Talk:Common Purpose

"Criticism" / conspiracy theory

Please note: these are not 'criticisms' of Common Purpose: they are conspiracy theories. There is no evidence for Brian Gerrish's claims. What is the relevance of the taxpayer's contribution to Common Purpose? Wikipedia is intended as an objective resource, not a place for the publication of slanderous allegations put about by conspiracy theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.167.222 (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is not neutral, 'criticism'. I presume this is just another editor who is working for Common Purpose (though this time using a non-Common Purpose IP) who is (again) trying to 'clean' the article to his liking. Please stop and discuss here only! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not a 'Common Purpose' editor (I have signed your page, as requested. Neutrality is exactly the issue here - 'Criticism' gives credence to the idea that there is some kind of objectivity to the statements being made by these people. Would you call accusations that the Royal Family murdered Princess Diana 'Criticism' or a 'Conspiracy Theory'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.167.222 (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory gives credence to that there are people working together to discredit the organisation. Both have a large negative impact, so lets find something more neutral here. I feel that 'critisism' is the less worse of both. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - fair enough. However, the content of 'Criticism' section is still poorly written.

"Common Purpose has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, Parliament, the legal profession, many of Britains 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, various levels of government, ministries, and many RDAs (Regional Development Agencies).[citation needed] Common Purpose involves networking and achieving the common aims of its members, and so with members in these positions of power.[citation needed]

Over £100 million of taxpayers money has been spent on Common Purpose courses alone, and this has been hidden from the public.[citation needed] There are no published accounts.[citation needed] Members names are not disclosed.[citation needed] It charges substantial figures for its courses.[citation needed] "Matrix" for example, costs £3,950 plus VAT, and courses for the high flying ‘leader’ can be as much as £9,950 plus VAT.[citation needed]"

No citations, no links. For example, accounts ARE available, here: www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/CompanyInfo.aspx It is indicative of the kind of allegations that are being spread, and the reason that I would call this a 'Conspiracy Theory' rather than objective criticism, but you're an established editor and I'm not so tough on me, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.167.222 (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it then makes sense to mention the reference you are giving here in the document, and since it then clearly contradicts that sentence, you can remove the sentence it contradicts. By the way, could you sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - have done. Four tildes? What's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesJBlank (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(the four tildes are automatically converted to your username and a date, add them to the end of your comment, save and see what the result is). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a question about evidence that the BNP campaigns against Common Purpose? Not sure where to put evidence so leaving it here! There's plenty on the BNP website but here's one example: http://bnp.org.uk/2008/11/melton-and-rutland-bnp-introduce-own-dvd-to-latest-meeting/ 195.102.184.136 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree re BNP campaigns. Have removed statements that have no citations or links.

--Diginerd84 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

nobody has shown what benefits 'charitable', they provide, that is beyond those of programming, indoctrination & the career elevation of accredited 'graduates' 81.154.125.81 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Sun

I notice User:Nick_Cooper has reverted an edit which introduced material from The Sun newspaper on the grounds that "The Sun is not a reliable source". I don't think this is correct: Wikipedia lists The Sun as a potentially unreliable source (which 'should not be used when a more respected, mainstream source exists') – but there is no prohibition on using it, unlike for some other more extreme tabloids (e.g. National Enquirer). In any case, the reverted content does not appear to be introducing the Sun's view into the article so much as reporting the fact of publication and what was published (right or wrong). The fact that a multi-million copy circulation newspaper has seen fit to publish on this topic is notable I'd have thought. However, I don't think it belongs in the article lede. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the material in a new section, with better references, some context, a chronology and direct quotation. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not valid sources when all they're doing is regurgitating the usual conspiracy theory/NWO rape fantasy nonsense about CP, especially for biased anti-Leveson reasons. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In what sense "not valid"? Leaving aside the truth of what they say (which is of course irrelevant) the fact is three papers published three stories on three days using the words quoted — and that is verifiable and sourced, and so completely fit for Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to consider the history of this page, and the crackpot theories about the subject matter. A few years ago, desperate to "uncover" their own domestic version of Bilderberg or Bohemian Grove, British conspiracy theorists seem to have decided - on exceptionally weak circumstantial evidence - that Common Purpose is it. To such conspiracists, CP is not a training/networking organisation/charity, but has - beyond all reality - morphed into a super-secret plot to seize direct control of the country/Europe/the world. The Anon IP's laughable insinuation that anyone having no truck with such conspiracy theories or anything that nudges towards them by stealth must somehow be "connected" to CP is symptomatic of their paranoia and warped world-view.

There is nothing new in the Mail's desparate join-the-dotsery, because it's the same paranoid drivel that the conspiracy theorists have been spouting and desperately trying to get onto this page for years. The Mail has been muttering for some time, but is really just using it now as a stick to beat Leveson with prior to what we now know will be a report that will be critical of the press in general, and the Mail and its editor in particular. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there's nothing in what you write that is a reason to disqualify inclusion of the fact these papers published what they did, is there? Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue was originally being pushed by two single-issue anon IPs (one of whom went on to make a similar biased edit to Media Standards Trust), one being reverted by myself, and the other by another established editor. You will note that this page has a long history of similar anonymous and conspiratorial edits, often in the same "stealthy" manner. As it stood, it was very unbalanced to include the Mail's conspiracy-by-numbers proxy attack on Leveson, although now at least there is some counterpoint to it. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Article looks fine now – the counterbalancing stuff you added works nicely: a little piece of newspaper history preserved. I understand the frustrations associated with dealing with conspiracism, but I think sticking to WP policy works well in the longer term. I mean, if an article like 9/11 can end up looking sane, that's a good advert for the procedure's robustness! ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What a surprise, I made those edits last night, citing the statements of vast circulation national newspapers, and even made a comment that doubtless someone would soon be along to remove factual statements from reliable sources, and what do you know, that's exactly what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.122.1 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I also see Mr. Cooper has made edits to other pages that depict Common Purpose in a negative light, and from his talk page, I see he has the typical sort of non-job in the public sector that almost guarantees he either has worked with, or is himself a (low level) graduate of the charming organisation known as Common Purpose. Care to deny it?

Here's another link (from the Daily Telegraph, one of the oldest and most respected broadsheet newspapers in the world) that describes the organisation as fabians, and notes they've been described as left wing freemasons.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100191270/rotherham-hislop-common-purpose/

how is this one non-notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.122.1 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 26 November 2012‎

Contrary to your paranoid wishfulfilment, I have never had any dealings personally or in my work with Common Purpose, nor in fact have I ever been aware of having had any contact - personal or working - with anyone I know who has, either. I would also be rather surprised if you had the even the slightest clue about what my previous job that you think you're refering to actually involved (i.e. not even remotely as powerful/controlling/tentacly as you'd like to think). I also edit hundreds of other Wikipedia pages - perhaps you would like to construct some ludicrous conspiracy theories around them, as well? At least I have the courage to post under my own real name, rather than hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please behave! It is completely out-of-order, User:86.128.122.1, for you to attack User:Nick_Cooper as you have. Please remember to assume good faith and to be civil. From some recent edits here, there appears to be a breakdown of trust, and I have to say, User:Nick_Cooper, your reversions of edits on the stated grounds that they are (or stem from) "conspiracy theory" do not help matters — material added in good faith, especially if it is neutrally stated and sourced, should not be challenged in those terms. Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and the Sun are both very well established national newspapers in the UK. If they are not reliable sources then I don't know what is. There seems to be a large degree of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT in the efforts to keep negative comments out of this article despite proper sourcing. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To Editor Nick Cooper

Nick Cooper, clearly you have a strong position against conspiracy theorising, and so do I - especially the the kind I find in The Guardian and in other left-wing organisations (about Israel, the "Zionist Lobby", "far right terrorists", Big Oil, business generally, etc.), but also on the Right.

However, in order for an organisation to have pernicious - or positive - political influence and power, it doesn't need to be secret.

Indeed if Common Purpose doesn't have much political power and influence, what's the point of it? Isn't that precisely why it exists - to have political influence and power within the political and social arenas? In other words, strong criticisms of Common Purpose can be made without citing "secret" activities or by conpiracy theorising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Nick Cooper seems to be a committed leftist ideologue who is deeply biased and attempting to manipulate the content of this article and abusing his position as a wikipedia editor to do so. Rivalin (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common Purpose UK. 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/20100921040912/http://director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2008/11%20November/strategy_62_4.html to http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2008/11%20November/strategy_62_4.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tedxeastend.com/juliamiddleton/

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) 10:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Common Purposes Course - IEPC

Hello Wikipedians

I am an independent education technologist based in SA. I had an invitation from common purpose to attend an event entitled “Leadership Teaser: 21 May 2024”, which I accepted. There were a number of locals on the Zoom call. I see that Common Purpose, Times Higher Education and NAFASA have collaborated on a course called “International Education Professional Certificate”. I have added a short paragraph describing this course, to the Common Purpose page. I hope that it does not sound like an endorsement. I have not signed up for it, as it is far to expensive for me. Derek J Moore (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)