Talk:Vote Smart

Untitled

Thanks for the revert Chrisdab, you beat me to it. Angrynight 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote Smart Reference

I wonder if it should be noted in the article that the Montana legislature links to Project Vote Smart, as a resource for people who "don't know who [their] legislators are." [1] --Tim4christ17 ^talk 13:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

added to "External links". I tried to put it other places, but without other references, it didn't seem to fit. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV violations

Several paragraphs of the article read like advertisement for internships at Project Vote Smart, talking about the beauty of the location and giving very specific details about the program, none of which seemed appropriate to an encyclopedia article intended for the general public rather than potential interns.PotatoKnight 05:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are those problems still apparent? I didn't read the article in detail, but I didn't notice that. Maybe they've been since 2007. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

non-partisan?

I don't think they are very non-partisan. All indications are this is a liberal front like the League of Women Voters.

--69.37.84.199 (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

--- One thing they don't cover is how much the pols jack up our taxes. If that isn't a priority than they aren't really nonpartisian. They are just another liberal interest group.

Hey what about National Security? Why don't they cover national Security? Because they don't care about National Security. That's why. I agree with the writer below this article sounds more like an advertisment than an objective article. Which only further proves the point that this is a liberal organization.

--149.152.34.226 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC) well shit, jimbo "they don't talk about them shits that matter to me, then them's must be some of dem dere hollywood anti american typies I be hearing about on the news"

Taxes? National security? Last time I checked, those issues are 100% important to all tax-paying Americans. Dumbass 206.174.116.128 (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The article now includes a link to "Political Courage Test". There, you can "View the current Political Courage Test forms." This includes the "Congressional Political Courage Test". That form includes questions on taxes, national security.

What do you think of that form and those questions? If you think it's biased, their web site has contact information: You can write them expressing your concern. If you think it's reasonable, you can help improve the information available to voters this year by asking all candidates who represent you to answer Vote Smart's questionnaire. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Kimball's bonus and salary section; rewrite must be allowed or will be taken to arbitration committee

Wrong information in this section:

“In 2006, Project Vote Smart's Board unanimously voted founder and president Richard Kimball a bonus of $471,994 (33% of the Project Votes Smart's annual budget in 2006), as well as a 300% increase in salary.”

• Sources do not say anything about a “unanimous vote”
• 33% is not accurate or properly sourced
• Total compensation to Richard Kimball during the fiscal year, according to the 990 sourced was $471,994. Only $400,000 of this was bonus, not all of it. The salary was $71,994, which is not a 300% increase in salary. A statement in the Missoula Independent article suggests his previous salary was $50,000.

“This decision was met with some controversy among former and current employees when the 990 tax form was posted on the organization's facebook page.”

• “The [facebook] post caused a furor among Vote Smart alum [on a blog]” is the only mention of this any of the sources. This does not suggest “current employees.” Also, this is in reference to a personal blog and social media account violating Wikipedia’s Verifiability Policy: “self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”

"The explanation provided for the bonus and salary increase was "This bonus was paid to compensate Richard Kimball for being the key employee and leading the organization for more than 10 years at a very low average salary between $25,000 and $35,000…Once the bonus was paid, Richard Kimball's annual salary was raised to reflect the amount of effort being expended to run a national organization with a $1.5 million budget. His new salary is $114,314 per year."”

• The information about his current salary is outdated and is untrue based on federal tax statements. This edited and selective explanation does not fully represent the whole story, and excludes:“Mr. Kimball received no compensation for his first 5 years of work with the Project. During that time, he also sold his home and his retirement funds and donated them to the Project…Two years ago [2005], the Project’s Board awarded Mr. Kimball a one-time bonus so that he could qualify for a housing loan. His years of no salary and minimal salary made it impossible for him to qualify for a loan.” Cited.
• Independent studies in Roll Call magazine suggest that Kimball's compensation was well below that of other presidents of similar organizations http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_54/-201158-1.html

Lastly,

The Missoula Independent, an alternative weekly, is the only citation here. There is no reason to point out that this was covered by one newspaper, unless to note it was covered by only one newspaper. GENERAL POINTS OF CONTENTION Factually inaccurate and not representative of a NPOV policy: “all articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.” Balance

This section gives undue weight to a fringe issue, no mention of tens of thousands of positive feedback from much more reputable sources. Kft167 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration committee? That's a little over the top. I didn't even know if you were a real person or a bot. Seems like perfectly good rationale to me. johnpseudo 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This section has been a cause for concern for a while so I'm told and when edits have been made in the past, there have been back and forth matches apparently between editors. The section is to be removed. (Kft167 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

As you can see here on this discussion page, the issue hasn't been discussed before. Generally, when someone tries to make a contested change, it's incumbent upon them to make their case on the discussion page. You've been the first to do this. The arbitration committee is the last in a long line of dispute resolution tools here on wikipedia. johnpseudo 16:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The more I look back on the history of this page, and the reasons I added this section in the first place, the more I think part of it should stay. The Missoula Independent is a reliable source, and this was a notable event in the Project's history. I agree with a lot of your criticisms, including the fact that it is giving this issue undue weight. Here's a suggested change:

Originally based at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, PVS established its headquarters and research center in 1999 at the Great Divide Ranch near Philipsburg, Montana. In 2006, the Project added a branch at The University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, but in December 2010, the Tucson-office was closed in preparation for two new satellite research offices. The reason for the closure of the Tucson branch was also related to the University’s budget cuts, which eliminated the Project’s "rent-free space at a 1,500- square-foot house off the main campus." Coincident with this move, the Project gave its directory Richard Kimball a controversial pay increase that led to a temporary reduction in its Charity Navigator score.

Please let me know what you think. Just so you know, since you seem to be unfamiliar with wikipedia, if you try to go to the arbitration committee immediately, they'll just tell you to make an effort to work this out one-to-one with me. johnpseudo 16:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Absent any feedback, I'll go ahead and proceed with my suggested change. johnpseudo 11:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Coincident with this move," ? Are you showing a correlation between the office in Tuscon closing to Kimball's bonus? Because the bonus was given during the 2005-2006 fiscal year and the Tuscon office was closed in 2010. To some one reading that line, they could assume that the office was closed because of salary increase of the President. You also listed Kimball as "directory"?

Also according to how Charity Navigator computes their ratings, and what is not used to compute: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=439 CEO pay does not impact a charity's overall score or rating, so your statement that this bonus "led to a temporary reduction is its rating" is false. I'm aware this also makes the statement made by CN inside the Independent story false as well.

Going back to the Missoula Independent story, any "controversy" about this bonus was only brought to light on a blog created by a former employee, seemingly a disgruntled employee, and any comments made on this blog post (which were cited in the story as a relevant source??) could have very well have been written and posted by the blog host. This "controversy" was also posted on the PVS Facebook page, controlled at the time by the same employee. This whole "controversy" was seemingly created by one former employee and does not reflect any real public, internal, or otherwise, disapproval.

Once again "this is in reference to a personal blog and social media account violating Wikipedia’s Verifiability Policy: “self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”

In my first post in regards to this problem, I went into even greater detail as to how the Independent's story provided false information on this matter, and since this is the only source on the the matter, I once again suggest its removal. (Kft167 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

Richard Kimball is not the Director but rather the President, but I still stand by the point that the sentence is as a whole false and should be removed. (Kft167 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

There are multiple points here. Let me try to address them separately-

• "Are you showing a correlation between the office in Tuscon closing to Kimball's bonus? Because the bonus was given during the 2005-2006 fiscal year and the Tuscon office was closed in 2010."

This was an ordering mistake that I made here on the talk page but fixed when I actually added it to the article.

• "Also according to how Charity Navigator computes their ratings, and what is not used to compute: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=439 CEO pay does not impact a charity's overall score or rating"

Their formula has changed over time. My source for this was in the Missoula Independent article, which quoted a Charity Navigator employee:

"Sandra Miniutti, vice president of marketing with Charity Navigator, says her group gave Vote Smart a low rating because its growth has been in decline, and also because of Kimball’s salary, which amounts to 32.15 percent of Vote Smart’s operating revenue.

“Most groups spend 15 percent or less on administrative compensation,” Miniutti says. She also said that most organizations receive at least a three-star rating."

Granted, here the source states only that the salary was part of the problem, not that it in itself led to the problem.

• "Once again "this is in reference to a personal blog and social media account violating Wikipedia’s Verifiability Policy: “self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”"

No, my source here is the Missoula Independent, not a blog. Just because the Missoula Independent cites the blog as one if its sources doesn't mean it is not a reliable source in itself.

• "I went into even greater detail as to how the Independent's story provided false information on this matter"

But that would be original research. Can you show me a reliable source that refutes the Missoula Independent? If not, the sentence should remain.

Here is an updated version with a couple of your criticisms addressed:

Originally based at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, PVS established its headquarters and research center in 1999 at the Great Divide Ranch near Philipsburg, Montana. In 2006, the Project added a branch at The University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. Coincident with this move, the Project gave its president Richard Kimball a pay increase which was criticized by some alumni and contributed to a reduction in its Charity Navigator score. In December 2010, the Tucson office was closed in preparation for two new satellite research offices. The reason for the closure of the Tucson branch was also related to the University’s budget cuts, which eliminated the Project’s "rent-free space at a 1,500- square-foot house off the main campus."

johnpseudo 18:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Randy Brogdon

I was referred to this page by getting onto Randy Brogdon's page and you are an external link.

Presently Randy Brogdon's sister is taking advantage of my sister, Iris Painter, a 95 year old veteran, because there is no help for her from any of her family. If something isn't done very soon, there is going to be an Elder Abuse charge, and I don't think this will look very good on Randy Brogdon's record. If this is what you call smart, I think you will find differently. I want her out of my sister's house. Immediately!!

Charlotte Painter Bell 12525 E. 39 Place Tulsa, OK 74146 (918) 808-3886

    I've been voting for over 50 years. I have yet to have ANYBODY ask me who I'm voting for. Having said this, I have to wonder where "They" get these polls from. I have never declared myself for any party. I vote for the person running for an office. I believe in listening to the person and to get a feel for the person. Frankly I am so convinced that Wendy is the REAL DEAL. I am definitely voting for Wendy Davis. Please don't pay attention to "The Polls", they aren't asking the real people! You are the right person for this job! Diana Thomas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.172.51 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 

Merger of Political Courage Test

I propose that Political Courage Test be merged into this article. That article is small and unlikely to expand, and there's nothing there independent of PVS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done No opposition after almost 3 months. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Project Vote Smart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120155051/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504464_162-20021211-504464.html to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504464_162-20021211-504464.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 04:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on whether this is a reliable source

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_171#Votesmart