Jump to content

Talk:League of Women Voters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grahamboat (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 14 February 2012 (→Major edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Non-partisan?

Can the League of Women Voters still accurately be referred to as "non-partisan"?

  • It is still non-partisan in the sense that it does not support or oppose any political candidates at any level, but they do take progressive stances on most issues. (And, though they don't officially admit it, the vast majority of members are left-of-center Democrats or independents with few Republicans to be found.) -- Ithacagorges Talk 03:57 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The League DOES support and oppose political candidates by its actions, as opposed to endorsements. At least in my state, Colorado, Green Party candidates have been excluded from LVW Voter Guides which included other minor parties such as the Libertarian and Reform Parties. This year, the League is involved with efforts to suppress information about judges running for retention in Colorado, saying that they are excluding opponents of the judges from their events because questions of judicial retention are variously too political, or not sufficiently political. They have also said that, because organizers of an event have ties to judges standing for retention, they are not taking a position regarding distribution of literature about those judges at the event. It was explained that not taking such a position means prohibiting distribution of literature about the judges at the event (which is in a public park). Quite Orwellian from where I sit. Dagme (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Especially in the case of gun control, they are clearly a major leader in lobbying Congress to obtain more restrictive gun laws (according to their website), having taken up major portions of national conferences to adopt their positions, and then actively lobbying. For this reason, I don't see how they can be considered "non-partisan". Yaf 06:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the "non-partisan" term from the first sentence to de-emphasize this and leave the discussion to paragraphs two and three. However, at least by the traditional definition, "non-partisan" does not mean that a group doesn't take stands on issues but is at least to some extent independent from specific parties or candidates: the NRA also claims to be "non-partisan"!! Given the otherwise short length of the article, the emphasis on gun-control may now be too heavy. -- Ithacagorges
Fair enough. But having non-partisan without the quotes in the first paragraph seemed rather POV and tongue-in-cheek, hence the reason for the insertion of the quotes around the term originally, especially since their position of lobbying Congress against Gun control is widely-known. As for the emphasis, it is but an example of their partisan support for progressive causes. As the organization is clearly proud of their position on Gun control, then the history of how it came to be should probably be mentioned in the Article. Perhaps it should be moved to a new history section, instead? That might make more sense. Yaf 11:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-partisan is a status accorded them by the government. As long as they don't endorse specific parties or candidates, they remain non-partisan. Their stance on specific issues are non-partisan as well, because parties take different stances on issues at different times.--Rockero 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But, according to the definition of non·par·ti·san -- "adj. Based on, influenced by, affiliated with, or supporting the interests or policies of no single political party." Among three of the major parties, as the interests of the Republicans and Libertarians are largely pro-gun rights and the interests of the Democrats are largely pro-gun control, and the membership of the LWV largely consists of left-of-center Democrats, and whereas the LWV group from Illinois pushed through the decision for the LWV as a group to support Illinois' pro-gun control position, it would appear that the illusion of maintaining a non-partisan status is going to be hard to maintain. Aligning one's organization with the interests or policies of but one single political party on even one major hot-button issue is not very supportive for maintaining the status accorded them historically. Yaf 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The League is non-partisan but political. This means that it doesn't take endorse candidates but it does take positions on issues. I have removed the over-emphasis on gun control. It is one of the very many issues that the League is involved in but is certainly not as important as the previous emphasis seemed to indicate.

Have reverted deletion of gun control position, as it indicates that the LWV is a political lobbying organization that definitely does take partisan sides (representing one political party's position on the AWB). To gloss over this important fact is to make the LWV into other than what it self-admittedly is. WP editors are not to delete cited facts that may be embarassing to some members of the organization. Yaf 04:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LWV defines themselves as non-partisan: "The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, has fought since 1920 to improve our systems of government and impact public policies through citizen education and advocacy."[1] It is not our place within this article to redefine the word. The use of the word here is consistient with uses elsewhere on wikipedia (see e.g. Nonpartisan or National Rifle Association (bottom of "Political Lobby" section). If you feel that their non-partisan status is in question, you need to find a source where someone has written in specific terms about this subject. Even then you should still keep the word in the lead sentence. Anything less is original research and not up to wikipedia's standards (see, e.g. WP:OR). -MrFizyx 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I could define myself as the King of England, but it would not change the fact that I am not :-) Quoting Webster is not redefining the word; it is just looking up the word partisan in a dictionary, and doesn't constitute original research if properly cited, as it was in the discussion above. Political correctness has no place in Wikipedia, a la Animal Farm, where non-partisan somehow becomes partisan. Wikipedia should strive to present the facts as they really are, not to sugar-coat the treatment of an organization which prefers a kindler, gentler image when written up in WP. Factual quotes, cited, and substantiated, while pointing out any self-admittedly unusual acts by the LWV board, seems worthy of inclusion in a WP article. Ignoring these acts would be in violation of WP:NOT, article 9, which states WP is not censored. Censoring out factual issues, cited and substantiated, just because they are unpopular, is simply putting spin on an article. WP is not supposed to have spin, but to have a NPOV. Yaf 06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have quoted the definition, but I’m not convinced that you understand it. It seems that I am the fourth person here to try to explain it to you. It is your interpretation that constitutes as WP:OR. Perhaps counterexamples would be helpful. The Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Choice are two partisan Republican organizations. They have stands on issues that are not in agreement with their own party’s platform and may be in better agreement with other parties. We don’t, however, refer to these groups as “Republican” in quotes, or say that they are “Republican, only in the sense that….” The issue position and the matter of party loyalty and affiliation are distinct. The same may be said of the LWV. They may adopt positions at times that have more in common with one party or another, but they remain unaffiliated, non•par•ti•san. The LWV voter guides are nonpartisan in an even truer sense. They do not include endorsements or commentary, just basic facts about candidates’ education and occupation and short statements by the candidates in their own words. Your claims regarding the membership of the LWV are also unsupported and constitute OR. I have opened up this discussion before doing any significant editing. I want it to be clear that I’m not censoring facts, but I do plan to remove the POV language that you have entered into the article. -MrFizyx 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which claims regarding the membership of the LWV you are referring to as being original research. As for the 150,000 members, this is straight from the LWV website, and is referenced in the article. [2] No original research here. (Although the number was removed earlier, and I replaced the count with the new 2006 number of members in place of the 2005 numbers of members, this clearly is still not original research, to mention the size of the organization per the LWV website, cited and substantiated.) As for the Illinois group taking the lead in gun control, this is again information that appeared in a quote from the LWV websight, and is not original research. Someone else earlier on the discussion page claimed the left of center and Democratic leanings of these particular individuals. However, I haven't put any of this OR in the article, as it doesn't meet WP standards. Censoring the article to remove cited and substantiated information that is somehow embarrasing to LWV members, though, is not NPOV. I suggest that additional information on other points be added to the article, on their other points, for achieving balance, rather than simply removing embarassing anti-gun lobbying with Congress activities. Yaf 18:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with your membership numbers. Your statement of 2/18: “the membership of the LWV largely consists of left-of-center Democrats.” (I realize that this echoes Ithacagorges, but it is still unsupported and is no basis for claiming partisanship). Please address the reduction of gun control content in the section below, these are two different issues. With respect to the POV on the partisan/non-partisan issue it would be easiest to just show you what needs to be done. So, I’ll make that edit now, and then I suppose it will be your turn to complain. -MrFizyx 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problems yet. The text now reads better. Their nonpartisan status is a Government recognition independent of other issues. However, you have left wording that they do take positions on political issues. That shows that they do take sides on issues, which was the ironic point that I felt should be in the article somewhere. Your wording is more NPOV than what was there previously. Hence, I have nothing about which to complain. :-) Yaf 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on gun control is unfair and shows POV

LWV is a "Gun Interest Group?" I realize that they have a position on the issue, but this is just one of ten issues in their social policy.[3] Beyond that they also have positions on natural resources, international relations and most importantly representative government. The other organizations in the GIG textbox are specialist focusing on the single issue of gun control. Show me some numbers that indicate that a comparable portion of the LWV's budget and resources goes into gun control and you might have a point. If you want to write in depth about their position on the gun issue you should develop the article equally to present their position on other issues as well. -MrFizyx 02:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relative to most small time gun control organizations, LWV is in the big leagues, lobbying congress rather forcefully, and largely leading the Assault Weapon Ban lobby in 1994 that led to the bad which only expired in 2004. Is gun control a small part of their total lobbying? Probably. However, relative to many other gun control organizations, they are the pink elephant in the china shop, far surpassing many smaller organizations in terms of impact and budget on target. For this reason it seems important to point out their rather large impact on overall gun control issues. Yaf 02:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaf, this is not an article on gun control issues, this is an article on the League of Women Voters. If there is anything to be judged by your user page and your list of contributions, gun control is a topic that is near and dear to your heart. It is, however, only one of dozens of priorities for the LWV and I don't see any evidence that their focus on this issue is in proportion to the space that it is currently taking up in the article. -MrFizyx 03:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. The section on gun control is highly over-emphasized; gun control is only one issue among many issues and activities for the league. Relative to the size of the article, it is probably worth a sentence stating its recent strong position in supporting gun control, but no long block quote and no partisan commentary. I notice that all of the other groups on the gun group template are more or less exclusively dedicated to gun rights or gun control, so including LWV is a far stretch; it should be removed from the list and the template removed from the article. --Ithacagorges 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of sheer size, the LWV is probably the 3rd largest gun control organization in the US currently, in terms of dollars spent annually on gun control. In terms of membership and impact on the US Congress, they are probably number 1 in size and impact. I don't see how it is NPOV to take out any mention of one of the largest gun control organizations in the US just because gun control is a minor issue to them. They are still the pink elephant in the china shop on this issue, dwarfing most of the other organizations which are dedicated to nothing but gun control. It is extremely POV to pretend that they do not have the major impact that they have long demonstrated in this area. Or, are they somehow embarrassed by this degree of control by members from just Illinois, who first pushed this self-admittedly unusual step through the board to lobby the US Congress on gun control. If they quack like a duck, walk like a duck, but want to pretend to be a chicken, ignoring what they self-admittedly are doesn't seem NPOV to me. Yaf 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems imbalanced to have such an immense quote about guns; the subject should have about the same percentage of verbage as would fairly represent its importance among all issues of interest to the LWV. And the giant table of all "Gun Interest Groups in the U.S." is completely out of place in this article. It should be moved elsewhere, with a brief link!69.87.203.107 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the LWV is very important to guns, but guns are only somewhat important to the LWV, extensive material would belong more in a gun article than a LWV article. If the editing conflict continues, the material should be moved to a new "LVW and Guns" article.69.87.203.107 14:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. The current status, however, is something of a compromise (the balance was once much worse even than it is now). The hope was that someone would eventually expand other aspects of LWV's social policies, unfortunately that hasn't happened. I've been wondering if the "Gun Groups" table could be made into more of a footer style box. It demands valuable real-estate on a lot of articles and would be less obtrusive if placed at the very end of the text. -MrFizyx 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Google test

A quick check on Google shows that "League of Women Voters" is matched up 27,600 times with the topic of "gun control". This seems to indicate by a quick WP:Google test that this association is clearly worthy of coverage in a WP article on the LWV. Google search. Yaf 06:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one is saying that it is not notable enough to mention. Their position on this should remain in the article, but it should be summarized in a sentence or two and the reference should remain linked so that readers can pursue the topic further. We can all play at Google. I don’t see how the LWV is unique among the groups and other personalities on the NRA's list of enemies other than that they’re well known. Do the same search for the National Education Association, 33,400 hits; Alec Baldwin 26,100 hits; George Clooney, 22,900 hits; George Bush’s Church, 22,100. It doesn’t mean that you get to go dominate those articles too. It would be better for you to summarize your statement on this than to make others do it for you. -MrFizyx 17:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose something simple along the lines of "In recent years, the League has supported and lobbied for strong gun control..." It may also be appropriate to mention that the League is on the "NRA Blacklist" and has otherwise drawn criticism from "gun rights" groups because of this.

Care should be taken that the wording is neutral. A number of the comments that have appeared in earlier edits of the article (and on the talk page) have been worded as though it is self-evident that gun control and the people who support it are evil. Yaf and many supporters of "gun rights" may believe this, however it is a controversy with many valid arguments and supporters for each side, and the article must adhere to the Wikipedia neutrality policy. --Ithacagorges 03:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your suggested wording sounds alright to me. A NPOV sentence on league members' participation in the Million Mom March is also reasonable. I also agree with your earlier suggestion to remove the gun group template. When we do this, we should then put a link to Gun politics in the United States under "see also" (although I've noticed the the League's position is not as yet mentioned in that article). We should also continue to expand the article to present other positions and activities of the league in other areas for balance. -MrFizyx 03:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my intention for awhile to add more info about the other activities and issues that the League is involved in. Gun control is only one of many issues - as has been stated here before. I will get to work on this in the next couple of days. --LWV Roadrunner 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage the inclusion of more material, to achieve balance. This, in my opinion, is a better way to achieve overal article balance than the elimination of previous edits with citations and substantiations that have been built up over time. Yaf 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a lot of content and would appreciate feedback. --LWV Roadrunner 17:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent additions, in my opinion. Do we need to standardize the citations into a single format, or is it OK to leave them mixed as at present? (We have both endnote references and in-line footnotes.) I am OK with the present structure, but it might be better to move them all into endnotes. Any suggestions? Yaf 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this an don't really understand the tradeoffs between the different styles. In particular, I think it is harder to have inline footnotes for hardcopy than for online references ?? I do think it would be good to be consistent. --LWV Roadrunner 18:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to convert them all into footnotes go for it. There is a way to do that and cotain the links within the footnotes, but I haven't learned the syntax yet myself. I'm pleased that someone took the POV dispute warning down, the article is balanced enough for now. No one will mistake them as a single issue group. They do have other social issues that might be included (housing, human needs, etc.) but I'm happy for now. Many thanks to LWV Roadrunner.
Also, given that the long and rambling debate above is now moot, does anyone know the proper way to archive the talk page? It would be nice to clear this space for future discussions. -MrFizyx 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the thanks to LWV Roadrunner; the article is more complete, balanced, and NPOV now. Two minor points: 1) Should we mention their neutral voter guides in the second paragraph on "non-partisanship"? I don't feel strongly, and it is mentioned later in the article, but it might serve as a clarifying example. 2) I am not convinced LWV fits with the other groups listed in the gun-control template, given that the LWV is involved in many issues with policy and education while the rest on the template are one-issue gun groups. As for the idea about archiving the talk page, I agree that may be appropriate at some point, however usually that isn't done quite this soon after the discussion or with only three sections on the talk page. -- Ithacagorges 02:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to LWVRoadrunner. The article is definitely more balanced now. As for the gun-orgs template, I still think they should be listed, especially for keeping balance to the template; without them, the template would be overly tipped toward the gun rights side of the equation. Because of their enormous impact in lobbying congress on the Assault Weapons Ban, they by all rights should be left on the template. Relative to the remainder of the article, it doesn't seem untoward. I agree that it is too early to archive the talk page just yet. No doubt there will be other discussions. Yaf 02:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks and a couple of questions

Thank-you to everyone for your kind feedback. I am continuing to work on this article. I noticed that many company pages have a nice info box on the top right that contains key summary info and I thought it would be nice to add one here. I would like to put the league logo in the box and I have some questions about how to do that. I did look at the help page and it told me how to format images on the page but not where to store the actual image files. Could someone point me in the right direction ? Thanks ! --LWV Roadrunner 03:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question - I have tried to make the footnotes consistent but I am missing something. The original references were done 'inline' and they seem to have their own numbering system. This is clearest if you look at footnote '7'. At the bottom of the page it says '3'. Why is it doing that and how can I get it to stop ? Thanks again ! --LWV Roadrunner 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tweaked the references a bit. Now the links in the notes are attached to words instead of following a numbering system. This looks better to me, but feel free to edit. -MrFizyx 07:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Debate Sponsorship

Other than a link under See Also, why is there not a mention of the role the League of Women Voters' played in moderating the presidential debates from 1976-1984? Aoss (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. This is likely the most high-profile activity in their history, it seems odd not to be mentioned. This seems a pice of the profound deficiency of the article: that is has an extensive section on the "program and action" side of the organization, but nothing at all about the "voter service and citizen education," when the later forms the pronounced bulk of the organizations work and the activities for which it is widely and commonly known. The article almost seems written with the intent to tag the group as ideological or "expose" its program agenda while ignoring its main roles in American civil life. TheCormac (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"refusing to endorse or oppose political candidates or parties at any level of government"?

Fixed broken link above see "People Not Polluters - Scott Brownhttp".Grahamboat (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit

Many of the cite web references were broken. I was able to fix most but I noticed that almost all of the references came from the LWV website or their handbooks. I think the article needs independent sources - hence the refimprove tag. The article mentioned two complimentary halves but failed to include Voter service and citizen education so I started that section. I felt the gun control section was given undue weight which effected the neutrality requirement so I condensed the material. I added quite a bit of LWV policies and positions which tend to show their liberal outlook: but since they are taken from the LWV website I think that I maintained NPOV. This article still needs work. Grahamboat (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Governance section February 8 , 2012Grahamboat (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:League_of_Women_Voters&oldid=476920640"