Talk:True the Vote/Archive 1

Beginning article
I copied the Sourcewatch article (in this version, revised as of 15:23, 6 June 2012), and the contribution history can be found at Sourcewatch. All Sourcewatch content is licensed under CC BY-SA.

I'm partway through the process of conforming the material to Wikipedia standards, such as changing date formats ("June 5th" to "June 5"), and removing "claims" per WP:WTA. I have to sign off now but I'll return to finish the conversion (plenty of room for others to jump in, too). After that we should incorporate information from this article.

I wanted to add "Category:Organizations established in ____", but I don't know the exact year of its founding. The "History" section on its website says that it grew out of some Tea Partiers' experiences in the 2008 election and that it was active in the 2010 election, but that still leaves three possible years for its actual founding. The AlterNet article cited in the preceding paragraph mentions its "roots in 2009" but I don't think that's clear enough to state that as the founding date. JamesMLane t c 12:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to head
Hey guys, the head section was very politically charged and much of the material was not sourced. I am an avowed Marxist but the article was overtly attacking TTV which is not what wikipedia is for. I did the following; 1) Added more citations 2) Removed partisan phrases calling the TTV "controversial" and "Tea Party-affiliated" (the only thing the sources had to say about this is that the group's president addressed a tea bagger group once) in compliance with the weasel words prohibition. 3) Removed a section about TTV trying to get African Americans "purged" from voter rolls which was sourced to a very opinion page. Cheers, 129.81.89.173 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edits, which seemed way too drastic to do without some discussion here first. TTV is pretty obviously a teabagger group, as we saw here in Wisconsin. If you have issues, let's take them one at a time, in an effort to improve the article. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I restored my edits. Please revert individual edits you don't agree with rather than the entire head section, negating an hour of my work. 1) There might be a debate about their status as non-partisan organization because they say they are neutral but their president addressed a TP group. Still, lots of people have addressed groups they don't affiliate/disagree with, and I don't think the whole organization is TP because their president addressed a TP group. Saying that they identify as "non-partisan" and pointing out their associations is the best option. 2) There isn't much of a debate about their non-profit status. That should stay. FB citation notwithstanding, I did cite the group's FB page for the non-profit statement but the same material is also referenced in both the Herald Online and TTV information pages. 3) Specifically the words, "controversial" and "hysterical" are weasel words (the latter appears to be the original author's opinion statement and appears in no source) and need to be either replaced with more neutral words or be cited to a (non-opinion) source. 4) The tag line appears on their homepage as the citation indicates. 5) TPM self-identifies as a progressive new organization and this must be stated to keep the neutrality of their attacks in perspective. 6) None of the sources discussed Cummings' investigation. I think we should keep this in until we find a source for it but feel free to (temporarily) remove it if you feel must be sourced to appear.

I am currently reworking parts if the head and will put them up within a day or so, lots of work for a term paper now.

Yours, 129.81.89.224 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So after your revisions we have a lede which is blatantly out of touch with the content of the article itself! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

reliability of election day article alleging that signatures were forged
The source for the section alleging forgery by TTV is an election-day article, in which a local board of elections alleged forgery and said an investigation would take place after the election. However, there has been no word of any such investigation. RS or not?William Jockusch (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Source
The source from the Rolling Stone regarding voter fraud predates by a few years anything related to TtV and does not mention TtV in any way. It is not up to WP editors to argue the position of this organization or to try and prove them wrong (or right). It is original research to include this sourcing. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The voter fraud section of the article needs to present a balanced view on the subject. TtV can make any claims it wants but having general information regarding the historical incidence of voter fraud does not violate WP:OR. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would appear more relevant to a general voter fraud article.William Jockusch (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * SDS your reasoning for inclusion is the very defintion of OR. YOU believe that in order for the article to be balanced it has to include some general historical information.  YOU are inserting YOUR opinion into what should be included.  However, the source you are trying to use has absolutely NOTHING to do with TtV and is dated prior to the beginning of TtV.  You are obviously using this source to try and prove that the reasoning for TtV is flawed because this report did not report voter fraud.  Arzel (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're kind of twisting the policy of (WP:OR) so I'll directly quote it. "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." No problem there with the material I added.
 * Quoting another part it states, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The material I added does not meet this requirement so I agree with your removal. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IRS issue
Since apparently this is becoming an edit war, my reasoning behind changing "it was revealed that True the Vote was allegedly a target of illegal intimidation tactics and political profiling by the Internal Revenue Service" to "one of the conservative groups subjected to additional scrutiny by the IRS in applying for tax-exempt status" is as follows:

1. The former speculates as to both legality and motive when neither has been established. There's no indication that what the IRS did was either illegal or politically motivated, and until either is established it's both non-neutral and factually inaccurate to suggest otherwise.

2. The latter actually links to the article on the IRS controversy itself, rather than linking to a particularly dodgy page on general political profiling by the IRS (when, again, we have no indication that the profiling was politically motivated). Also, it actually states the root of the controversy: True the Vote's application for tax-exempt status, rather than some nebulous and contextless harassment by the IRS.

3. Although the person who reverted my edit claims that the original version was "more consistent with the source," the edit did not characterize the content of the source, but placed the source in neutral (and much more informative) context.

Consistent with this reasoning, I am reverting back to my edit.

Dyrnych (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't "becoming an edit war", it IS an edit war. And YOU are the one doing the edit warring.  Please knock it off. Federales (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You reverted my edit for what amounts to no reason. I have explained the rationale behind my edit.  If you actually have a reason for reverting my original edit, please explain it.  But telling me to "knock it off" and posting warnings does nothing to achieve any sort of consensus. Dyrnych (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I told you to knock it off because you are exhibiting bad behavior. You started this discussion 2 reverts late.  You are edit warring, now knock it off.
 * I didn't revert your edit for no reason. I reverted your edit because it didn't improve the article.  Federales (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. I've reverted twice (once after starting this discussion).  Apparently that was inappropriate, but I am no longer reverting the article and therefore not edit warring.  I'm trying to address this per WP:BRD, as you presumably also have an obligation to do.  But you still haven't addressed my arguments for the edit; you've just noted that you (subjectively) don't think that it improved the article.  I've explained why the edit improved the article--which it clearly does, unless you're intentionally trying (for whatever reason) to be inaccurate.  If you want to say that the group believes that it was subjected to illegal intimidation tactics and political profiling, you should attribute that view to the group rather than just ambiguously stating that it's "alleged."  Dyrnych (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Related to points 1-2 -- It's all over the news that the IRS targeted conservatives. The FBI has launched a criminal investigation..  Plenty of news stories asserting intimidation. and that the intimidation was politically motivated William Jockusch (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it's certainly something that the groups who were targeted FELT intimidated. But it's another thing entirely to ascribe that motive to the Obama administration when the IG's report itself found | no evidence of political motivation.  I'm not saying that politically motivated targeting definitely didn't occur, but we should certainly wait for reliable sources to conclude that it did before actually stating that it occurred, and calling it "intimidation" at this point puts a loaded label on an ambiguous situation.  Obviously, it's perfectly OK to claim that the groups felt that it was politically motivated.  And a criminal investigation doesn't mean that illegal conduct occurred; it just means that there's--at a minimum--reasonable suspicion to conclude that criminal conduct occurred.  The 2013 IRS scandal page notes in the lead that the investigation is underway. Dyrnych (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why we said "alleged", which makes it clear that an accusation has been made without stating that the accused is guilty. So, if it's OK to say this, why do you keep reverting it out of the article??? Federales (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaking my point. There's a clear difference between attributing an allegation to the one making the allegation (which is perfectly acceptable) and just stating that something is "alleged" with no attribution (which is both less specific and more susceptible to misinterpretation).  If you're comfortable with attributing the allegation, I'm perfectly fine with that.  Roughly: "In May 2013, it was revealed that True the Vote was one of the conservative groups subjected to additional scrutiny by the IRS in applying for tax-exempt status, scrutiny which many of those groups alleged was politically motivated." Dyrnych (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not mistaking anything. Last week you reverted language that is substantially identical to what you are now proposing to add, and you edit warred to keep it out of the article. But hey, I'm not complaining as I am happy to endorse your suggestion. Federales (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that the language that I reverted was substantially different from my proposal, primarily because the allegation would now actually be attributed to someone. And I think that the edit warring charge has also been dispensed with.  Nevertheless, I'm also happy that we can agree on a reasonable compromise. Dyrnych (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Details on Cummings "Investigation"
Am I missing something? Read in the lede that "In 2012, Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings opened an investigation into the organization.[10]". Knowing a little about Congressional protocol, that just didn't seem possible; Cummings is not head of the committee, has no subpena power, and cannot actually "start" a CONGRESSIONAL investigation without the assent of the majority of the committe he is a member of. Since he's in the minority, and few other members back his position, it did not seem to be possible. Yes, there was a press release from Cummings that he "launched an investigation", several attack blogs re-blasted it, and it has now been mentioned in a few places, but if you dig into what they are actually talking about, it just basically means he sent one (now two) nasty polemic letters to the organization. Not likely to produce any effect (they don't have to, and haven't, and aren't likely to, respond), not done in a way to get an effect; this seems like pure short-term political theater, not (as the lede should be) a major aspect of TtV's operation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Although it's true that the minority in the House Oversight Committee lacks subpoena power, it can certainly investigate. When it does, it's appropriately called an investigation.  And the legitimacy of the investigation doesn't hinge on whether or not subpoena power can be invoked (i.e., whether the majority party supports the investigation).  It's a fact that the investigation is ongoing and it's appropriately sourced, so I'm not sure how WP:N is implicated.  That said, there's a legitimate argument that the particular fact of the investigation doesn't belong in the lede, although it should certainly note that TtV and its methods are extremely controversial. Dyrnych (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Support for voter ID
I recently went through this article and found insufficient support for True the Vote's connection with voter ID laws in reliable sources. I've been looking through ProQuest for reliable sources because I think there should be support for such a connection. The following list will contain sources that may be usable: If I have more time, I will continue working through the ProQuest results (I've gotten to September 2012). RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 19:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Engelbrecht criticizes Harvard study indicating lower responsiveness to voter ID inquiries from Hispanic voters versus white voters, refers to poll results showing Hispanic support for voter ID, as well as laws in Spanish-speaking countries)
 * (paragraph 6)
 * (describing TTV searching for voter fraud, including voters who do not present voter ID)
 * (describing local person who was inspired by DOJ opposition to voter ID laws to challenge voters, receiving training from TTV)
 * (discussing inaccurate TTV manual indicating that poll workers compare ID name and address to poll book name and address, when many IDs do not have an address)
 * (mentions rulings on state election laws, including voter ID, quotes Engelbrecht saying "How can you be against election integrity", describes TTV as "monitoring elections and challenging the validity of voter rolls in numerous states")
 * (TTV "has tried to find people using absentee ballots to vote in two states")
 * (says that "Common Cause and Demos cited True the Vote as the central player" in tightening voter requirements, including new voter ID laws, also cites Engelbrecht saying that a TTV observer said that Lawrence University students "were being permitted to register and vote without proper identification")

Houston Chronicle source
For myself or anyone else to incorporate into the article. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MotherJones a reliable source?
Please, if MotherJones is a reliable source then so is Rush Limbaugh. You could not find a more biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munseym (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased, and note that we're using in-text attribution for the Mother Jones source. Dyrnych (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:RSN says about Breitbart.--ProverbialElephant (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK? Depending on the claim, I'm fine using Breitbart in precisely the same way that we use MJ: with in-text attribution. Dyrnych (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, God, no. Please, Breitbart is only a RS for a right-wing extremist opinion.  I'm not arguing for it's inclusion, I'm only saying MJ is a left-wing extreme position and should only be used in that context.--ProverbialElephant (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

June 2019 Lawsuit Decision
In June 2019 TtV won their lawsuit, see, e.g., https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/june/true-the-vote-wins-big-case-after-decade-long-battle-with-irs. A summary should be added to the main article. I hope someone can do it, since unfortunately I don't have the time right now. D.A.Timm (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

2020 election
Needs updating. The Guardian:[chrome-extension://klbibkeccnjlkjkiokjodocebajanakg/suspended.html#ttl=Religious%20right%20in%20drive%20to%20police%20election%20amid%20dubious%20voter%20fraud%20claims%20%7C%20US%20news%20%7C%20The%20Guardian&pos=3332.666748046875&uri=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/11/religious-right-polling-places-election-voter-fraud "Religious right in drive to police election amid dubious voter fraud claims"] And attributed, perhaps just for quotes,. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is relevant that a former employee of True the Vote left the organization to go work for AG Brnovich leading the new Arizona Election Integrity unit. They investigated the school board member vote harvesting, had everything they needed to prosecute, but decided to sit on it until the 2000 Mules movie came out and they could prosecute one former school board member for harvesting four ballots to prove they were right. I am not a seasoned enough editor to be permitted to add this to the content.
 * https://www.azmirror.com/2019/08/22/dems-ags-hire-for-elections-integrity-unit-has-fueled-bogus-election-fraud-claims/ JoanTEditor (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Issue with article organization; sourcing
A few issues: Appreciate any help in editing the article for organization and clarity—thanks in advance! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The chronological organization may work for some things, but not for the IRS issue, which is currently mentioned under sections "2013" and "Criticism"—but it's neither what one would typically describe as "criticism" of the organization, nor is it part of the group's general work. It seems a separate section on the IRS and TTV is warranted—especially given that it's one of the most, if not the most reported issue involving the group.
 * 2) The cited TPM article in no way includes criticism of TTV "for engaging in what Reilly said was caging, voter intimidation, and advancing statements about the pervasiveness of voter fraud that he said was unfounded."  Reilly simply reports on  claims of "voter intimidation", as well as quoting TTV's denial—he takes no position on whether they were involved. I have removed it, but of course feel free to add it back if there is a proper RS citation.
 * 3) Removing both the above two paragraphs from "criticism" (I've only removed one thus far) would leave just one: the Cummings kerfuffle—which is actually part of the IRS issue and, again, would be better suited to a section specific to the IRS and TTV.


 * Agree that the year-by-year chronological sections (which are incomplete in any case) is not a helpful organization. Factoring out the tax status story into a single heading would be a good thing. I think that a re-write of the criticisms section would be a good idea partly because the current anemic paragraphs based on two decade-old statements do not reflect the flood of critical articles and lawsuits which have accumulated in the ensuing years. -- M.boli (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)