Talk:Fairness Project

GOCE copyedit request

• It exists to [...] and They support the gathering [...] The Project is first referred to in the third-person singular before being referred to in the third-person plural. In most of the article "they" is used, so it's easier to swap out any current instances of "it" with "they". As this is written in (presumably) American English, "they" is not as commonly used as "it" when referring to organisations in formal writing, so it would probably make more sense to use "it" instead for this article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Project has sought to raise state minimum wages, both through stepped annual increases and through elimination of the tip credit exemption. Emphasis added. Is that not its goal anymore? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Concerns have arisen about the lack of transparency of non-state organizations like the Fairness Project pushing local decisions. How much of an impact is the Project alleged to have on local decisions? Blatant, or more inconspicuous? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• This provided a geographical mix and a mix of difficulties [...] "Mix" appears to be used here with two different meanings. What is meant by "mix of difficulties"? I might be able to find a new word for "mix" there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The proposed motions in Washington and California were fairly similar: they sought to implement an immediate small increase with additional annual graduated increases, leading to $15 by 2020 or 2021, respectively. Is this sentence trying to say that the the aim was to increase minimum wage to $15 by 2020 in Washington, and $15 by 2021 in California? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• [...] as a result, the proposals were withdrawn, the goals having been satisfied. I think everything past the second comma here can be deleted. Alternatively, it could be restructured to with the goals having been satisfied, the proposals were withdrawn. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• This support was focused in Missouri, where, together with the National Employment Law Center, a combined $537,500 was donated by advocacy groups; as well as Arkansas. This sentence is really confusing. I'm taking it to mean "The Project's support was focused on Missouri, where it donated $537,500 in collaboration with the National Employment Law Center, other advocacy groups, and the government of Arkansas." Is that what it is going for? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• There were repeated accusations that this decision was made in order to enable easier future amendments, as ballot-proposed law would require a three-quarters super-majority of each house to overrule. Looking at the cited source, I'm assuming this only applies to Michigan? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The Fairness Project donated $100,000, functionally all on the signature-gathering stage. I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to convey. Could you please clarify? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The first campaign in 2017 offered support by the Project was in Maine where there was strong support to expand Medicaid. The Fairness Project donated $375,000 to aid both the campaigns to have the proposal meet signature requirements and then campaign for its passing. I think it is trying to say that the first 2017 campaign of the Fairness Project was to aid the two state campaigns? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The proposal met the requirements to be added to the ballot and passed with 59% voting in favor. Already edited. Non-copyedit issue, but I couldn't find any mention of "59%" in the cited source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support in Idaho was both reduced in size and proportion [...] Was support in Idaho actively reduced in size and proportion over time or was it comparatively less than Nebraska? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• [...] with expenditure slightly over half a million dollars, making up 50% of proposal expenditure. To clarify, half of Idaho's campaign expenditures came from the Fairness Project while the other half came from other sources? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Funding shares remained fairly even – with the most controversial remaining the near-90% share of the Nebraska campaign budget. To confirm, this sentence is saying that other than providing almost 90% of Nebraska's campaign budget, funding from the Fairness Project was proportionally even to other sources of funding in other campaigns? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• As well as significant funding from the Project and other like-minded donors in favour, the tobacco industry spent $17,000,000 campaigning in opposition. Wasn't the Fairness Project supporting the Montana ballot, the latter of which was fighting against the tobacco industry? Is the implication that the tobacco industry was superior to the ballot in terms of financial power? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The proposal is set to be voted on 30 June. Not a copyedit issue, but this might want to be updated as the date has passed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• 6% of voters' signatures must also have 6% of registered voters' signatures in at least 18 of the 35 state legislative districts. I'm not sure if I'm parsing this correctly: for the ballot to be considered valid, 6% of the ballot's votes must come from 6% of registered voters in the state, which must be gathered from over half of the state? Do the votes of people eligible but not registered to vote count if this requirement is passed? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• @Tenryuu: - thanks for the comprehensive list, it'll be a couple of days before I can give it the time it deserves, but I'll make sure to ping again at that point. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I've gone ahead and made some changes. If there's anything else you want to discuss about the article, just ping me back on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Fairness Project versus Project Fairness

Looks like two group https://www.thefairnessproject.org/ and https://projectfairness.org/. Should they be differentiated? Tom Ruen (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tomruen:, if the latter was notable then I'd obviously hat note it, but I'd have thought the lead made it sufficiently clear what this one was about, so even those who knew about both shouldn't be too confused. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I figured. And there's one more https://project-fairness.com, saw ads on Youtube, my original query, while I missed URL first time I saw it. The survey looks pretty horrible. Anyway, I guess this is generally a terrible name to pick. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed "Abortion rights" section additions

Hi there! I'm proposing changes to this page on behalf of my work with the Fairness Project. My goal in this request is to try and keep the article to the Good Article standard that Nosebagbear worked so hard to meet for the page, but to also bring the page up to date. I've put a version that has all four sections I'm going to request here, but I'm submitting these requests one at a time for ease of review (unless someone would prefer to tackle them all at once instead). This request covers only the updated Abortion rights ballots that are missing from the current page.

• Reason for the change: The current abortion rights section ends at 2022, but the Fairness Project has been very active in that space recently. These additions would keep the article up to date with the results from recent ballots.
• References: All sources are shown in the proposed version below. This is a new sub-section for the "Abortion rights" section, so I have not included a visual diff as it's all brand new content.

Proposed Abortion rights section additions

2023-2024 ballots

In November 2023, Ohio voters approved Issue 1, a constitutional amendment establishing a right to abortion, with about 57% of the vote. The Fairness Project supported the campaign both financially and with manpower on the ground.

From 2023 to 2024, the organization spent $30 million on reproductive-rights ballot measures and was among the largest outside funders of such campaigns. Voters approved measures the Fairness Project supported in Arizona (Proposition 139, with about 62% of the vote), Missouri (Amendment 3, about 52%), and Montana (Initiative 128, about 58%).

References

Please let me know if you have any questions on this, happy to make tweaks! Footnote Pete (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)