Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 4 December 2013 (→‎New sources for consideration: fix grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Can we prune this Cronon paragraph out?

It has been tagged for relevance since May of 2012.

To remind everyone: Professor Cronon, of the University of Wisconsin, created a political blog during the Wisconsin Act 10 battles. It attacked the Republican legislators and Scott Walker. Cronon is a state employee. It is illegal for state employees to campaign using state resources. The Republican Party of Wisconsin made an open records (FOIA) request of the University of Wisconsin for Cronon's state email account asking for emails that mentioned a variety of political people (mostly Republican legislators). There ensued national interest in this relating to academic freedom.

Cronon had mentioned and discussed ALEC on his blog before the request. He suggested that his remarks tying Act 10 to ALEC had spurred the open record request. This supposition was echoed by at least one national columnist. ALEC was not mentioned in the open records request. ALEC did not make the open records request. ALEC was mentioned in the blog.

Cronon has his own article. Act 10, Scott Walker, the Wisconsin Republican party and legislators all have their own articles. I'd suggest that this paragraph does not fit in the ALEC article, and is amply described elsewhere. ALEC wasn't involved in this incident except to be mentioned. That is hardly a solid standard for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Arzel (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the more the Criticism the better in my opinion. I consider this article, at least the first half, too heavily influenced by ALEC. NPOV? Non existent in my opinion at least for the introduction. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? We are talking about a specific section relating to an incident. We are not talking about the lede, or broader article tone. This only tangentially touches ALEC. ALEC is 'mentioned in the blog' of a UW employee, the employee is hit with an "Open Records" request. People are outraged. It's an incident, notable, but not involving ALEC. It as an organization is uninvolved. This is reported elsewhere on Wikipedia. How does it belong here? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The incident involves ALEC clearly and centrally. Cronon criticized ALEC in his blog, and in response he was hit with an open-records request by the Wisconsin Republican Party ([1], [2]). Cronon's blog post even "generated a tenfold increase in traffic to ALEC's website that caused it to crash". The section should be shorter, more readable, and ideally better integrated into the article rather than condemned to the criticism ghetto, but it's clearly relevant to this article. MastCell Talk 19:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the story is important in that Cronon's blog criticism of the organization caused the organization's website to crash? Maybe. I 'm not sure that is enough relevance, because while the blog talked about ALEC, the open records request didn't talk about the blog or ALEC. The RPW believed Cronon was improperly campaigning on state resources. It asked about "Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union", a list of named senators and two union leaders. Later the party's executive director, thanked the university for complying with the request saying: "We share [the] belief that university faculty are not above the rules prohibiting the use of state resources for political purposes." I see the relevance at the Cronan article and the 2011 protest article...not so much here. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Republican Party was, of course, not silly enough to openly state that they filed the request on ALEC's behalf. Nonetheless, the linkage was obvious and prominent in reliable sources on the subject, and hence relevant here. I don't think the website crash is the main thrust; perhaps I shouldn't have muddied the waters, but I cited that source to once again underscore the link between Cronon and ALEC, a link which is prominent in relevant reliable sources. MastCell Talk 20:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read each of the refs. None suggests that ALEC requested the Republican party to make the Open Records. The refs do however often prominently mention ALEC as a subject of Cronon's blog, which was not in dispute. I'm not sure ALEC being a bystander in a fight between Cronan and the RPW is enough to be relevant at this article, but until and unless we get deeper consensus on this it should stay.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've read all of the refs, you probably saw the first paragraph of the Journal-Sentinel article I linked. It reads:

A top Republican Party of Wisconsin official has asked the University of Wisconsin-Madison under the state's open records law to produce e-mails written by a prominent history professor, an apparent response to a blog post the professor wrote about a conservative group. ([3], emphasis mine)

The conservative group in question is, of course, ALEC, and the source directly suggests that the GOP's open-records request was a response to Cronon's criticism of ALEC. MastCell Talk 20:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did read that article, but didn't see the "ALEC" so missed that. Thanks for your good eyes. I note that it doesn't suggest that this was an ALEC response to the blog post, just a "response". The main point remains of course, this is an incident springing from a mention of ALEC in a blog. This is not about something done to or by ALEC. They are peripheral. However since we can't agree on the relevance, it remains until other editors weigh in. I'm dropping this for the present. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite weak. The "apparent response" appears to be due to Cronon, himself. At least, that's the only other mention of a connection between the records request and ALEC. All the other criticism of the records request appears to be criticism of the idea of searching a professor's E-mails for any reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cronon suffered quasi-harassment in apparent retaliation for being among the first to bring ALEC to prominent public attention (even though ALEC as an institution is not known to have been involved in such retaliation attempts). It is likely that ALEC would not have become widely publicly known until later if the Cronon incident hadn't occurred, which certainly would seem to make it notable with respect to the topic of this article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cronon is clearly relevant. In It Started in Wisconsin, scholars Paul and Mari Jo Buhle say that the Cronon case significantly raised public awareness of ALEC's activities. Many observers believed Cronon was right about the overreaction of the FOIA request, that ALEC was being defended by the Wisconsin Republican Party who were looking to apply a chilling effect. Looking at the case a year later, Mary Bottari writes that Cronon's "thesis has been upheld"; she points to an ALEC Exposed report which enumerates how Wisconsin's legislature and governor have become ALEC's handmaiden. Bottari emphasizes that ALEC was little-known before the Cronon case. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, concur with AnonMoos. It needs to be trimmed and pointed to {{main|William Cronon#Scholar as citizen: Tension between transparency and academic freedom}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos did not say to trim the bit. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, he/she didn't. He's the only one who has presented an argument for inclusion, which I've come to accept. There are still a number of editors who have requested removal or trimming; I'm now in favor of trimming, as it's still only peripherally about ALEC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Cronon incident was the catalyst for ALEC receiving wide media coverage for the first time. If the Cronon incident hadn't occurred, then that probably would have happened at a different time and in a different manner. AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, do you have a ref for that or is that just your assesment? I would suggest that the campaign by Color of Change to defund ALEC in the wake of the Treyvon shooting was what garnered the largest media coverage. The importance of Cronon as regards ALEC continues to escape me.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before Cronon, very few people were paying much critical attention to ALEC. Don't know how it can be phrased more clearly than that... AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the more important parts be moved into the main criticism section? Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think is in the main criticism section (although it seems sort of redundant as the entire article is a criticism section) Capitalismojo (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, can it be merged with the general paragraph at the top of the criticism section?Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the Cronon e-mail incident precipitated interest in ALEC, as AnonMoos suggests, then we should be able to find a reliable source that says that, and include it in this section. If no such source exists then the relationship between the e-mail incident and ALEC is too attenuated to include the e-mail incident material, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krugman calls ALEC "shadowy" before Cronon's revelatory blog post. The Buhles say in It Started in Wisconsin that Cronon's blog received 500,000 hits and that signs quickly cropped up around campus saying "Tell Me About ALEC" etc. The Buhles say that ALEC's response was a direct reaction to Cronon's blog, in the form of Wisconsin Republican Freedom of Information Act request for Cronon's digital records. Cronon himself wrote that the FOIA request was connected to his ALEC revelations, and this conclusion by Cronon was repeated widely by observers such as John Nichols (journalist) in The Nation[4] and the chief editor of the The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild.[5] Cronon wrote in his blog: "...I'm hoping you'll agree with me that it may be time to start paying more attention to ALEC..." and this, too, was repeated widely in the media, for instance by Rothschild of The Progressive, Nichols in The Nation, Daily Kos which says Cronon "got the ball rolling" on media interest in ALEC,[6] Bill Berkowitz for Truth Out who said that Cronon dragged ALEC out of secrecy and into the limelight,[7][8] and by Barry Sussman, the editor of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University,[9]
In any case, so much ink was expended on this issue in the media that it has its own notability. The thought of removing it from this article is preposterous; it was highly publicized and very much relevant to ALEC. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two observations:
  1. It sounds like this incident merits its own article, per WP:GNG. In lieu of that the appropriate section in the Cronon article needs a re-write, as it's woefully lacking. Once either of those is done this section can be written in WP:SUMMARY style with a WP:CFORK.
  2. Regardless, the link between ALEC and the Wisconsin Republicans' e-mail inquiry needs to be better explained here, using some of the sources you mention above (excluding blogs like Daily Kos, of course). As the article is currently written, we have Cronon writing about ALEC, obviously relevant, and then we have a third party (Wisconsin Republicans, a related but separate organization) retaliating against Cronon, not nearly as relevant to this particular article. If the link between the e-mail scandal and ALEC involves the fact that the scandal led to greater scrutiny of ALEC then we should say so, with reliable sources in support. Binksternet, would you like to take a stab at this, or shall I?
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these conclusions reached in somewhere that isn't a leftie blog post? Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that Rebeccalutz is really paying attention here; I already mentioned a book source. The Buhles wrote It Started In Wisconsin. The publisher, Verso, is a respected left-wing imprint, and the Buhles are respected left-wing scholars.
The bigger problem I have with the casual dismissal of "leftie blog post" sources is that a bunch are by respected authors, professional journalists, experts in their field. The newsblog of today is the op-ed column of yore, not just some random dude. I have gone to some trouble to show good sources including Sussman, Berkowitz, Krugman, Nichols and Rothschild. If the expert sources are dismissed either because they are "leftie" or because they are blogs then that is a misapplication of our guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no concern about the reliability of those sources (aside from Daily Kos), but I do question whether these tie ALEC to the e-mail scandal in the way I'm asking about, and since I don't have access to the Buhle source I'm relying on your help. Does the source say the increased attention (500,000 blog hits) was the direct result of Cronon's posts, or was it the result of the e-mail scandal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the Buhles edited the book and wrote parts of it. However, Mary Bottari, 2011 winner of The Sidney Award for journalism, wrote chapter 4 in which Cronon is discussed. Bottari, who I already mentioned in relation to her investigative news item in Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch, says that Cronon's blog itself got 500,000 hits, not ALEC's website, just in case you were confused. Bottari connects this incredible popularity of Cronon's blog with greater light shining on previously little-known "shadowy" ALEC, including the campus signs cropping up naming ALEC. At PR Watch, Bottari says that Cronon's blog thesis about the connection between ALEC and the FOIA request by Wisconsin Republicans "was upheld" a year later following revelations that 49 of Wisconsin's 132 legislators were members of ALEC along with the governor, and that these top leaders were implementing ALEC's right-wing vision in that state. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that journalist Mary Bottari and executive director Lisa Graves both won The Sidney Award for their investigative journalism work to uncover facts about ALEC, the work called ALEC Exposed (official website, ALEC Exposed at PR Watch, ALEC Exposed at The Nation by John Nichols, ALEC Exposed at The Atlantic by Nancy Scola, ALEC Exposed by Bill Moyers, ALEC Exposed interview at the Sidney Hillman Foundation). I argue that anything written by Bottari about ALEC will have the journalism industry's respect behind it. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That Bottari "was upheld" quote from PR Watch, do you have a link for that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, based on your last couple of comments in this thread, which I have to be honest I don't completely follow, I'm asking for your assistance to write a sentence or two (with appropriate sourcing) that links the Wisconsin Republican Party's fishing expedition (or whatever more neutral term you want to use) with ALEC itself, e.g. explaining how the uproar about the fishing expedition led to increased scrutiny of ALEC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Competing funding claims by Common Cause and ALEC

Until yesterday the "Organization" section included the following sentence:

According to Common Cause, ALEC receives 98% of its funding from corporations and foundations and 2% comes from membership dues paid by legislators and miscellaneous income.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/attachments/ALECReportFINAL.pdf

Rebeccalutz changed this to:

According to IRS documents, ALEC recieves 98% of its funing from foundations, corporations, other nonprofits and meeting revenue.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.alec.org/about-alec/public-reporting/

with the comment: "Why should we take CC's word for what the IRS docs say when ALEC puts up the actual IRS docs? CC also only talks about 2011 while ALEC shows 2011 and 2012?"

The IRS docs were drafted by ALEC and then published by ALEC on its own website. They are used in a self-serving manner. As such, they cannot be included per WP:ABOUTSELF. As for the deleted material, Common Cause has a liberal bias according to reliable sources, so its statement is appropriately attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is really just a matter of following WP policies. Basically what the policies are saying is that independent-but-biased sources (e.g. Common Cause) are more reliable than self-published, self-serving sources (e.g. ALEC). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know too much about 990s but CC's also working off the same form, right? When you could see the actual 990 as a source why take CC's word for what they said was on the 990? (Just to be clear: I don't know anything about CC but based on their WP page they seem like a solid organization. When they say they have seen the 990 I have no particular reason to doubt them and I assume that indeed they have its just that in a world of degrees from the truth why take someone's word for what is written on a paper when you could just as easily see the actual paper?)
ALEC also has a 990 for 2012, while CC only has one for 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly commendable of ALEC to post some of its tax forms, but that doesn't make them or ALEC's own analysis of them any more reliable, particularly in light of the fact that it only posted them after CC accused it of abusing its non-profit status. Also, the forms are WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not as desirable for an encyclopedia as WP:SECONDARY sources such as the Common Cause analysis. At the end of the day we still have to comply with Wikipedia policy. Personally I'm troubled that CC and ALEC's analysis diverge so completely. Perhaps there's a more neutral source out there that we can include? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure CC had all the best intentions and they were trying to get information out fast but looking at the 990s you can see that that phrasing just isn't right. 98% of ALEC funding does not come from corporate entities. Among other things, a pretty significant chunk is from conference fees. I'll look around for a third source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I looked briefly and couldn't find anything. In the meantime I'm reverting back to comply with the policies I cited above. If you find another reliable source, feel free to add it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that CC is not telling the truth. Surely, the IRS documents, published by ALEC is better than CC lieing about what is in one of those IRS documents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know that, as (i) the 990s published by ALEC were for a different year, and (ii) the 990s were written by ALEC (not the IRS) and perhaps ALEC was lying. There's nothing inherently reliable about what you're calling "those IRS documents"; in fact, just the opposite. In any case, we're here to seek verifiability, not truth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Common Cause observation should be accepted as more reliable than ALEC's own PR. It's hard for me to believe any editors are arguing otherwise. Solid and reliable third party sources should always take precedence over primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of these two sources is lying. Either the 98% figure is true or it isn't. Do you have any particular reason to believe that ALEC would forge those documents? You guys seem to take CC's source at face value. Rebeccalutz (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't take the CC source at face value; we acknowledge that it's biased with is why we cite it with attribution. Readers are free to dismiss it for its bias. As for ALEC, I'm not accusing them of anything, but they absolutely would have a motive to be dishonest on their tax forms, as before they published them they were accused of cheating the IRS. Sure, they might have been coming clean, or they might have been digging the hole deeper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 990s that they provided match the ones on Guidestar: http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/52-0140979/american-legislative-exchange-council.aspx. It seems verifiable. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So? They were filled out by ALEC's own accountants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, yes, and then reviewed by the IRS. Importantly, these would be the same 990s that CC based their statements off of, but with more of them and more up to date. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be the best source but I did find this opposing website: http://www.alecwatch.org/chapterfour.html that rebuts the 98% corporate assertion saying "more than 95 percent of its revenue typically comes in the form of �contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts� received from corporations and charitable foundations as well as other money received in connection with its conferences and seminars, as membership fees for its task forces, and as revenue from the sale of its publications." Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. ALEC Watch (a clearly unreliable source opposed to ALEC) has more favorable comments about ALEC than Common Cause (a generally reliable source opposed to ALEC). There's something fishy here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain to me how the statements from Common Cause and AlecWatch are conflicting? One says 98% of funding from corporations, and the other says >95% from corporations +/- other sources. While the second source is more vague and the first more definitive, both sources are consistent the notion that 98% of the funding comes from corporations. Am I missing something? Because I don't see the conflict here. MastCell Talk 01:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And there's no reason why we have to choose one reliable source over another. If there's a conflict between two reliable sources, we note it and give appropriate WP:WEIGHT to both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
< OR>The actual 990 doesn't specify whether the contributions were from corporations, foundations, or individuals. (Perhaps the unredacted 990 so specifies.)</ OR> (I'm surprised, considering the information otherwise required by the IRS.) Given the statements made by Common Cause, attributing it to a document which doesn't have the information, we should go with other (generally) reliable sources, if at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we just say that "most" or "the vast majority" of ALEC's funding comes from corporations? That's well-sourced, if vague. MastCell Talk 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source is really reliable. CC says 98% = corporate, ALECWatch says 95 = corporate + grants + non-profits + meeting revenue + book revenue, those are fairly different figures. ALECWatch's lines up more with the 990s. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The language as currently written (by Rebeccalutz) cherry picks and misstates the AlecWatch source. The AlecWatch source does have some internal inconsistencies. The full relevant language is:

As noted previously, however, ALEC isn�t really a membership association of state legislators; the dues paid by state lawmakers (or paid by state legislatures on their behalf) constitute only a negligible portion of its total revenues. Year in and year out, virtually all of ALEC�s revenues come from corporations and their affiliate foundations, trade and professional associations, and a relative handful of ultraconservative foundations. An examination of ALEC�s tax returns shows that more than 95 percent of its revenue typically comes in the form of �contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts� received from corporations and charitable foundations as well as other money received in connection with its conferences and seminars, as membership fees for its task forces, and as revenue from the sale of its publications. A breakdown:

(table showing dues vs. non-dues)

Over the years, ALEC has taken in more than $1.3 million from foundations controlled by ultraconservative philanthropist Richard Scaife, along with sizable amounts from the Coors-related Castle Rock Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation.(15) In addition, ALEC reportedly has more than three hundred corporate sponsors that pay annual membership fees ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 to be part of the action, plus additional fees of $1,500 to $5,000 a year to participate in ALEC�s various task forces.

Then I found a couple of other good sources. Arguably the best source is this one from the Center for Media and Democracy (self described progressive, requires attribution):

Almost 98% of ALEC's cash is from sources other than legislative dues, such as corporations, trade associations, and corporate foundations. ALEC describes itself as the largest "membership association of state legislators," but only a little more than ten percent of its funding comes from legislative dues. Some of the biggest corporations in the world bankroll and thus subsidize the activities of the legislators who are part of ALEC. Corporations provide general support that covers the annual ALEC conventions -- which are summer trips of politicians and their families to resorts for the annual ALEC meeting -- and the preparation of "model" bills and glossy promotional materials. ALEC could actually be called one of the most powerful membership associations of corporations attempting to influence state legislators. But ALEC's tax filings do not even count corporate donations as membership dues; they are listed under gifts.

It goes on with lots of details.

Then there is this video source, which I watched last night but I don't feel like digging up a quote. But the message is 100% consistent.

All four of these organizations (all with an anti-ALEC bias, btw) paint a consistent picture: nearly all of the funding comes from corporations, trade associations, corporate and/or ultra-conservative foundations. So, we should say exactly that, with attribution. And again, per WP:ABOUTSELF the ALEC PR source must be omitted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Nichols sentence

Seems out of place in the lead. Can it be incorporated somewhere else? Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the appropriate place for it, as it describes ALEC comprehensively and it WP:BALANCEs ALEC's own website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very out of place for the lead. There are not similar rebuttals in the leads of The Nation, CC or CMD. This phenomenon seems to be isolated to the ALEC page. This would be better off in the body. Rebeccalutz (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to go to the other articles you list and insert similar "rebuttals" rather than remove Nichols from this one. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) I think the ALEC about "bloated" government is correctly balanced by the Nichols statement. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that I found an example that contradicts this format, it's that I can't find one that doesn't. I can't find any other pages for organization that say "the mission of this organization is to do X aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannd here is a quote from some one who doesn't like them. The Nichols quote is out of place and should be moved. Rebeccalutz (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with that assessment. I think that at wikipedia the lead generally summarizes the article and, since the article is almost entirely an anti-ALEC screed, the quote from Nichols sort-of fits. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, ALEC has generated a lot of controversy lately, not only about whether they are good or evil but also about what they are (a subject that is generally included in lead sections). The current lead summarizes that controversy in a balanced way. If we get rid of the Nichols quote then we must also get rid of ALEC's website quote. The reason why The Nation, CC, and CMD don't have similar leads is because, while those organizations obviously have some bias and have received criticism, there's little controversy over what they do. Comparing ALEC to them is apples to oranges. (And by the way, I agree that the article is inappropriately centered around ALEC's critics and needs to be reorganized.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to touching on that controversy, just to the idea that this random leftie journalist's quote does it best. Can't we work to put in a better sentence that summarizes the history section? Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about history, it's about what ALEC is, currently. The fact that the quote has an anti-ALEC bias is perfectly appropriate, given that ALEC's website has a pro-ALEC bias. However if you feel that a different anti-ALEC would be better (i.e. more representative of ALEC's critics' views), then by all means, propose it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Critics alledge that ALEC allows corporations to play a disproportional role in the legislative process."? Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even close to representative of the critics' views of what ALEC is or does. It's also not properly attributed to specific critics. What's your angle here, if you don't mind me asking? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to improve the accuracy of this article. What's your angle here, if you don't mind me asking? Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing. Sorry, no offense, I just don't understand why you keep proposing changes to this sentence in light of the relevant policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I bristled a little. Nichols says ALEC is a "collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators.". I suggested "Critics alledge that ALEC allows corporations to play a disproportional role in the legislative process". I can find no other article on Wikipedia where the lead gives a quote to a random opponent. It gives a highly inappropriate amount of weight to the opinion of a fairly obscure journalist. Help me to craft a sentence that reasonably summarizes the thoughts of ALEC's critics. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, how does the quote not fairly summarize the views of ALEC's critics? Critics aren't complaining that ALEC is influential, they're complaining that it's engaging in behind-the-scene corporate lobbying. That's pretty much what Nichols says. As for him being "fairly obscure," he has his own Wikipedia article, so he can't be that obscure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is one of conformity and one of wikipedia:weight. There is no other article that anyone can find that does this. Using the quote from one critic in the lead gives him undue weight. The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, not a quote. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's an important journalist, notable on his own, writing for a widely known periodical. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quote is appropriate when the material or language being sourced is dubious or controversial. See WP:QUOTE#Recommended use of quotations. In this case we have two opposing, biased sources using quite provocative language, hence quoting is appropriate for both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that Nichols is biased, I'm arguing that putting his quote in the lead is highly unweighted. Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "highly unweighted." Not reflective of the viewpoints? How so? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have the opposite view to Rebeccalutz. I think the current lead violates WP:WEIGHT by substantially understating the perception of ALEC in independent, reliable sources. These sources describe ALEC as a lobbying (or "stealth lobbying") group where legislation is drafted by private interests and then passed on to ALEC's legislative members to be framed as pseudo-grassroots initiatives. That perception is hardly limited to one author or to The Nation; it's found in numerous independent, reliable sources including BusinessWeek, the New York Times, The Guardian, etc.

The current lead violates WP:WEIGHT egregiously, by framing this perspective as if it's held by one writer at one publication. The majority of the lead presents ALEC's self-description, which is of course self-serving. We should mention how ALEC presents itself, but the majority of the lead (and the majority of the article) should proportionately present the views of independent, reliable sources (as in this version) rather than recapitulating ALEC's press kit. MastCell Talk 18:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, more or less. There comes a point at which the negative descriptions become redundant and "piling on" and therefore non-neutral, and the version linked to by MastCell goes a bit too far in that direction, IMO. Not to mention the WP:LEADLENGTH issue. But there's no question, the lead should reflect exactly what MastCell says, and should include the quotes from the New York Times and Bloomberg, which, while possibly opinion, have been reviewed by established and respected editorial boards and therefore are more reliable than anything else we have. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that criticism should be summarized in the lead, I even tried to come up with wording to express this criticism. This criticism just should be summarized in the form of a quote from one partisan journalist. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be dishonest, since the criticism is hardly limited to "one partisan journalist". Framing it as such seems like a transparent attempt to artificially minimize or sanitize the content of independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 22:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll find the above wording that I proposed you can see that I am interesting in expandin the scope of that coverage, not condensing it. My objection is that now the whole thing is given over to "one partisan journalist" which seems unweighted. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and your proposed wording didn't come close to expressing the views of ALEC's critics. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of making major changes to the lead, in part to address the issues raised here. Most significantly, I've removed the Nichols quote and expanded the criticism to reflect (fairly, I hope) the views of ALEC's detractors. I focused on only using the most reliable sources (per WP:NPV) and not getting too deep in the weeds (per WP:LEAD). Feedback appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALEC was founded in 1973

They, and plenty of other people say so.

If a source claims their founding as a year other than 1973 then that source isn't reliable. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go find some sources then! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.alec.org/about-alec/history/ Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go find a couple of independent sources. Normally a subject's website would be perfectly sufficient for something non-controversial like this, but in this case we have an independent source contradicting an ABOUTSELF source, so the independent source will always trump. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"White Protestant Nation" is an independent source? Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, yes. I can't find any evidence the author (Jonathan M. Schoenwald) had an affiliation any organization mentioned in this article (let alone ALEC). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.alecwatch.org/chaptersix.html Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fine with that. Thanks for doing the research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Details of Cronon e-mail request

Yesterday I changed the following passage:

  • The Wisconsin Republican Party on March 17 made a request under Wisconsin's Open Records laws to obtain e-mail messages sent to or from Cronon's university account, and that of other apparent union supporters who are state employees, containing certain keywords which "include[d] Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, rally, union, the names of 10 Republican lawmakers, the acronyms of two state public-employee unions, and the names of those two unions' leaders.[1][2]

to:

  • The Wisconsin Republican Party on March 17 made a request under Wisconsin's open records laws to obtain e-mail messages sent to or from Cronon's university account, and that of other apparent union supporters who are state employees, containing keywords related to various political issues that were being debated in Wisconsin at the time.[1][2]

Rebeccalutz reverted without comment. Why? I was merely trying to reduce the amount of unnecessary detail in an effort to make the passage more encyclopedic. Maybe the language I chose wasn't quite right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"various political issues" is far too generous. It makes it sound like this guy was talking about Hunting laws or something benign. It also makes it sound like the request that was filed was a fishing expedition. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can the list of keywords be summarized in a better way, then? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I thought that the list of keywords made it obvious that it was a fishing expedition. But to each their own. MastCell Talk 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well keep it in then. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Accidental" inclusion of ALEC mission statement

  • Rebeccalutz added (without comment) the word "accidental" to Burgin's inclusion of the ALEC mission statement in the Florida bill.
  • I reverted with the comment: "rm "accidentally" as unsourced; not a close WP:PARAPHRASE"
  • Ms. Lutz re-reverted with the comment: "'Oops', 'forgot', etc. would support that wording"

The word "accidental" isn't supported by the source. Three points:

  1. The words "oops" doesn't appear in the article, just in the title. Therefore it's not reliable. Headlines are frequently written to attract readers rather than for accuracy/neutrality. (And even if it were in the article itself, reliable sourcing requires explicit statements, not inferences.)
  2. The word "forgot" appears in the article, but it's preceded by "apparently." As in, "...she apparently forgot to remove ALEC’s mission statement..." This is an express signal that the author is speculating. Speculation can't be the basis for reliable sourcing.
  3. The article appears to be a mixture of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sourcing, and in particular the line about how Burgin "apparently forgot" is clearly tertiary since it links to a secondary source by Common Cause. The Common Cause source doesn't say anything about Burgin "forgetting." It does say, after describing what happened: "As a Texas Governor might say; 'Oops!'" However this is clearly editorial in nature and also does not explicitly say that the inclusion of the ALEC language was accidental. In other words, the inclusion of the word "accidental" is based purely on speculation.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think that it was done intentionally? Is there anything in the source that says that it was done intentionally? Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested adding the word "intentionally." If you aren't relying on statements explicitly made by reliable sources then "accidentally" is WP:SYNTH. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The post that the source is based off of uses the word "mistake". I would be OK with "mistakenly" too. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added "mistakenly" to the text, but not the section header. Adding it to the header strikes me as slightly non-neutral as it's redundant and appears to be managing ALEC's reputation. One instance of "mistakenly" is enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be better off in the heading then. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of recent changes

Hello, I think it's appropriate given the controversial nature of the subject and the extent of my WP:BOLD changes that I explain what I've been doing the last couple of days. As I believe others have noted, this article has needed an organizational overhaul for some time. In particular the "Critics" section was a mish-mash of criticisms by various media outlets and advocacy/watchdog groups with little coherence. It also became so large as a result of recent controversies that it was overwhelming the rest of the article. My main goal has been to refactor things so that criticisms are integrated with the appropriate subject matter. For instance, criticisms about funding were moved into a new section called "Funding." I believe this is a more encyclopedic approach. I'll note, however, that in making some of these changes I've exposed some possible WP:WEIGHTWP:BALASPS issues. For instance, the "Funding" section contains only criticisms by liberal groups, but I'll bet among the reliable sources we're already citing we could find some description of the less controversial aspects of ALEC's funding/budget.

As I was doing a lot of refactoring, it's possible that I inadvertently lost some material along the way. If I did, I apologize in advance.

Please reserve this thread for discussion of my recent edits overall. If you wish to initiate discussion on particular edits or sections then please consider starting a separate thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All and all, not too bad on the criticism paragraph in the lead. Some initial thoughts: why open with the phrase "since 2011"? I see what you are going for, but presumably ALEC had received scrutiny from the left before 2011.
I think the publication section that went missing is worth reintroducing but I don't know where. Maybe in "Organization"? Rebeccalutz (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the material in the article, there was indeed some criticism prior to 2009 2011 but nothing out of the ordinary. In 2011 it exploded. Regarding the publications, that section was supported solely by ALEC sources and therefore struck me as not sufficiently notable for inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia:aboutself "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Publishing books doesn't seem like a controversial claim. Rebeccalutz (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not about whether the material is accurate but whether it's sufficiently notable for inclusion. WP:NOTEVERYTHING that is verifiable gets included in Wikipedia. Generally speaking we measure notability based on coverage by independent reliable sources, in line with WP:GNG. To rely on article subjects' own websites would take us into dangerous self-WP:PROMOTION territory. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Model policies" v. "Model bills"

Most of the sources seem to quote the ALEC language that calls the drafts "model policies". Any objection to changing them back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most reliable sources use "model bills," so that's what we should use. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources go with "policies", "bills", "laws", "regulations" and a host of other terms. Why not run with the source material the way that the article did before and use "policies". Bill sounds like they were already passed into law. Rebeccalutz (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because most reliable sources use "bills." That's pretty much end of story. In any case "bills" doesn't imply they were passed because "bills" by definition are draft legislation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to challenge your use of "most". Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then take a quick look through 5 random news sources cited by this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. They don't seem to support your claim of "most". Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Tell me what sources you looked at. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"watchdog" groups

There are reliable sources for the proposition that Common Cause, CMD, and CPI (the three "non-media" groups that have ganged up on ALEC) are all "watchdog" groups, so I put the moniker in the lead in describing the recent controversies. Capitalismojo deleted "watchdog" saying that there was a lack of reliable sourcing, plus the moniker was "unnecessary." I don't think that reliable sourcing is necessary in the text as this is really just an introductory paragraph and you can find the necessary supporting sources in the groups' articles. Putting these sources in the lead would be confusing, IMO. I'm happy to provide the sources here to convince anyone who doesn't think these are "watchdog" groups. That said, Capitalismojo, given your comment about "watchdog" being "unnecessary," if I did identify these sources would you still oppose the addition of this word, and if so, why? I think "watchdog" is a good descriptor of the role these groups have played vis-a-vis ALEC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reliable source for the "watchdog" descriptor. I don't think it is a neccesary addition. It adds little, and what it adds is inaccurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking is, if I provide the "watchdog" reliable sources, will you be satisfied? You can't say it's inaccurate if it's supported by reliable sources. "Watchdog" groups perform a certain type of activity, so it would seem quite descriptive. Without it we know nothing about what kind of groups these are, aside from their political orientation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we begin adding descriptors that add gloss to the organizations attacking ALEC we will have to add descriptors that balance the gloss. I am certain that we would find less than glowing descriptors of Common Cause etc. I would describe these groups as advocacy organizations not disinterested watchdogs. They are explicitly working to defund and de-legitimize their ideological opponents. I would suggest that "watchdogs" expose wrongdoing, they don't go to war and try to use the IRS to destroy their enemies. So, no I don't agree with the addition of "watchdog". Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was talking about calling them "liberal watchdog groups." Would this address your concern? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeccalutz's recent changes

Rebeccalutz has recently made (here, here) a variety of changes that I feel are rather gross violations of WP:NPV and WP:PROMOTION. In a nutshell I'd describe her efforts as whitewashing. For instance, she removed reliably sourced language describing ALEC's conservative ties. Some of the material (such as saying that Common Cause's IRS complaint was "unsuccessful") aren't sourced. Ms. Lutz's first edit comment was "Edited the lead, increased specificity to the Cronon part," and her second was "I am willing to discuss the wording for lead but everything else is cited." Ms. Lutz, this is your opportunity to justify your changes. I'll note in response to your second edit comment that just because something is reliably sourced (and I dispute that all of your changes are reliably sourced) doesn't mean that it is neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lead states that "information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." There is no citation in the lead for the lawsuits being filed because the information is well sourced in the body and the idea that the lawsuits were filed does't seem to be controversial. Why then would there need to be a citation in the lead that the lawsuits all failed. Why does the reader need to be told in the lead that those lawsuits were files but its controversial to let him or her know that they all failed? I don't know what the opposite of whitewashing is but I think that I'd be on solid ground to accuse you of that. Is there anything else that you were wondering about? Rebeccalutz (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the body do we say that Common Cause's IRS complaint was unsuccessful? Isn't it still pending? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the challenges have been unsuccessful, I remember that wording in the previous version but will do some digging and hold off until I can source that word in the lead. Anything else that troubles you? Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of it. The only thing I you did that I agreed with, I re-added. Several of your changes have were previously objected to and talk page discussions are ongoing (e.g. model policies). Then you removed reliably sourced, important information such as the fact that ALEC serves conservative legislators and patrons, mainly corporations. You removed the properly attributed Nichols quote without an explanation. Then you reverted changes that I gave explanations for deletion, such as the reference to digital privacy. You added a portion about sentencing reform that included both quotes from the ALEC website without in-text attribution and WP:WEASEL words ("unusual alliances," without further explanation). Collectively your edits are blatantly WP:PROMOTIONal in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your text for the opening sentence falls very far from Wikipedia:NPOV and is sourced to a left-wing non-profit. I'm open to discussing what comes next, but that text cannot stand, it's inaccurate, undersourced, and far from impartial. My suggestion would be (and I think we are almost there): 1 paragraph about what is universally held true about ALEC, one paragraph about what ALEC and its supporters say that it does, one paragraph about what's its detractors say that it does.
I did not remove the John Nichols quote.
I'm sorry to say I missed any discussion on why that sourced material should be deleted. I will hold off on reincluding it until that is resolved here.
That text was my own and was sourced to the New York Times and Rachel Maddow, parties that are hardly in the business of promoting a organization like ALEC.
Was there anything else that you were concerned with?Rebeccalutz (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said, I'm concerned with all of it (except for the change about ALEC's headquarters). It's getting difficult to parse out the different pieces, so I suggest you start a new sub-thread for each one that you want included. To get the process started I'll start one to get things started. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just ridiculous. You have concerns about 4 edits, that's lovely, lets talk about those. "all of it" is an unacceptable objection. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who made a smorgasbord of controversial edits without explanation. I broke out the first issue, now it's your turn. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've made quite the impressive and controversial buffet yourself, by the precident you are advocating for I could just say "all of it is objectionable" and undo away. But that would not be productive.

So with the above, lets keep talking about the language for the opening. Anything else that you are concerned about? Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I broke down my edits into pieces and provided an edit summary for each one. That gives you something to respond to. You lumped all of your changes into one edit with an unhelpful and combative comment, so I don't know the basis for each change. Perhaps if you provided these bases you might convince me of their correctness? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

Ms. Lutz says the first sentence "falls very far from Wikipedia:NPOV and is sourced to a left-wing non-profit." I don't understand what's non-neutral about this sentence. It's a direct paraphrase of the New York Times and FCIR sources, which are certainly reliable. I previously did a bit of search on FCIR and I couldn't find any reliable evidence of bias. Regardless, both of these sources seem quite reliable (regardless of any perceived WP:BIAS) and aren't controverted by any other reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that text is not supported by the NTY source, it is lifted from the non-profit whose authorship is dubious at best. It paints a deliberately misleading message. Lets just stick to the facts for the opening paragraph. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mix of both sources. The Times says it's "an organization of conservative state legislators." You removed that part of the sentence as well. In any case you can say the FCIR piece's "authorship is dubious at best," but do you have any evidence to back that up or is this based purely on your personal suspicions? "Stick to the facts" - I used the reliable sources' words verbatim to make sure that everything was verifiable. What more are you asking for, the WP:TRUTH? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "that pushes for laws favorable to its patrons, mainly U.S. corporations" is just silly and supported only by Goodman, an Opinion-column writer publishing on a blog. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed "pushes for laws" to "advocates for legislation" per WP:TONE, as I agree "pushes for laws" is a little to informal. As for the sourcing, the FCIR appears to be legitimate, reputable piece of journalism written under an experienced, professional editorial staff. I see no evidence that this is an opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a blog post from a retired op-ed columnist. What was wrong with "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) American organization, composed of politically conservative state legislators." Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong is that ALEC is notable not only as a collection of conservative legislators, but as an environment where those legislators collaborate closely with corporations and other special interests to write legislation. The lead sentence needs to be a bit more complete. MastCell Talk 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the previous text read something to the effect of "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) American organization, composed of politically conservative state legislators, businesses and non-profits". I think that would do well. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you do, but you don't seem to be WP:LISTENing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FCIR source is from their blog section, an opinion piece. It is reliable for its own opinion. That is aside from its position as a leading regional advocacy journalism org. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it says "blog" doesn't mean it's unreliable. It reads like professionally editing journalism. WP:NEWSBLOG. As for them being advocacy journalists, you'll have to provide sourcing for that. What I see is an editorial staff with strong mainstream press credentials. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FCIR is not an RS, ergo their blog fails the criteria for Wikipedia:newsblog Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the logic exactly backwards. If it's a news blog, then the fact that it's a blog doesn't disqualify it as an RS. Moreover, you keep repeating the mantra that FCIR isn't an RS, but the only evidence you've pointed to is the word "blog." So your reasoning is circular. It says it's a blog, so it's not an RS, so it's not a news blog. That completely ignores what WP:NEWSBLOG actually says. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Greenblatt, Alan (October 2003). "What Makes Alec Smart?". Governing. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help).
More needs to be added from this source. It's incredibly dense and informative. I'll get to the rest in the next couple of days if others haven't already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more recent Governing article by Greenblatt. I haven't read it in depth yet but it could provide excellent reliable coverage of some of the recent controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALEC was not founded to serve as a conservative counterweight to the NCSL

How do we know this? Because ALEC was founded 2 years before the NCSL was created.

Greenblatt cannot be used as a Reliable Source. Rebeccalutz (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I agree that the source is unreliable on this point as at least technically it appears to be impossible. In light of this I've removed the Governing ref and changed the language to reflect the Bishop source.
That said, I disagree that this apparent inaccuracy renders the rest of the Governing source unreliable. There are a number of plausible explanations for Greenblatt's "conservative counterweight" sentence. Perhaps he was referring to NCSL's predecessors, which were consolidated in 1975, or perhaps he was referring to brewing plans to found NCSL, or perhaps he was referring to ALEC's formation as a 501(c)(3) in 1975. In any case, the article is consistent in all other respects with all of the other cited reliable sources, and the publisher has a strong reputation, so overall I'd say this source is quite reliable for issues other than the one you raise here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenblott is wholly unreliable. When are not psychics, we can only take Greeblott for what he writes. He wrote a very specific claim and that is patently ridiculous. He also claims that corporations hold veto power over model policies. According to ALECExposed, there is no such veto power. The source, and all of its dependent material need to be removed. Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, please. And I don't appreciate your knee-jerk disparagement of any source that paints ALEC in a negative light. Keep this up and I'll see you at WP:COIN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm trying to make this article more accurate. I've proposed increasing coverage of ALEC's critics in the lead and expanding coverage of what seems to be their most controversial issue. My go to sources have been ALECEposed, Slate, HuffingtonPost and Rachel Maddow. You, on the other hand, propose universally negative text that often turns up unsupported by a Reliable Source or cited to an unreliable source. Feel free to see me anywhere that you want to see me.

Two of Greenblott's biggest claims are patently (and I should mention, easily verifiable) falsehoods. He is either a liar or unqualified. Either way, he needs to go as a source as does the material presently cited to him. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your second perceived falsehood, aside from the "conservative counterweight" one? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't no "perceived" about it: "He also claims that corporations hold veto power over model policies. According to ALECExposed, there is no such veto power. The source, and all of its dependent material need to be removed." Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to throw out Greenblatt based on two statements he made that are countered by ALEC Exposed or proved wrong by chronology. The Greenblatt source has a lot of other information which can be used. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The man lied about why (and when) ALEC was founded. The man lied about businesses having a veto. Why are you so excited to take everything else that he wrote at face value? Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lied? Seriously? The only one who has lost all credibility is you, Ms. Lutz. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Lutz, sorry about the veto thing, I forgot about that one. What reliable source are you saying contradicts that private interest members have veto power? I don't see anything on that ALECExposed page that does so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its in the leaked ALEC voting procedure that I posted above. Do you have a reliable source that says supports Greenblatt's claim? Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're getting at; I don't need one. But you need a reliable source if you're going to say Greenblatt's language about veto power is an "easily verifiable falsehood." And a diagram on the ALECExposed website about ALEC's PR strategy that doesn't say anything about vetoes is definitely not it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RL. This specific article is unreliable (and I like Governing and used to be a subscriber). In this case not so good. As an aside, I also believe it is highly inappropriate to throw around COIN suggestions willy-nilly. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a suggestion, I'm preparing a report. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how that ALECExposed page shows that the article's statement about veto power is an "easily verified falsehood." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baby and bathwater

Rebeccalutz is keen on removing anything from Greenblatt, even though Governing magazine is a reliable source. She holds that Greenblatt gets a couple of things flat wrong, so everything he writes must be thrown out. I hold a milder position that says Greenblatt can be used for anything other than that which is shown to be wrong. If Rebeccalutz wants to throw out the baby and the bathwater together, I suggest the next step is to post a question at WP:RSN. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so far she's only shown that one thing is wrong. The other thing is just her say-so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an WP:RSN discussion at about this here (permanent link here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALEC was not founded to counter the recently-formed Environmental Protection Agency

This assertion is not supported by the text and needs to be removed Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source says: ALEC executive director said in 2005, "Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and instituted price and wage controls. 'ALEC was really started to counter that, at least on the state level,' [Alec executive director Duane] Parde told me at the 2005 convention." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the close of a long paragraph that paints a significantly different picture that "ALEC was founded to counter the recently-formed Environmental Protection Agency".Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to add the price and wage controls (which I had accidentally missed). Would you like to propose alternative language that you feel better reflects the source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer was clearly listing ancillary symptoms of what he percieved to be the growth of federal government. I think thats laid out just fine below. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thats how I read it too. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some ambiguity, but "clearly?" How about "to counter government expansion under the Nixon administration, such as the creation of the Environment Protection Agency and the institution of price and wage controls"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will again use the term clearly, the source clearly says that Nixon was a continuation of, not the origin of, what they perceive to be the problem. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is that consistent with the sentence: "Much of the impetus to create ALEC came from the right's disappointment with Richard Nixon."? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sources for consideration

Several independent, reliable sources have commented on steps taken by ALEC (and its affiliated legislators) to avoid open-records laws and to "shield from public view the discussions of elected officials and corporate leaders it brings together to write model legislation for state governments":

There have also been several prominent stories published by independent, reliable sources in the past few days based on further document leaks from within ALEC, including:

The upshot of these sources seems to be that, after ALEC's role in drafting "stand-your-ground" laws came to light in the wake of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, corporate donors fled ALEC in response to public disapproval. ALEC is considering a by-law change requiring its senior legislative members to pledge to put ALEC's interests first. ALEC is setting up a 501(c)(4) entity called the "Jeffersonian project", which would operate entirely under ALEC's direction to "provide greater legal protection" for the organization. And so on. The documents themselves are here.

I wanted to open a discussion about how to incorporate these sources into the article. MastCell Talk 19:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Legislative_Exchange_Council&oldid=584567541"