal/progressive leanings is longstanding and is supported by several references. Ergo Sum 15:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for revert explanation

Ergo Sum, I would like an explanation as to why you reverted my edit. I looked through the sources in this article, and did not see any which demonstrate notability, as the ones which are reliable and independent are simple name drops. Could you please explain what references lead you to believe this subject is notable? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If deletion is desired, I think an AFD discussion would be the appropriate venue. Marquardtika (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said anything about deletion. I'm talking about redirection to a parent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The policy WP:PAGEBLANKING governs this very action. It is against policy to blank a page as a form of deletion. To accomplish this, you must run it through the AFD process. Ergo Sum 01:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirection is not "page blanking". I asked a specific question and would like a specific answer, please. Which references lead you to believe that this subject is notable? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting this article without merging any of its content appeared to me to be deletion by redirection. And since the redirect was objected to by another editor, I recommended an AFD as a next step. Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Which is not deletion. I am still now, after asking several times, not clear which sources lead you to believe that this subject is notable. I am not looking for the article to be deleted, just redirected (with merge if desired), so I cannot file an AfD to ask for the article to not be deleted. Please list the sources which lead you to believe the article is notable, or any objection is invalid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The page blanking policy is very clear. If you're not happy with two editors' interpretation of that policy and application to the present circumstances, I recommend obtaining a WP:3O or, as has been stated many times now, listed at AFD. I must advise that, having seen this precise dispute play out on several occasions, at either, you will get the same answer as you have already gotten. Ergo Sum 02:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I never said I thought the subject was notable. That was another editor (Ergo Sum). But since you asked, I did a quick search and it looks to me like WP:ORGDEPTH is easily met. For example, this in-depth NYT article about a Brennan Center report on criminal justice reform. More coverage is found in The Hill, Time, and HuffPost. Marquardtika (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deborahspearman4 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jdoebler.

— Assignment last updated by Jdoebler (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

One valuable addition to the article would be the inclusion of images. Incorporating visuals would provide readers with a more comprehensive perspective of the organization's impact on the community. Furthermore, I suggest incorporating a section on how individuals can become involved with the organization.

This section could be concise and structured as follows:

Ways to Support/Join

For individuals interested in actively participating in the organization, there are various avenues to consider. By signing up for the newsletter, you can stay informed about the organization's current events and remain updated on the initiatives and changes aimed at uplifting the community.

Additionally, individuals can support and join the Brennan Center for Justice through multiple means, including:

• By mail: You can contribute or become a member by sending your donations or applications through traditional mail.

• Online: Joining or donating through the organization's website offers a convenient and accessible option.

• Through stocks and retirement funds: Explore opportunities to support the organization by leveraging financial assets.

• Joining the Brennan Legacy Circle: Consider becoming a part of this dedicated group that actively contributes to the organization's enduring impact.

These enhancements would enrich the article by providing readers with both a visual understanding of the organization's work and practical guidance on how to engage with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborahspearman4 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for proposing potentially controversial edits on the talk page before implementing them. While it would be good to have suitable images included in the article (perhaps of an event run by the Brennan Center), fundraising and other promotional text or links would most certainly run afoul of WP:NOTPROMO. Ergo Sum 19:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposed content about becoming involved with the group via fundraising, etc. is not appropriate--that's the type of content one would expect to find on the group's own website, but not in an encyclopedic article. Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

When can Brennan Center be used as a source about its own activities?

I'm writing in response to a revert, about Brennan Center's Ohio gerrymandering cases, based on the view that the Center should not be used as a self-published source. cc: User:Marquardtika @Marquardtika:

It is often the case that organizations can be used as reliable sources about themselves. For instance, in Wikipedia:Verifiability it states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." As a project of NYU, the Brennan Center has expertise in state law and it publishes the State Court Report. In addition, WP:ABOUTSELF says that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" -- even without the expertise established by groups like the Brennan Center -- based on a few criteria, such as: "There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity."

I believe there's no reasonable doubt that Brennan Center would not misrepresent its own legal activities. For example, in one of the Ohio cases that it put in its State Court Report public database, the entry itself notes that Brennan Center is a party to the case and it publishes the database -- i.e., it disclosed its own interest. I think the State Court Report is an expert reliable source for state law and this RS can include cases that include Brennan itself.

In terms of the specific edit about Ohio cases, it is possible to verify Brennan's expert self-reporting of its legal work. For example, here are five gerrymandering cases that it argued at the Ohio Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-1727.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2023/2023-Ohio-4271.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-1235.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-342.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-65.pdf

However, it is tedious and unnecessary to find these primary sources, when the Brennan Center and its State Court Report have the requisite authority and reasonable reliability.

Btw the revert deleted info about the Brennan Center's endorsement of the Issue 1, for which it is also a reliable self-published source. Its reliabiilty can be verified by the Issue 1 campaign website, but that is not necessary as a matter of Wikipedia policy. Thanks for your consideration, ProfGray (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)