Talk:Coalition for a Secure Driver's License
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Lobbying edit
The Coalition for a Secure Driver's License is a 501(c)(3) educational public charity. To use the word "lobbied" goes against what the organization can do, and has serious tax implications. IDandEGO (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please. We are not talking about some organization that funds schools for the poor. This organization advocates particular public policy to state legislatures. Colloquially this is called lobbying. Certainly, they are not lobbying on behalf of any particular client that pays them but the colloquial meaning of "lobbying" refers to any public advocacy aimed at government officials and legislatures for a particular cause. Nsk92 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nsk, I agree with ID here. I know nothing of the organization and have issues with the article tone - as you and I discussed on the Real ID Act article, or somewhere else - can't find it now - but I understand his/her concerns re: "lobbying." I worked for a 501 c3 in the past and anything that described our activities as lobbying risked our charitable status. Assuming this might be the same for their group, I'd support changing the word to something else -- encouraged, supported the gov't to... I don't know which is best, but I think there might be a word that can be used that outlnes the situation while still accurately presents the group's work TravellingCari 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind changing the word "lobbying" to some other word but it should not be a WP:WEASEL word and should accurately describe what the organization does. The words "educate the legislators" or anything of the sort would certainly qualify as WP:WEASEL words. This is a political advocacy group and should be described as such in Wikipedia. It is not our job to worry about their tax exempt status, it is theirs. Our job is to give an accurate description of the organization and it s activities based on independent reliable sources, according to Wikipedia's policies, and to move on. Nsk92 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, no weasel words. It was late last night. I think though that if the group doesn't lobby since it's against their status, then lobby isn't the word. There may be a better word for their activities. I think lobby is inherently nNPOV because it has negative connotations "Supports changes in legislation" maybe? Not too sure but there has to be something. TravellingCari 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, to me the word "lobby" as such does not carry any negative or POV connotations. That is what political advocacy groups, of all stripes and convictions, do in a democracy and that is perfectly fine. The only real issue I see with the word "lobby" is that the related word "lobbyist" tends to refer to someone who is hired by a particular group to advocate a particular position or a set of positions to the legislators. But, applied to an organization, the word "lobby" colloquially means the same as "advocate", meaning try to convince of the validity of a particular position or try to effect a particular political outcome (such as passing specific laws or regulations). Nsk92 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good point re: lobby v. lobbyist. You seem to think advocate is colloquially similar -- any objections to using that? I'm just used to the inner workings of a 501 c3 wherein we're told repeatedly that we cannot ever be seen as lobbying for the reasons IDed above. Thoughts? TravellingCari 19:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The use of the term "lobby" has very different implications to the IRS than in the colloquial use. A 501 (c)(3) cannot use more than 5 percent of their resources to "lobby". As the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License does not spend money on "lobbying" it would be incorrect to use the word as it threatens the federal "non-profit" status. Using "lobby" is a catch-all word in the political sphere and doesn't properly describe what the Coalition did in New York. As New York and the Governor Spitzer controversy played a particularly strong role in the Coalition’s history, I propose that "lobby" be taken out and a thorough section be devoted to New York. Nsk92 is more than welcome to work with me to create a full picture of what occurred. IDandEGO (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have changed the word "lobbied" in the sentence in question to a different phrasing. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think your change is a good one, avoids weasel and appears more neutral. TravellingCari 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have changed the word "lobbied" in the sentence in question to a different phrasing. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, to me the word "lobby" as such does not carry any negative or POV connotations. That is what political advocacy groups, of all stripes and convictions, do in a democracy and that is perfectly fine. The only real issue I see with the word "lobby" is that the related word "lobbyist" tends to refer to someone who is hired by a particular group to advocate a particular position or a set of positions to the legislators. But, applied to an organization, the word "lobby" colloquially means the same as "advocate", meaning try to convince of the validity of a particular position or try to effect a particular political outcome (such as passing specific laws or regulations). Nsk92 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, no weasel words. It was late last night. I think though that if the group doesn't lobby since it's against their status, then lobby isn't the word. There may be a better word for their activities. I think lobby is inherently nNPOV because it has negative connotations "Supports changes in legislation" maybe? Not too sure but there has to be something. TravellingCari 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind changing the word "lobbying" to some other word but it should not be a WP:WEASEL word and should accurately describe what the organization does. The words "educate the legislators" or anything of the sort would certainly qualify as WP:WEASEL words. This is a political advocacy group and should be described as such in Wikipedia. It is not our job to worry about their tax exempt status, it is theirs. Our job is to give an accurate description of the organization and it s activities based on independent reliable sources, according to Wikipedia's policies, and to move on. Nsk92 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nsk, I agree with ID here. I know nothing of the organization and have issues with the article tone - as you and I discussed on the Real ID Act article, or somewhere else - can't find it now - but I understand his/her concerns re: "lobbying." I worked for a 501 c3 in the past and anything that described our activities as lobbying risked our charitable status. Assuming this might be the same for their group, I'd support changing the word to something else -- encouraged, supported the gov't to... I don't know which is best, but I think there might be a word that can be used that outlnes the situation while still accurately presents the group's work TravellingCari 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup edit
The goals section needs formatting. RJFJR (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Some editing done edit
I did some editing here, tightening up some areas (esp. the controversy section), and removing content that is not about the organization (e.g. Real ID, although it would be good to find some actual links between this org and the real id work). I added some wikilinks, but more needs to be done. The article still has some sections that read too much like a borchure for the organization, but that is fairly easily fixed. It would be good to get more sources on things the organization has done. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coalition for a Secure Driver's License. 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/20080611105728/http://www.secure-license.org/cms/index.php to http://secure-license.org/cms/index.php
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) 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)