Talk:MoveOn.org

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Infobox self-published membership number proposal[edit]

I propose that we remove the reference that is causing a concern, and replace it with a self-published source (the organization web site). Since "membership" is defined however each organization chooses, this avoids abusing the AP/MSNBC by making it seem that THEY say the size of the organization, and lets the organization make its statement of membership.- Sinneed 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that and think that it would match the other organizations that I listed too. I only changed the link to the MSNBC version of the AP story because the old one(of the same story) was dead. I think it's a lot more uniform to give the link directly to the MoveOn website. I would also suggest that any discrepancies in the membership numbers, if there is a WP:RS disputing them, should be noted in a footnote(claimed) or another sourced link in the body. But only if there is a dispute by a source. DD2K (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Further, I would argue that any such dispute, unless the MoveOn organization explains how they count membership, would be specious. If I accept all members of humanity as members of my organization, then the membership *IS* the population of the planet. No one's opinion but mine matters: it is my organization.- Sinneed 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, any such discussion would belong in the body, with appropriate wp:BALANCE and avoiding wp:UNDUE weight, rather than banishing it to a footnote.- Sinneed 18:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No objections. Implemented. Removed flag, dropped source for claim, added wp:SELFPUB statement of membership.- Sinneed 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and my apologies for not WP:AGF the other day. Good day. DD2K (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome, and no problem at all, apology not needed but happily accepted, and I hope other interested editors are either content with this or will add their ideas/"voices".- Sinneed 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, kudos to both of you guys for working this one through. This discussion has been a nice example of what WP should be. Well done! Dayewalker (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Works for me as well. Thanks so much for the learning experience. Bikeric (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MoveOn Organization[edit]

Regarding the recent edits on the article(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), the sources all say 'organization', both the MoveOn.org website and the IRS website. Frankly, I could care less what the organization is labled, legally or description by the media. But there has to be a reliable source specifically indicating that the MoveOn organization is an organization, or a corporation. And every source I have seen refers to them as an organization. As well as the explanation of what a "501(c)(4)" is from the IRS website. Which mentions 'corporation' one time, and that is not referring to the 501(c)(4)--"For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization". While the IRS website mentions 'organization' 25 times, all in describing the 501(c)(4). Now, I don't have expertise in this area of tax structures, but I do know that Wikipedia guidelines state that articles have to be sourced from reliable sources, and not WP:OR. DD2K (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Corporate Structure[edit]

I've tried several different approaches to the "Structure" section to note that MoveOn has a corporate structure with a non-profit status. Under U.S. law, a 501(c) must first become a corporation and then apply for non-profit status. So, MoveOn has a corporate structure.

This addition has been repeatedly deleted by an editor (or more than one) who seems biased against an objective disclosure of MoveOn's structure. (This may be because MoveOn takes up issues that oppose corporate influence in politics and the editor or editors are invested in blocking the fact that MoveOn is a corporation). I am a subscriber to MoveOn alerts and a long-time supporter.

I would appreciate someone suggesting some way of noting the structure of MoveOn under the Structure section in a way that will stick. Otherwise, this section is tainted by subjective selection of facts that protect MoveOn's interest but do not inform the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talkcontribs) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs and sourcs? Woogee (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added a description of how a 501(c) is created with a link to NoLo describing the process and structure of a 501(c) but this was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talkcontribs) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And what sources did you provide not only to support your contention that it is a corporation, but that it has to be due to its corporate structure? Woogee (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The same source I used to create my for-profit sole proprietorship: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30228.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talkcontribs) 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source that says that MoveOn's structure doesn't match the requirements that you claim it must? Woogee (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A 501(c) is a non-profit status given to a corporate entity. There is no source saying a 501(c) may apply to a non-corporate entity because such an exemption wouldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talkcontribs) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to prove that with a reliable source, no wonder you're being reverted. And please sign your Talk page posts with four tildes. Woogee (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I linked to and/or quoted MoveOn's nondisclosure agreement calling itself "a California nonprofit public benefit corporation" at http://www.moveon.org/volunteer/nondisclosure.html, that would be sufficient? Their articles of incorporation aren't online, though their page itself describes its board of corporate directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talkcontribs) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Woogee (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try it and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talkcontribs) 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No change after my edit so far. Incidentally, any legally incorporated entity is a corporation. To incorporate under the law, for any reason, is to form a corporation. We're accustomed to thinking of corporations as for-profit organizations. MoveOn's corporate structure makes it interesting when MoveOn screens a movie like The Corporation that blasts the legal fiction of the corporation itself.

Anyway, I'm practicing my tildes with this (hopefully) last note. --Hanumanthemonkey (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben Brandzel[edit]

I encountered a reference to Ben Brandzel and came to Wikipedia looking for information about him. Ben Brandzel is a redirect to this article but he's not mentioned in the article. Can someone either add the information or start a separate article in lieu of the redirect? JamesMLane t c 07:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on MoveOn.org. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)