Talk:Sunrise Movement

Using references

When there is a reference to an article at the end of a sentence, our readers expect that article is a reliable source for the information in that sentence. But, for example, today I looked at the reference for a statement in our article that Sunrise "endorses nonviolent, community-based political action." The RS cited did not mention nonviolence, community-based action, etc. etc., let alone describe Sunrise Movement as endorsing them.

Our article also misstated a different reference, saying, "After taking control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats failed to put climate change on their list of priorities." The source cited, published weeks before the 2018 elections, could hardly be RS for what Dems failed to do after winning control of the House. Instead, the article quoted careful statements by Democrats who were busy with the campaigning that won them control of the House. Furthermore, despite its pessimistic title, the article described a wide range of opinions among Democrats about legislative approaches to climate change.

This is an encyclopedia article which should be written in an NPOV way to give factual information about the Sunrise Movement. It should not be presenting Sunrise Movement talking points in the voice of Wikipedia, and it should certainly not be misrepresenting what reliable sources say. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"The Sunrise Movement is closely allied with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats"

The lead paragraph summarizes important items that already are in the body of the article. Nothing close to this sentence appears elsewhere in the article, nor is any RS cited to support it. I am going to rewrite the lead paragraph to make it clearer, but this sentence needs to be explained and cited in the article body. Also, the word "allied" is unclear about what relationship is being claimed. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for Corrections/Additions

Thank you HouseOFChange for your help. My point in adding all of that was so that there would at least be something on the page, which was fairly blank before. However, you're right that I needed to be more careful with my use of tone and how I presented the Sunrise Movement's talking points. The page looks great now! EthanMagnuson (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your collegial and friendly response. There is a lot more good and interesting stuff that could be added to this article, if you have the time and inclination. This New Yorker article has a lot on background of Sunrise Movement. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition

Is Sunrise a movement or is Sunrise simply a 501(c)(4)?

• SunriseMovement.org states: "Sunrise is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process."
• Is the legal name of the 501(c)(4) literally "Sunrise Movement?" No. The literal legal name is just "Sunrise." (Tax Returns)
• Sunrise is also a 501(c)(3)
• While the 501(c) organization coordinates, not all the actions that are part of the movement are coordinated by this organization. The organization sometimes doesn't even know when something is done in the name of Sunrise.
• Coming right off the bat and saying that Sunrise is simply a 501(c)(4) is good language for something like influencewatch.org, but this is Wikipedia and the definition obfuscates both the nature of the organization defined movement (if it was indeed defined by the organization, or if it was the other way around) and the organization itself.
• A grassroots movement can be lead by a 501(c)(4). The organization's budget is less than a million dollars according to its tax returns and there are thousands of volunteers who don't get paid. There are about a dozen people who are actually employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Galo (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

November sit-in at Nancy Pelosi's office

Currently, the article misrepresents the relative roles of Sunrise Movement, Justice Dems, and AOC in the sit-in. Per the source cited, Sunrise Movement planned the sit-in and asked AOC to help publicize it. Instead, she offered to show up. (A New Yorker article says the same.) SM then worked with JD and AOC and "hashed out a proposal for a Select Committee on a Green New Deal, outlining their vision for the kind of plan such a committee would produce." Later, over a weekend in December, the SM and JD worked with AOC and her staff and a group called New Consensus to create an 11-page Google doc for the New Deal. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Green New Deal Does Not Oppose Nuclear or Carbon Capture

In this recent interview with Vox's David Roberts, Senator Ed Markey, who introduced the Green New Deal resolution in the senate, clarifies that the resolution was written explicitly to be technology-agnostic about meeting the resolution's decarbonization goals . Many outlets appear to have mischaracterized the GND resolution's language. I think the article should be updated to reflect that the senator who introduced the resolution says it doesn't exclude nuclear or CCS as potential avenues for decarbonization.

(Preceding comment added by User:Eyesmo)

@Eyesmo:That is interesting context for the Green New Deal article, but this article is about the Sunrise Movement. In fact, the article you cite does not mention the Sunrise Movement at all. Do you have RS saying that Sunrise Movement has changed its position concerning carbon capture and nuclear? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate Change debate

I'm trying to document a nuanced interaction between the Sunrise Movement and their allies and the DNC. It is complicated and in my view requires going into wonky detail to capture what is happening. There's a tension between getting all the facts down vs. being clear and concise to fall within to Wikipedia guidelines of good editing. My original text on this section was pared down by JesseRafe (I've commented on their talk page, no response yet), and while I can see that the result is more readable, I also fear important details are lost.

One particular sticking point is this line, which I rewrote after similar content was deleted from the original post by Jesse: "On June 29th, a DNC executive committee voted unanimously to refer two proposals--one calling for a debate on climate change, and one less formal--to the resolutions committee."

This line came after a line explaining that the Sunrise Movement had held a three day protest outside DNC headquarters. I think it's important primarily because of the timing of the decision with regards to the protest. Of course we can't know if the decision was made because of the protest but in my view that possibility makes it an important detail. I am aware that political content should be treated with extra care to remain neutral. I am a newer editor and am still figuring out how everything works.

Jesse subsequently deleted the line I had reworked without much explanation. In the interest of avoiding an edit war I'm writing out my thoughts here and would be particularly interested to hear from JesseRafe, and other experienced editors, especially HouseOfChange who has made significant contributions to the page.Mistipolis (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks for starting the discussion here. It is important to note that we cannot cast aspersions in Wikipedia's voice or otherwise engage in synthesis, such as directly or indirectly suggesting causal relationships between events. If there is a source that discusses the relation, that is one thing. If not, it cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. The mundane happenings of the DNC and the Climate debate were going way too far into the weeds for an encyclopedia article about an activist group, not a play-by-play compendium of the DNC. Hope this clears my actions up. Definitely open to other views if other editors come across this topic. JesseRafe (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful response. I see your point about indirectly implying a causal relationship with regards to the DC protest. I will leave the edits for now but I do dispute the descriptor "mundane." This is clearly my opinion but the younger generation of the world takes climate change extremely seriously, and anything that moves the needle in terms of addressing the climate crisis (such as forcing a future president to enumerate and defend their climate policy) is likely to become an important part of that history. Mistipolis (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't think I don't take the climate crisis seriously, but WP:SOAPBOX still applies. Your cause is not the only cause that has a non-zero population of people who think it is the number one issue facing the world, and I think you would be very unhappy to see a lot of those agendas laid bare all over what you thought to be a neutral encyclopedia. That's why we have to have as strict a line as we can on limiting POVs. Again, if some reputable published source recapped the happenings and drew conclusions, then that, tersely, could be included if phrased neutrally. Also the DNC executive committee makes rules, has votes, and sets policy all the time. That's their sole function, hence one instance of such appears to me to be "mundane". JesseRafe (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I hear that you take the climate crisis seriously; it wasn't my intention to imply otherwise. I also take Wikipedia's NPOV policy seriously. Yes, I have biases and my passion for the subject is part of what motivated me to create the page and continue to edit it. However, I also try very hard to write from a neutral perspective, which is why I included the statement directly from the DNC chair on why it's against DNC policy to hold single issue debates. It wasn't a cherry-picked statement designed to make him look bad. It was a statement addressing the heart of the issue from the other side. As far as the DNC meeting goes it's the timing that was the key point, as the meeting and decision to hold a vote happened right after a large, nationally covered protest. I did have to combine two credible sources to draw that conclusion, which I now understand to be more the role of a journalist and not a wikipedia editor. My essential point is this, though, Jesse: that I am trying to do this right. I am newer, I have more to learn. Chew up my edits, turn them upside-down or whatever makes sense to you, just tell me why you did it. The "wiki adventure" is not enough, I need solid points to improve upon. I think you can fairly assume that most people are just trying to get it right.Mistipolis (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know anything about a "Wiki Adventure" but there are tens of thousands of words of advice written about what constitutes good edits and I'm not going to regurgitate them here; they're easily accessible through the links above and on your talk page. I have no more bandwidth for discussing the DNC (in general!) meeting on climate change or whatever, and consider this particular matter closed. If you have any specific questions, please ask, and I will try to help you answer, but I am not as familiar with the Bernstein and Woodward details of this matter as I was in September and I don't feel like digging it all up again. As you said, this is not journalism but an encyclopedia. Please don't hesitate to point out if I missed something above or misread your comment. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)