Talk:List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council

Intro

The introduction is not written in NPOV. Whatever your opinion of ALEC, an encyclopedia requires a neutral tone. Paris1127 (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ex-members from the 1990s listed as current members?

Are the former members supposed to be listed as members? That seems inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

In the Wisconsin section of the list there were at least 5 former legislators listed as legislative members. One hadn't been a leggie for decades. This bodes ill for the accuracy of the list. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added the majority of the names to this list. Nowhere does it state anything about current membership. Some of the people on the list are dead. Wikipedia is not about WP:recentism. The members of this organization have had important political influence for decades, successfully passing legislation that has become law across the United States. The organization proudly tracks the success of those laws, which is a subject for a future article. If someone has ever been part of the organization, they have been a part of that legacy, whether introducing bills in the past, or providing support for those laws later. There is a section for former members, the ones who have deliberately stated they have separated themselves from the movement, but even at that, they once were a part of it. You can't erase history. An encyclopedia documents it. Same thing for the other members in or out of the organization, primarily the corporate members. This is an encyclopedic list showing who is part of the movement and who has left it. If you would like to constantly go through the list to mark who is an active legislator, feel free, but I think that would require a lot more maintenance of the list. I've tried to identify the many positions some of these politicians have held, it may not be 100% current. In this fashion, once we identify a member, we can consider them a member until we document a date when they deliberately announced they are no longer a member. Trackinfo (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is an interesting theory. We have a section labelled "members" and a section on "former members". That seems a good organizational technique for a list. Now you assert that the "members" section is not current members. So, is the "former members" section not former members? When an elected official involved in legislation is no longer an elected official they are not members of this organization unless they join as corporate members. We can not keep them listed as members when they are not. There is a term for that, that term is "falsehood". It is a violation of BLP to list someone as a member of an organization when they are no longer a member. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear. Former legislative or governmental members should be listed as former members. (Especially the dead ones) Current members should be listed as members. Anything else is inaccurate, incorrect, and contrary to WP:BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

One additional point. If the "former member" section is for those who withdrew or renounced their mebership then name that section appropriately. It should be "Members who withdrew from ALEC" to be accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the point. In order to be an active member in the organization, one must be an elected official or a private sector member. So at the time these people were active members, they were also legislators, who by the way are public figures. By them terminating their term of office does not diminish their historical participation in the organization when they were in office. Because of their position, they should forever be associated with the legislation they created and supported. This is their permanent resume of accomplishments; a legacy. "Former members" clearly shows they once were once a member and have now deliberately stopped supporting the organization. People do not leave elective office to leave ALEC. They don't leave ALEC when they advance to National office. ALEC proudly points to their successful alumni. Politicians leave office when they fail to get elected or decide not to run. If they ever run again, they can clearly point back at their history in ALEC along with their other accomplishments, as a model for the kind of future legislation they will support. Trackinfo (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you just made my point. A former member of the state legislature is, of course, always in the histories as a legislator. He is always associated with his actions at that time. Once he has left the office he is no longer listed as a legislator. He is now listed as a "former legislator". It would be non-factual to list someone who had left a house a member of that body. That person is referred to as a " former member". Being a former member is different than someone who has "withdrawn from membership" or "renounced membership" and should be so listed. We must strive for accuracy, especially where BLP is involved. We must not list former legislators as current members, it is simply untrue.Capitalismojo (talk)

As a point of fact we must remember that there are only two types of members in ALEC. There are legislative members whose membership lasts 24 months and private sector members whose membership is 12 months. Taking former Senator Bob Kasten as an example; he would have become a former member between twenty and forty years ago (depending on whether he remained in ALEC when he assumed federal office). Capitalismojo (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are so inclined, feel free to rename the "former members" section to "resigned members" and then create a "former members" section to suit your own definition of former. That will result in a lot more research, where sources are already hard to find. Just where are you going to get information on members who have quietly let their membership lapse? I think it is far more accurate to show membership without having to tie it to recent chronology. My observation is the same names keep showing up, so I believe there is relatively little drifting away from the core principles, but that's not something source-able. It would be interesting to do statistics on that if we had accurate membership information. And since the list is already broken into states, really we should do them in the same section, meaning 50 (actually less) former members sections. I was already weighing doing that with the resigned former members. Its just more work. Trackinfo (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will do as you suggest. It is indeed more work. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Former Legislative Members

This section contain the name of about 44 ex-legislators who belonged to ALEC. Only two are Republicans, though they have always comprised the lion's share of the legislative membership, so this is not representative of any objective accounting. Providing a complete list would seem to be a near-impossible task. Should this section instead be eliminated? Activist (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Staff members should be removed (possibly to Main space article)

This is a list of members. There are two types of members: legislative and private sector. Employees are neither. (and not generally notable)Capitalismojo (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This list was moved off the main article because other editors felt it was in the way. You are welcome to move them to the much more visible main article but don't be surprised if other editors try just as fast to hide them. Trackinfo (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourced content

The lede to this article was non-existent when I first came here. There was a request posted for a lede, which I wrote. I have included sources that essentially are saying essentially the same thing. Removal of this content is not appropriate just because you don't like it. As I said in my edit notes, feel free to nit pick on words. Or bring it here, to talk. But mass deletion of content (I'll suggest for POV purposes) is not appropriate. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement was that the lead was not NPOV, not that you need to duplicate information already in the main article. What is the point of duplicating information from the main article when the primary way to reach this article is from the main article? You are pushing a POV which is quite obvious. Arzel (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This editor is accusing ME of disruptive editing, when HE is the one deleting sourced content. I suspect he s a political operative, because all of his edit history is political in nature, deliberately trying to hide anything that might look negative toward republicans. Because of the lopsided membership of this organization, this can largely be regarded as a republican institution. The content he removed, sourced by, among others; ABC News, The New York Times, Businessweek, Bill Moyers, and yes a more liberal source like Mother Jones tells a completely different story than the whitewash the organization puts forward--what he has left for a one-sided lede. Yes, much of this repeats what is on the main article. Readers might not read the main article, they only have one page open and the flow is not in one particular path. I found this article looking at my local state rep and found out he's part of this. I offered above for him or any other editor to nit pick on the words I choose. Or find other sources to "balance" the message if you think my reliable sources are slanted one way. Instead, he deletes it wholesale. That, my friend, is disruptive. On another article he also did similar mass disruption to, he accuses ME of not talking. I talk. I leave edit notes explaining what I did. The next time he removes this will be his third. That is an edit war. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is no point in duplicating a bunch of information into the lead here when the primary way anyone would find this page is through the main article. Furthermore, the information is presented in the main article in an already neurtral tone. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arzel. I don't want to get too involved here, but I just wanted to point out that there's no reason in policy that I'm aware of that says we should keep a list introduction short if we also have an article on the same subject. To be fair, I don't think the list lead should be exactly the same as the article lead, but I don't see why we can't extend the current lead by a couple of paragraphs. From the MOS:LIST passage I linked to below: 'Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list".' I don't think a very short lead could really be said to be "engaging", but the exact length it should be is obviously open to interpretation. Would you be open to extending the lead section at least a little bit, as long as it remains a good introduction to the list, and the wording is neutral? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, everyone take a deep breath! The 3-revert rule has been broken, so you two are now in an edit war, meaning you risk being blocked. Now, to address your points: TruthtellernoBS, your text is well cited. They are fairly reliable sources. That being said, while an introduction is necessary, I don't think we need one that's too long. The page is a list, not the actual article. Arzel was acting in good faith, and your accusations are not very civil. Arzel, while Wikipedia encourages boldness, I think on a politically-sensitive topic (particularly during an election year), discussion on the Talk Page would've been the preferred route. As for the page, I've requested protection so that no one except administrators can edit it for now, so hopefully this will solve the problem, at least temporarily. Paris1127 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've full-protected the page for a week. From what I can see, there is room for a longer lead - however, we also need to take care that the wording is neutral. I have some recommended reading in case anyone here hasn't read it already - the guideline on lead sections for lists, the guideline on words to watch, and our neutrality policy. Have a read of these, and then see if you can find a mutually acceptable wording for the lead section based on the guidelines. I'll put this page on my watchlist so that I can keep track of how things are going. And if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll also write on your personal page. Blocking is fine. The problem is the sequence you have frozen this article in, leaves the sanitized, whitewashed, one-sided POV version Arzel has been disruptively trying to have presented. As you already observed, the dissenting opinion was well documented with reliable sources. That's the wikipedia way. Arzel presents no sources, just his word; "no it isn't." I think my version properly deserves to be the state this article is frozen in. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've replied about the "wrong version" complaint on my talk page. What we need to do now is find a consensus version of the lead that everyone could be happy with. I know that you've already put a lot of work into writing your version of the lead section, but it doesn't seem that the other editors here are willing to accept it as it stands. How would you feel about changing your wording so that the other editors find it more acceptable? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Guests" and "Members" in Citation 23

The document linked in citation 23 is a June 30, 2011 memo to members of an ALEC task force. It includes minutes of several meetings. For at least five of the organizations listed as ALEC members on this Wikipedia page, the June 30 memo does not back up the assertion of membership. These orgs are the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Serlin Hale LLP, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Coalition for Safer Roads, and the McLeod County Farmers Union. Where these groups appear in the minutes that are appended to the June 30 memo, they appear as affiliations of people who presented at various events.

Moreover, the document actually suggests that these groups are explicitly not members of ALEC. For instance, refer to the attendee list in the minutes of the April 29, 2011 Public Safety and Elections Task Force Summit. Where an attendee is affiliated with a Public Sector Member or Private Sector Member (ALEC's two membership categories), they are listed accordingly. But the attendees from Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Serlin Hale LLP, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Coalition for Safer Roads, and the McLeod County Farmers Union are all listed as guests.

It seems to me that these organizations, or people from these organizations, have been asked to advise this ALEC task force on at least this occasion. But that doesn't make them members, anymore than NBC would be a member if the task force invited Rachel Maddow to present on why her show is so awesome.

As an aside, it's worth noting that Bob Williams, founder and senior fellow of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, is on ALEC's "Board of Scholars." I realize this, but I still don't see any evidence in citation 23 that warrants a claim that EFF is a member of ALEC - especially in light of the fact that EFF is included among the private or public sector members, but rather a guest.

There is no other source in this document I can find that suggests these five groups are members - only that they were guests. I've added the fails verification tag to the entries for these five organizations.

Part2343 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I found an additional source showing Bob Williams, representing Evergreen Freedom Foundation is editing material for ALEC. Clearly he is not part of the organization on his own behalf separately, but representing the interests of the foundation he leads. I will continue to look for sources regarding the other groups you tagged. Trackinfo (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That additional ref was a primary source that did not say or otherwise suggest in any way that Mr. Williams or Evergreen were members. Speaking at a conference or submitting content to a magazine does not make a person a member of an organization. This is SYN and OR using Primary Sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Staff in list of members??

Why are staff listed at this article? Is there a source or a ref that suggests that staff are also "members"? I couldn't find one. I suggest that the staff might be better listed at the organization's article, if anywhere. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the staff from the membership list. They are not members, they are employees. Further, this entire section was original research directly from primary sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? From primary sources means it came directly from a source. And its public, published information. Your accusation makes zero sense. I'm replacing the content you deleted until you come up with a better excuse. These are the staff members who make this agenda function, they are an element to the story. Trackinfo (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)