Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia / Government (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as High-importance).
 


Sources[edit]

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)
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)
Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion though some aspects may be cited for facts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion piece, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ACCE[edit]

Secrecy[edit]

Education[edit]

Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Questionable reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Funding outdated tag[edit]

I don't understand the addition of the {{outdated}} tag in the Funding section. This section has info through 2013 and I'm not aware of any more recent reliably sourced info that ought to be added. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a tag but I did update the section with the recent 990 financial filing. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by DaltonCastle[edit]

DaltonCastle, I'm baffled by some of your recent edits:

  • The unexplained removal of the notable and well-sourced Bender quote, leaving a sentence fragment
  • The removal of CPI sources, quite reliable.
  • The removal of basic, uncontroverted history of the campaign against ALEC, reliably sourced to the Atlantic.

Please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the story of the campaign against ALEC is not undue, it is actually under-reported. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Dr. Fleischman! (By the way, is that an ode to Northern Exposures? Because I must say, I have to appreciate that! Ha! Loved that show)
Thank you for taking the time to discuss. On the first edit, I was concerned that the wording was too-POV. Could it be reworded to be more neutral in voice? In addition, do we have better sourcing that Governing Magazine?
On the second edit, I must respectfully deny CPI as a reliable source in this context. It is an organization that, unless I am incorrect, is a progressive thinktank in part. If there are better sources out there, (BBC, HuffPost, WSJ, CNN, Forbes, etc) by all means let's get them in there. But there already is a more reliable source in place anyways.
Finally, on the last edit, it seems undue. How does the CMD's companion articles merit a mention on this page? I just don't see it as notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • First edit: I don't understand what's non-neutral about a quote. Bender said it. The fact that it can be read as critical is not an NPV violation. We do not remove criticism just because it's critical. And Governing magazine is untouchable.
  • Second edit: This CPI source has already been through the RSN ringer and came out reliable. Also, see WP:BIASED - the political orientation of a source doesn't make it unreliable.
  • Third edit: This is well sourced and uncontroverted content that neutrally describes an important part of the anti-ALEC campaign by liberal groups. CMD and The Nation were key players in that campaign. The source devoted a full paragraph to those articles. I fail to see how we're bumping up against WP:UNDUE (presumably WP:BALASPS).
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Little known / largely unknown[edit]

There has been some back-and-forth over the sentence "Prior to 2011, ALEC's practices and its ties to specific pieces of legislation were little known outside of political circles," which was truncated to "ALEC's practices were largely unknown until July 2011." The source I based the first version on is The Atlantic and the relevant language is:

  • "...ALEC's existence has been long known but its practices, largely, have not..."
  • "For years, political types had vague notions of the state-to-state connections, but it was difficult to see the whole picture."
  • "Or, as Common Causes' Clopp put it, 'for 40 years you couldn't get the kind of accountability we're seeing know because ALEC, its members, its legislators, its bills were secret.'" (adoptive quote)

I believe either version is properly verified by this source language. If you disagree, please try to modify our language instead of deleting it outright. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good find. It should be restored then. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Legislative Exchange Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)