Talk:The Voter Participation Center

RE: Campaign contributions

Campaign contributions to Clinton back to 2000 are not to 2008 primary contributions. The language used in that paragraph suggest that the organization made the contributions and did not clearly specify that the contributions were made by individuals. Moreover, the contributions were listed as aggregates without clearly noting the individual donors and their relationships, if any, to the organization. This suggests a non-NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.93.158 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 October 2008‎

New name and proposing a new draft

{{Request edit}}

Women's Voices Women Vote was recently renamed as The Voter Participation Center and I'm posting here to request that this article be renamed to reflect that change. I would also like to present a draft that I've prepared to extend the article and provide more content that better follows Wikipedia's guidelines. Since the current article was created in 2008, it has been largely neglected and only a handful of edits have been made. The edits made have led to the article presenting a bias against the organization, by adding only negative information. The current article does not include the organization's background, neither does it mention its activities and research programs, or even full details of its aims, although it does include a paragraph on an event for which it received criticism over three years ago. The draft I've written, and posted up in my user space, provides more detail on the organization, including a complete overview of VPC's mission and activities. I have split the information into two main sections: "Organization background" and "Activities", plus an introduction giving an overview of the whole article, an updated infobox, a references section including third party sources, and an external links section linking to the new VPC website. The information on the 2008 NC Democratic primary from the current article is included in my proposed draft, where I have placed it into context of the group's broader voter registration activities.

As a point of disclosure, I have prepared this draft at the request of VPC, and I'm aware that means that I may have a COI. Due to this, it is my aim to have other editors review the article draft and find consensus for its replacement of the current article. In addition, I will not make any edits without prior discussion.

My suggestion is that the current article be replaced with my extended draft, renaming the article "The Voter Participation Center", and then creating a hard redirect from Women's Voices Women Vote, so that anyone searching for WVWV will find the VPC article. I'd like to invite any interested editors to review my draft and consider it as a replacement of the current article. Thanks! Sylvanshine (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been renamed, and I've copy-pasted in the draft; the only change I made was, I left the old "2008 North Carolina Democratic primary" section; whether that is valid or not, I'm not sure - others might edit it out later, but for now I wanted to preserve that, because at a glance it seemed valid. If it's undue weight or not neutral or whatever, please discuss that here and make another request. I also left it in Category:Feminism in the United States (which was in the existing, not the draft) because I didn't see a reason to remove it.

I didn't mind removing the 1st para of the original, because it didn't add any real information.

I hope that's provided a start, please discuss further changes below and make any further requests. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of duplicative information

{{request edit}} I would like to request the removal of the "2008 North Carolina Democratic primary" section. As you can see from the messages above, another editor, Chzz, agreed to expand the article with new material that I prepared. While doing so, Chzz preserved a section from the former article, which still remains as "2008 North Carolina Democratic primary", but also acknowledged a lack of time to look at this closer (so I am again seeking help from another editor). What I think Chzz missed the first time is that I retained the information (but not the heading) within the new "Communications" section. Unfortunately, this topic is now the subject of duplicative paragraphs.

It was always my intention to preserve the important details, but put them into better context. Here's how I've changed it: the material is now in context, as the section explains that automated calls were part of the organization's voter registration activities, as opposed to a singular event. In addition, I have reworded the information to ensure that the events are more clearly described based on the source material. For example, the original section stated the calls "essentially told registered voters that they were not registered", which I have changed to say that the calls provided "confusing information, which may have misled voters to believe that they were not registered to vote", as it was explained in the NPR and ABC sources. I have also added information about WVWV's response. As this information is now repeated within the article, I would suggest that the original section can be removed.

I did originally write this note as a request to Chzz, however they are currently not able to help so suggested that I add the "request edit" template and make this a request to any editor who can help. If my suggestion is acceptable to you, it would be a great help if you could make the change. Thanks! Sylvanshine (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Note from Chzz: I confirm the above is correct; I was able to comply with the core request, to copy over the new draft - but, I don't have the time immediately to assess the request to remove the old material; hence suggested this was a fresh request [1].  Chzz  ►  18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to make, more or less, the change you have asked for. The original section included a WashPo reference saying that the 'North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered them to stop.' I edited the new section to include that reference still. I'm not set in stone on it remaining in place if you have a good reason for it to be removed, but I thought that without further thought about it it should probably stay in place for now. Kevin (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing???

I'm not quite sure how a paragraph of unflattering material sourced from mainstream news reports qualifies as "whitewashing", but that's what was said in an edit summary. I'd love to hear the explanation for that choice of words. To my mind, "whitewashing" might be applied to reverting this material out of the article, not inserting it. In any event, even a cursory check will show that what I've added to the "Controversy" section is reliably sourced. Belchfire (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, getting upset or offended about this isn't going to help anything. Sarcastic edit summaries and extra question marks really aren't needed.

Secondly, you didn't undo my edit, you corrected your first edit by including/moving a reference to actually support the text you had written.

Lastly, "A representative said that the organization expected people to simply throw the erroneous forms away." along with the shortening of the mention of the company's motive to increase voter registration made it feel like whitewashing because you added the positive motive and feelings of a group of people without a reference. It made it seem as through you either knew these people, are one of these people, or submitted original research.

In conclusion, had the reference been properly placed, this wouldn't have been an issue. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember to always assume good faith, at least until you have good reason to believe otherwise. It might have been more constructive to simply move the citations yourself (assuming you actually looked at what you were reverting), instead of removing sourced content. Thanks for the explanation.Belchfire (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm think I'm done here. Please make yourself familiar with WP:V. It had nothing to do with good faith; I hate seeing that guideline paraded out when people's unreferenced claims are reverted. If you don't understand the difference, I don't really care to take the time to explain it to someone who obviously has a personal stake in their edits being accepted, regardless of their mistakes. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to VPC Article

I'm a consultant working for VPC who has been asked by them to take a look at their Wikipedia entry and add some new and updated information, particularly about their 2012 election outreach, which hasn't received much coverage on the current version of the page. As per Wikipedia's conflict of interest recommendations, I've put a draft of my proposed changes on my User page rather than editing the page directly; please take a look at that draft and ask me any questions you have about them. If you think these changes are good, please feel free to replace the current text with my edits.

Thanks! Looking forward to a healthy discussion. DD in DC (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, but looking at the differences between the current article and your draft I can see that all the sources that you have introduced are from voterparticipation.org. Some citations for uncontroversial content can be cited to the VPC's website, but for anything that might be controversial we will need citations from reliable, third-party sources. (See also the policy on using primary sources.) Also, I caught an example of you falsifying the sources. You make the claim that "VPC has helped register more than 2 million voters", but the source you cite for that claim doesn't include this information, which is a big no-no. Please rewrite your draft using reliable, third-party sources, and submit it again here. (You can leave a note on my talk page when you do as well.) And feel free to ask if you have any questions about any of this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As per your notes, I've rewritten the proposed changes to the Voter Participation Center's page, adding third-party references or qualifying the claims made. Please take a look at the draft on my user page and let me know whether those changes have addressed your concerns. Thanks! DD in DC (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Voter Participation Center. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/pdf/unmarried_women.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/09/mccain_challenged_on_judges.html

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} 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)