Talk:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Future examples

Wikidemon has done a great job creating and fleshing out this article! Congratulations.

I know the article grew, indirectly, over misunderstanding of how the term was used about the organization ACORN, and that example is featured in the article. It would be good to add more examples to show the range of where the tax status is disputed in actual tax investigations. This is just notational for now. But a couple prominent examples strike me (and I should find citations as soon as I have a chance): The tax status of the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints) came into dispute with its active lobbying and campaigning around California's Proposition 8; Scientology had a long and convoluted challenge to its nonprofit status (though this may be peripheral to the "nonpartisan" matter, and not fit here). LotLE×talk 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll add the LDS example. I'm hoping that other editors will be moved to add their examples. With 50+ new investigations per year, and probably many times that number of formal complaints and informal claims made, it's a reasonable subject for a list section and perhaps a category, but obviously we have to be selective in which ones to list. I put a comment to that effect at the top of the section. There is perhaps a danger of POV editing as people deal with the difference between primary sources that make these accusations, IRS primary sources revealing the results of their investigation, or the actual acts of political speech on the one hand, and solid secondary sourcing that would show the event to be noteworthy on the other. I think the notability of the subject as a whole is several-fold. First, it's a feature of US tax law and political campaign law. Second, certain organizations violate it and get punished, very occasionally they are punished severely. And third, the making of allegations about violating this law is a regular feature of attack politics, where it intersects with the grappling by various interest organizations in America to discredit their rivals and come out on top. As a collateral attack on a political rival it's not very effective in a direct way because very few organizations are investigated, fewer yet are found to be in violation, and most of those go unpunished. But it is fodder to energize the base with indignation, and perhaps scare people because the threat of an IRS investigation is fairly ominous. Plus, I think the good folks at many nonprofits, particularly churches, take the spirit of the limitations to heart and realize that their mission is about promoting the public good, not getting involved in political campaigns. So I think we should highlight that these examples are the exception, not the rule. Most of the 1 million + nonprofits in the US are apparently in compliance, and uncontroversial. Wikidemon (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Media Matters? They say they're 501(c)(3), yet they openly admit they're liberal. How are more people not "Alleging Partisanship"? 69.47.28.209 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a legal status

I think the scope of this article ought to cover more than just the legal element. Nonpartisanism can also refer to things like CNN trying to be balanced or any other number of cultural aspects. - Sdkb (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to proposed title. No explicit opposition after 22 days including relisting. No prejudice against proposals for even better titles or merging. Station1 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpartisanism in the United States → Nonpartisan organizations in the United States – This article has always, from the time it was created at the title Nonpartisan (American organizations), been about categories of tax-exempt organizations in the United States that are not allowed to engage in political campaigning – not about U.S. non-partisanship generally. In 2013, a former editor moved it to the current title because the original one wasn't a WP:NOUN but otherwise left it only about tax status. (I am open to other suggested titles, as I'm having difficulty thinking of something concise. Political activities of nonprofits in the United States? Restrictions on ... ?) SilverLocust 💬 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"501(c)(3) organizations" seems, quite frankly, to be the obvious title.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought this was only about the restriction on 501(c)(3)'s. (The other 501(c)'s can do some campaigning, but not as their primarily purpose.) It could be merged to the existing article 501(c)(3) organization, but I don't think this title should redirect there, so it would be more convenient if it were moved (with the resulting title proposed for merging and the resulting redirect from this title nominated for deletion at WP:RfD). I suggest 501(c)(3) campaigning prohibition. SilverLocust 💬 05:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.