Talk:Common Purpose UK

Untitled

Need time to ask others to add their research

Controversial Brian Gerrish video

it's about a conspiracy that the Common Purpose group is controlling the UK, it's a must see and a Criticism section should be created in this article --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.141.183 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've seen the video. maybe a criticisms section is needed highlighting some of the criticisms levelled at Common Purpose by various groups/professional bodies/politicians? Witanofnorfolk 12:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One user removed this link citing it was "legally slanderous." I have seen the video and I'm not inclined to agree with the removal on that ground so I have reinstated it. __meco 19:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section caleld criticisms and made a quick note of Brian Gerish. Could somebody expand this with a bit mroe info and relate it to the link to the video? Witanofnorfolk 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Tim Byles now head of the BSF project and former Norfolk CC has been interested in working with Common purpose's courses as shown at: http://www.eastspace.net/norfolkambition-partnership/documents/NCSP_B_Minutes_05.06.22.doc it might be worth mentionining this since obviously BSF is a massive undertaking and would require a fair bit of staff training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witanofnorfolk (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope I'm adding this comment correctly as I can't see an "add comment" button! (Please correct if I'm doing this wrong.) I've removed the conspiracy video twice as according to the Wiki defition it is defamatory. "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." The video in question contains reference to Common Purpose as a sinister and criminal organisation and claims that Common Purpose is working to destroy the infrastructure of the country. (At one point stating that Common Purpose want to "kill us"! These claims are offensive, inaccurate, false and defamatory. I'm removing it again and suggest this is taken to a jurisdiction by admin if disagreed. - Rangenews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point about the video, however there seems to be a fair number of them online now regarding Common Purpose from the quick search I have done on Google. Maybe the user who added the vid could discuss the video's under the criticism section? Witanofnorfolk 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the video again: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594&hl=en-GB

I'm the one that posted it the first time. 83.250.148.93 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a mechanism called the Arbitration Committee, however, my experience suggests that it would be premature to request its intervention in this matter yet. I do not accept your premise that this video is legally slanderous. Some people may of course be of that opinion, but as I perceive the matter this is a lawfully presented and argued accusation levelled at common Purpose, and any conclusion about it not being protected by freedom of speech I find far-fetched at this junction. __meco 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what happened to the part I edited? And why isn't the link to the video featured in the article? 83.250.148.93 07:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it just appeared, thanks Meco. =) 83.250.148.93 07:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about a Hide/Show thingy for the CP clients? 83.250.148.93 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Meco, It seems we disagree on the fundamental definition of defamation! I would have thought that if someone accused me of wanting to kill them and then published it on the web, I would be defamed. But obviously you don't agree. Witanofnorfolk's comment is accepted: that the same video is replicated across various sites and can be found via a Google search. But you'll also notice the nature of these sites and surely want Wikipedia to be somewhat more reputable! So I'll leave it to you to actually watch the whole video (as I can't believe you could sit through it all and not consider it defamatory?) and reconsider. If there is still no mutual conclusion then I'll make a formal request for arbitration. Thanks! (I'm leaving the video up for now so others could comment on its acceptability?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rangenews, Brian Gerrish DOES in fact back up each one of his claims. Why do you care so much? 83.250.148.93 10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

83, for many reasons, not least of which is that I don't feel Wikipedia should be used as a cheap way to distribute utterly false marginal conspiracy theory rants which defame others. (And is morally and racially offensive. A few links on from where I viewed this video I found a vile anti-semitic post about Common Purpose. While such twisted statements may not be illegal, they should certainly not be countenanced, imho.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I found the video on Stormfront, a highly anti-semitic discussion forum. That does not in any way mean that the video is in itself anti-semitic propaganda. Brian Gerrish even compares Common Purpose to the Nazi Party, rather than referring to it as a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, if that's what you were trying to get at. The Common Purpose UK article, like many other Wikipedia articles about organizations, has every right to have its own Criticism section. If you wish to question the legality about having a section for criticism, then you could just as well question pretty much every Wikipedia article that has a Criticism section. If I know Wikipedia correctly this is accepted procedure. But I might be wrong. Cheers! =) 83.250.148.93 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rangenews, you write "utterly false marginal conspiracy theory rants which defame others". Please, indulge me, as you seem to be very well connected to CP, can you give some examples where this google video is wrong? Just a handful, please. And by the way: "A few links on from where I viewed this video I found a vile anti-semitic post about Common Purpose." Is the video anti-semitic? If so, then please say so. If not, stop saying this kind of bullshit. Because a few links from this article about Common Purpose I can find anything, which in fact, proves nothing. Ccwelt 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been away on holiday! I would take the video apart point by point, but exhaustion overtakes me. Every point made in the video can of course be made about any training organisation working with public and private sector leaders. So I was about to make a long post here then stopped... UKIP, CIB, Stormfront, the posters (and makers) of this video condemn its veracity by association. So you're right to some extent, as long as it's properly attributed the viewers ought to be able to make up their own minds! Cheers. - Rangenews

I watched the video on September 29 and then submitted this entry to Talk:Demos (UK think tank). I am quite convinced that this video can and should be cited and referenced in the present article. __meco 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just one more point, shouldn't the video and the indymedia link be moved under external links rather than references? Would correct, but can't seem to find the list of references to edit anywhere? - Rangenews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

References and links vanished

they are on the edit page, but not onscreen for the main page. any ideas why?? raining girl 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem of a missing </ref> tag. __meco 07:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There a numerous citations and references needed. I have now added. Diginerd84 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable clients

I have removed the section 'Notable Clients'. Not all of these organizations are not notable, and the fact that two notable organizations have a business relationship is not necessarily notable. This section does not explain why these relationships are notable - The list tells us nothing about the nature of their relationship with Common Purpose -- Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This list corroborates the ubiquitous nature of Common Purpose, and the nature of these relationships is at the minimun defined by Common Purpose's field of activity as described in the article. The list could easily benefit from some pruning, but to remove it altogether is an exaggeration in my opinion. __meco (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)(minor edit: stature -> nature -meco (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Campaign for an Independent Britain (et al) criticism removed

User:Crosbiesmith removed the following text with the edit commentary "not supported by source given":

Similar criticism of the organisation has come from CIB, UKIP, BNP and David Icke.<ref>*[http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/2007/03/365733.html Indymedia Report "Common Purpose takes over Bradford"]</ref>

I haven't checked to see whether this source is inapplicable to the assertion, but if it is, perhaps it would be sufficient to leave the statement and add a {{fact}} tag requesting a new citation? __meco (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be. Restored - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

have removed all statements without citations - which includes CIB and UKIP. Will notice BNP remains because it meets sufficient requirements.

--Diginerd84 (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement on national security

On November 15, User:Rangenews added:

On 14 November 2007, the Prime Minister made a statement on national security that measures to oppose extremism would include working closely with the community; including "new leadership training sponsored by Common Purpose" especially for members of the Muslim community.

This was based on http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13757.asp . Unfortunately, the source does not support this. I know it did say this as it was in the google cache. I have a copy. I guess it was a draft. It can also be seen here. However, in Hansard, Common Purpose is not mentioned. [1]. As it stands the article is incorrect and will have to be changed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Story

Christopher Story's views aren't notable and should be removed from this article. Around this time last year, Christopher Story was running the story that Henry Paulson was arrested in Germany [2].

I doubt that Christopher Story himself is notable, though if someone were to write a well researched article on him, I would be fascinated to read it. I would like know exactly what his professional relationship with Margaret Thatcher was. Based on the incredible claims on his website, I found it hard to believe his advice was solicited by her. However, a search of the Times digital archive does show up a Christopher Story talking to an 'audience of MPS and students' in 1981. - Crosbiesmith 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your doubts are misplaced. Christopher Story FRSA was in fact an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and has worked closely with famous KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, collaborating on the book The Perestroika Deception in 1995. You might disagree with his analysis, but his views should be noted here. Gordon Thomas is a reliable source. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could some reliable references be dug up to corroborate mr. Story's credibility (and notability, if possible – he might warrant his own Wikipedia article)? I think this would make it easier to accept him as an applicable source for controversial claims. __meco (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Consideration for deletion

This article needs expanding, especially the (left wing) political aspects and connections. The organization is secretive, and has too many tentacles into local government, and the "public sector". It's goal is "to find future leaders", this alone means it should be exposed to sunlight. Most people have never heard of these people, and yet they suggest a huge number of people are graduates of their program. It has the potential of becoming a left wing form of Freemasonry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was verging on being an advert. Have removed trustees and notabale past participants (aka graduates) as these are unfounded.

--Diginerd84 (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Common Purpose website

User:Malcolmxl5 - Why did you remove the link to the Common Purpose website? Which blacklist was it on? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar - Why did you remove the link to the Common Purpose website? Which blacklist was it on? Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Wikipedia won't let me save an edit with the text commonpurpose.org as it is on a spam blacklist. It's a bit of a pain. I renamed all commonpurpose.org links as commonpurpose.test, which allowed me to save. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that a request to have these links whitelisted was declined: [3]. This is unsatisfactory. The article survived a vote for deletion. The subject of the article has a web site. The web site needs to be linked to. I have re-submitted the request. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Amusingly, the domain was blacklisted because of spamming by someone at Common Purpose! [4]. Anyway, I'd like to see these links whitelisted. It would be more appropriate to block the Common Purpose domain range responsible for the attack. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks to User:Beetstra - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed all links to blacklisted Common Purpose website

--Diginerd84 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Apologies for any mistakes in advance, this is my first post on Wikipedia and I'm trying to stick to the guidelines as much as I can.

My request

I was wondering if the community might be able to help. I work in the Marketing Department for Common Purpose Charitable Trust. We keep on getting people contacting us asking us why the wikipedia page on our UK division of the charity is so out of date, and why we don't have one for the global charity, Common Purpose Charitable Trust. For the benefit of the general public more than anything else, I was hoping that someone would be so kind as to review the content on this page and possibly create another page for the global charity. I have no intention of doing this myself or asking anyone connected to do this - I am aware of the conflict of interest.

Website/s

In my research of what has previously happened with the Common Purpose UK page, it seems that the page was edited in an unacceptable manner from a range of IP addresses belonging to Common Purpose. For that I can only apologise. I wasn't working at the organisation at the time so am unaware of why this happened. This resulted in our .org and .org.uk websites being blacklisted.

I did start to propose a new page but it seems a little silly to propose the page without being able to link to the websites so that the community can visit them and find out what they need to be able to construct a more up to date and representative page.

Any advice as to where I should be proposing these suggestions and this question would be really gratefully received. Isabella cp (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking articles about an organization and its subsidiaries should be consolidated, per WP:ORGVANITY. That seems likely to be the case here, being that the UK subsidiary only has 125 employees. What I would suggest is proposing an article to replace this one that would involve a rename of the article to just "Common Purpose" CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM - Consolidated with what, exactly? CPUK doesn't appear to be a "subsidiary" of anything. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

CPUK is a subsidiary of Common Purpose Charitable Trust. More information about the structure of the organisation, can be found on the Common Purpose website on the page entitled "Company Information". I cannot link to this as the url is currently blacklisted. However, you can reach this by using a search engine and using the search term "common purpose org". In addition to this, information can be found on the Companies House website.

Information about Common Purpose: The Common Purpose Charitable Trust is a company limited by guarantee, and a UK registered charity. It holds all the intellectual property and know-how of Common Purpose. It has five subsidiaries: Common Purpose UK, Common Purpose International, Common Purpose Global Customised Limited, Common Purpose Asia-Pacific and the newly formed Common Purpose Student Experiences.

I would encourage the changing of this page to be referred to as Common Purpose, rather than the UK subsidiary. If you agree, would one of you be able to make this edit? Isabella cp (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I work at the Marketing team of Common Purpose. May I request that the name of this article be changed to Common Purpose Charitable Trust and not Common Purpose UK? Reason is that the Charitable Trust, is the official entity as per the Companies House website. The UK is only a subsidiary. CPInfo (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

CPInfo Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the information given in the articles cited. There are no staff researchers or journalists, so quality control happens by citing the best sources that anyone can find. Right now, the sources cited in this article seem to be talking about the organization based in the UK. It is not immediately obvious to me what work is done by the international organization versus the UK organization.

If you want a name change or a new article, please first identify reliable sources discussing the international organization. You might different the cited sources in this article between those about the UK organization versus the international one.

A Wikipedia article will never be better than the articles it cites. Please identify the best and most descriptive article already published, and perhaps the Wikipedia article can be as clear as that source. If you have text to propose then share it. Volunteers are not quick to be enthusiastic about giving labor for organizational brands, so if you share something to start, it would be easier to get volunteers to evaluate that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Deborah Jenkins

User:Rangenews - On 16th April I added the statement 'It was founded in 1989 by Julia Middleton, its current CEO, and Deborah Jenkins'. You removed Deborah Jenkins with the comment 'Correction. Julia Middleton was the founder'. In addition to the provided source [5], Deborah Jenkins is described as 'co-founder and European Director of Common Purpose' on the website of her company Kindling http://kindlingltd.com/, and as a co-founder on the website of Durham County Council [6], and on the website of the Mental Health Act Commission [7]. Do you have cause to doubt these sources? I will revert this shortly. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored Deborah Jenkins mention. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Crosbiesmith - Deborah was one of the first members of staff. This could be phrased as co-founder in context... If Deborah Jenkins had a Wiki entry, it may be notable but until then not authoritative enough to be recorded officially in Wiki. Removed. - Rangenews (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced. Who founded Common Purpose is pertinent to an article on Common Purpose. If you don't demonstrate that the sources are wrong, I'm putting it back. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I note a more specific description of Jenkin's role here: "She was a Founder Director of Common Purpose" [8] - Crosbie 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is funding Common Pupose?

What hasnt been elaborated is where the money is coming from to finance and expand common Purpose. and considering that Common Pupose has been accused of being a security servce front, who has been the main funder of common Purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.221.76 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There was suspicion that some of the early money was syphoned from the Millennium Dome fund. Common Purpose has grown quickly, and would have required a fair amount of money to get it kick started. People signing up must see a benefit, this is not a training course, more a philosophy. Middleton has connections to John Prescott ex Deputy PM in the government of Tony Blair. On Common Purpose's web site, it states that affordability is not necessarily an obstacle to attendance. Otherwise courses chargeable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Left leaning politically

There seems no reference to it's political leaning, which is very much to the left, socialism / collectivism. Surely this is an important fact, especially while a left of centre government is in power, and this organization has links back to the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Participants or Trustees?

There is a huge difference...the section should specify which each person is, preferably separate out Trustees from Participants.Paulbrock (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - have removed as neither section is verified and article is therefore not neutral

--Diginerd84 (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag

There is currently a conflict of interest tag on the article, but no discussion. I will remove this if no evidence is provided that a conflict of interest exists. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

whois on 217.150.113.250 shows that that IP is owned by Common Purpose UK, who has recieved several warnings for COI, and whose edits resulted in blacklisting of commonpurpose's website. Here are all the related accounts.^[9]
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_2.5#commonpurpose.org__commonpurpose.org.uk
User_talk:Rangenews
User talk:217.150.113.250
Rangenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
88.106.207.152 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
217.150.113.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The spam is all very well, but that is gone now. What needs to change to get the tag removed? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ballance needs to be restored--Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 - what specifically needs to be done to restore balance to the article? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Notable comments

What is so notable about the comments made by Common Purpose and stated in the article? These comments have the appearance of typical marketing stories and do not seem to contribute to the article. People interested in promotional material are probably better off visiting the website of this organization. HilcoH (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree - should go to website - removed.

--Diginerd84 (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC News article

Here - might be of some use. Loganberry (Talk) 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

There are so many "citation needed" tags in the lead section that it makes the article very hard to read. Going to the other extreme, in the "Trustees" section we have a completely unwiki'd list of names - and unless any of those people are notable in and of themselves, what's the point in listing them all? And so on and so forth... so, my suggestion would be that this article be stripped right down, leaving only properly referenced material, and then further material added when (and only when) it is accompanied by citations. Loganberry (Talk) 02:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense and have removed many "citation needed" as per your suggestion.

--Diginerd84 (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Article looks much better now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not very balanced

There seems an inherent bias against the subject on this page. I recognise the above-outlined reasons for which we don't include their own website, but having the first external link an anaonymous and almost certainly libellous anti-CP conspiracy theory site stinks of imbalance. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the criticisms sections seems to have disappeared. And much of the article is almost an advertisement. There are also little slips like the lack of quotes in statements about "young people between the ages of 11 and 18 who want to speak out and create positive change". It's no secret that Wiki is a battleground for competing political views. In my experience people (particularly one political wing) tend to erase any criticisms of subjects they like whilst filling up pages of opposing groups with not only criticisms but slander.

I'd be happy (and unsurprised) to find that this was true of both sides but it doesn't seem to be. I think we have to admit that a certain fanatacism has entered politics again--109.153.168.210 (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Have reworked to include more up to date information on what the organisation does and some of the 'issues'associated with it. Diginerd84 (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Looking at the references to Christopher Story under the "criticism" section, they seem to be an unacceptable synthesis. The anonymous worldreports.org piece doesn't seem particularly reliable as a source, and only mentions him in passing. The first refernece to Brian Gerrish is cited to a blog, which is clearly also unacceptable, and the same applies to amateur footage, whether on Google Video or the BNP website, even had the latter not been deleted already. I am therefore deleted this paragraph until someone can come up with reliable sources. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

'Charity'

CP is not a 'not-for-profit charity', it's a private organization that charges thousands for its courses. This should be noted in the article. Unfortunately, due to blacklisting of the CP site, these prices are much harder to source, even though a quick look at the site reveals that the claim that CP is a 'charity' is a myth. Whenever I make the necessary and unbiased changes, pro-CP users quickly revert the article to its 100% positive, biased form.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.130.99 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 January 2011

The Charity Commission lists it as a charity, so it is clearly legally a charity. (The charity accounts include Common Purpose UK.)[10]. Rwendland (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Legally, CP is a charity, but it should at least be noted that it charges considerable fees for its courses, that only the privileged can afford. CP suggests on its site that anyone who thinks they will unable to pay the whole amount on the spot, should not consider applying at all. At the very least, the prices should be noted under the 'Courses' section. This is supposed to be an objective article, not an advertisement. Right now, there is not even a 'Criticisms' section, or ANYTHING other than positive, positive, positive. Even when I make the SMALLEST change (the insertion of prices into the courses section, that's all), someone erases it. Whoever it is, start or reply to a topic here before you make another change, as will I. If you do not stop this article fitting your delusion of a perfect, unquestionable charity that offers free courses, I will report you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.69.226 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 January 2011

You just need to find and properly cite reliable sources (generally good editorially checked newspapers of reviewed academic sources) for any additions. I don't mind criticism added, but it needs the usual Wikipedia standard of citing to show notability and verifiability. Rwendland (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

203.219.69.226, this page is about what Common Purpose UK provably is, not what you think it is. I would note that running paid courses does not somehow invalidate CPUK's charitable status, as you seem to think, and in fact it is far from unique in this respect. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Eton College is a registered charity, and charges thousands of pounds for 'courses' that 'only the privileged can afford'. (Indeed, much of the more rational suspicion of CP might arguably apply to Eton.) However, Eton is not defined as a charity in the first sentence of its Wikipedia entry. I hesitate to amend the article myself, given the controversy around it, but as a bystander, could I suggest that the reference to its charitable status be moved, and it be defined simply as an 'organisation', in the first sentence? Dayvey (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Eton has an easy alternative intro "Eton is a school ...". It is normal to start with something like "Org_x is a Country (company | school | charity | newspaper | something_similar ) ...". If we don't use "charity" for this article, what else do we use? "non-profit organisation" is a possibility, but I don't really think that is an improvement. Rwendland (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Common Purpose is a charity, just like Scientology is a religion. --Panzer71 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

I note a few phrases in this article have been lifted pretty much word for word from the source that is cited. The idea of using sources is that they support a statement made in the article. The article shouldn't simply reproduce what the source says word for word as this could present copyright issues and the style may not be completely appropriate for Wikipedia. Examples include the sentence starting "Mark Cowgill..." which has been directly copied from The Guardian's article, and the two sentences which start "The format for Common Purpose is...". This will need to be reworded a at the very least. Adambro (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Additions by Adam.king11

I have now twice removed the following text:

"Common Purpose UK has also come under attack from Libertarians, who accuse the charity of being part of 'New World Order' and 'Agenda 21' . The main critic is a retired former Rear Gunner with the Navy, Lt. Cdr. Brian Gerrish. Despite his accusations, Common Purpose have not (to date) brought charges against him, which could be seen as strange as most of his criticisms of Common Purpose are quite damning."

The cited reference is nothing more than a copy of an old version of this page on SCribd, so therefore is not acceptable for anything. The attempt to validate Gerrish's claims that CP have not actually gone to the not inconsiderable expense of suing him is preposterous. The link to www.stopcp.com has previously been removed, as it is clearly a conspiracy theory site that makes numerous potentially libellous claims. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Further questions regarding this

Isn't is suspicious that cpexposed.com have stated that they were subject to legal proceedings over copyright infringement rather than criminal wrongdoing as is alleged in the official statement (http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/governance/trustee-statement)? What is also suspicious is that the statement made on cpexposed.com does not match the official CP statement in that officially, they said that they would talk to people who are involved and ask them to remove potentially libellous content before persuing legal action. Rather, they contacted the ISP of the website owner and had it shut down over "copyright infringement," rather than genuine criminal libel. For a cult like $cientology, i can understand these tactics, although condoning such acts is criminal. The use of dodgy copyright claims is extremely harmful to any group purporting to have charitable status, and if the allegations are true then the website owner was acting in the public interest and CP should lose its status as a charity. CP does only help the rich anyway, and I am disgusted that the Charity Commision could accept such a charity. Lets see if CP is the new Co$-style cult. My IP is here, everyone can see you watching this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.176.165 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (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)

Activities: Reads like advert

The topic of "Common Purpose" was brought up today so I went looking for more information. When I saw that there was a wikipedia page on the topic I hoped to get a rounded overview of the subject. However the first half of the page felt decidedly like an advert despite the smattering of citations therein. --Lord Matt (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The 'Further Reading' Section

In the 'Further Reading' section there are five links: three of which are to Guardian articles. That is hardly a balanced further-reading section; especially since The Guardian was extensively quoted in the article itself.

There's also a lot of talk about "conspiracy theories" in this Wiki piece, which may be justified to some extent. Nonetheless, if Common Purpose were commonly seen as a "right-wing" organisation, my bet is that it would be The Guardian that would be doing much of the conspiracy theorising, especially since this is its speciality in other areas.

Again, if the argument is against a Common Purpose conspiracy, it doesn't help the argument one bit to include so many links to Guardian articles. It just seems counterproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Press coverage" Section

If an organisation has many members in many institutions (from academia to government and local councils), it doesn't need to be "secret" as such. If an organisation has political power and influence (or at least if at least some of its members do), it doesn't need to be secret in order to have a pernicious - or indeed a positive - influence.

Likewise with the words "conspiracy theories". Theories or views about Common Purpose don't need to include any references to any "secret" dealings or events if such an organisation has political power and influence; which it does have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 06:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Left-leaning again

As mentioned by others above, but not currently addressed, it seems odd that there is no explicit reference to CP's apparent left-leaning slant (other than one passing mention in the Press section). E.g. CP's site has a whole section about 'cultural intelligence' here [11], meaning support for multiculturalism, a well-known left-wing obsession. 90.198.224.197 (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In the main article the group are defended by The Guardian and New Statesman, two heavily left wing media groups. All it needed was the BBC and their left wing credentials would have been proved. (84.236.152.71 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

Sadly for you, such synthesis is not acceptable. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sadly for you, you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable Rivalin (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Luckily any editor can revert your biased changes. You pejoratively labeling certain publications "left wing" in a section that does not equally label the Mail, Sun, and Telegraph as "right wing" is blatantly POV and absolutely unacceptable. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

sources

Many of the sources for claims given in this article turn out to be from videos promoting CP or interviews with the founder of CP or otherwise originating from CP in the form of press statements, press releases etc. Are there no reliable third party sources about the organization's aims and activities (or about criticisms of the organization, for that matter)? Comments from individuals' blogs are scarcely encyclopaedic.--Smerus (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Common Purpose UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100219233300/http://www.teachernet.gov.uk:80/teachingandlearning/resourcematerials/charities/ to http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/resourcematerials/charities/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120302124346/http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk/leaders-public-voluntary-sector to http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk/leaders-public-voluntary-sector

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Common Purpose UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091007031058/http://www.equalities.gov.uk:80/pdf/296596_GEO_Diversity_CommonPurpose_acc.pdf to http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/296596_GEO_Diversity_CommonPurpose_acc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Common Purpose UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713031437/http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=10&storycode=4123305&c=2 to http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=10&storycode=4123305&c=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 1 March 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)