Talk:List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Intro[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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??[edit]

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)
Three important issues need to be addressed here.:
  • First: We rely on WP:RS. You have just admitted that you have used Original Research to add these names using primary sources. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Sorry, it's just not. Please read WP:No original research, and particularly WP:Primary. "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies at Wikipedia that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles.
  • Second: This is not a story. It has no "elements". This is a list of "members", period. Please see WP:List and WP:NOT#DIR. If you want to create a seperate article that is a list of "staff" and employees of an organization, give it a shot. I don't think it's notable, but who knows. Ordinarily, key staff are just added to the org's main article. As it stands this article, this list, can not and must not add non-members. That's a coatrack, and it just doesn't fit the description, title, or purpose of this page.
  • Third: Per WP:BRD, you have over time made a vast Bold addition, I Reverted, and began a Discussion. You should not be re-reverting. You should be defending the bold inclusion of non-members in a list of members. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I had chosen not to engage you further because you 1) Took my comments out of context to twist to your POV. While writing the defense of the previous edit I realize just how much effort I was having to expend to go against your multidirectional, contradictory points. Your goal is obvious, to hide this content from the public.

2) Have proven to be a bad faith editor by taking this to the NOR message board without notifying an affected editor, namely me. Yes I found out what you are doing but not by your accord.

3) So since your last removal of this content, you've had your side of the issue posted here. You've had your attack on me posted on the NOR message board. 11 days and you have gotten zero traction. The learned people of the message board have had time to look at the question. Not a single message of support. So today you think you have grounds to unilaterally remove this valid content that has been here for two years, No, you do not. I'd say three strikes and you're out. Trackinfo (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First I must heartily apologize to you. I believed that I had properly notified you of the posting on NOR. Looking at my contributions, I see it did not post. That is my mistake and I am sorry. I really hoped for some input from other eyes on this since you and I seem to be the only ones that have been doing much here, I actually wondered why you hadn't responded there. Again, my sincere apologies. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, you are correct no one seems to care that you have done and admitted to posting Original Research on this article. "Zero traction" is entirely correct. That is sad. I'd like more input on this issue of using primary ALEC documents as source material. You and I clearly don't agree and ORN seemed the place to go. Perhaps RSN would be better, its more active with editors, what do you think?Capitalismojo (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Lastly, I couldn't care less about this content, much less "hiding" this content. If an editor thinks this is important they can start an article with called List of employees and ex-employees of ALEC, or perhaps add it to the ALEC main article. This bit doesn't belong in List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council and no one has yet to make an argument for adding non-members to a list of members. Why do it? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What you are suggesting, in the form of a separate article, I fear, will create an article ripe for deletion; containing a lot of non-notable individuals whose group action makes them the movers and shakers of this very powerful, notable organization. Their placement here, is making for a cohessive list of the individuals and corporate interests that make this organization flourish. The staff members being the ones who tie all this operation together are probably more important to the operation as a whole, but I assume they have no interest in or have not yet begun a public political career that would make them notable in wikipedia language. Hypothesizing on that would be WP: CRYSTAL.. What they are doing now, daily, as the staff of this organization, affects the everyday lives of most americans and is notable. Just as with the members who are no longer members due to their no longer holding elective office or no longer work for the corporations might not be "active" there is still a legacy of the legislation they caused to happen. It would be equivalent with saying Abraham Lincoln has nothing to do with the U.S. Government because he is no longer an official. Years, decades from now, when they do something else relating to the public, we already have the history of the public work they did for the American public as staff.
Your suggestion that this is original research is absurd. Such an assertion, that you made, is a lie. Every single entry on this page that I posted has a source, including the staff members. I've never done such meticulous sourcing on any other article. Because it is a controversial organization I was extremely careful. Most of those sources do ultimately come from (directly or indirectly) ALEC itself. For others reading, indirectly means that ALEC does not release this documentation to the public so the membership lists and attendees at their meetings are on ALEC documents that are "leaked." So the accusation that the names of the staff comes from a WP: Primary source is correct. But it is not in the context of an opinion. It is simple fact. If you were to want to know the name of the mayor or city council in some community you have never been to, what would be the best source for that "staff" information? The city website, a primary source. Or the source for a college professor? WP frequently uses the school website resume, a primary source, as the major piece of our information. Better yet, where would you find a reliable, independent source of such information. I deal in Olympic coverage. When we have a dispute as to who won a medal, or what the mark was, the definitive source is from the Olympics themselves, a primary source. Who better to know and announce to the world who they pay to do their work? ALEC themselves. We have it in the form of internal documents that say to the member legislators and corporate members, here is who to contact about this subject of legislation. Is that cause to delete the material? No. To question its veracity? Maybe, if you find sources who disagree with the leaked documents, maybe they are a fraud, then we have a point to discuss. Right now the only thing we have is you complaining they are being named by their employer as (in a leadership role mostly) part of a staff. And you denying it as valid and want to remove it because it comes from their employer and not an independent source. You need firmer ground to remove such content. You need some dispute as to the facts. I see no dispute, just your desire to trump up an excuse to remove content.

Lets keep this simple, stop deleting sourced content. Discuss what is not sourced, what is in error, what is in dispute. Do something positive. Provide some sources yourself, rather than just repeatedly hitting a delete key to information you don't want the world to know.

What we might have here is a naming issue on the article. Maybe we need to modify the title to include staff, as in List of members and staff of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Cumbersome but more accurate to meet the specifications of your semantic needs. On those grounds, if you want to rename this article, I won't object. Trackinfo (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from other articles and here that you are having continuing difficulties with the No Original Research policy. Original research doesn't mean "unsourced" it usually means gleaned or created from primary sources. That is what you have done. What you have done by digging through the primary source documents is directly contrary to the policy. Clearly you don't agree with the policy. You should consider trying to change it. I would have to agree that you have spent what is clearly a great deal of time carefully creating new content to add to this article. This information is, as you say, sourced to the leaked internal documents of the organization. There is a reason that that sort of material is not used, per policy, here. We rely on secondary sources that have editorial control. Your efforts are impressive and would and could, if published elsewhere in a RS, be used in an article. Not having appeared in a RS, your excellent research is not suitable for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Your assessment about MY editing is one person's opinion . . . YOURS. And it is completely twisted. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing original about my research. I don't know these people at all. I don't think I would recognize but a handfull of them in a crowd, mostly locally famous politicians from other states, corporate board leaders, think tank elite types and otherwise anonymous staff members. There are numerous lists that parallel this page. I am proud that what I put onto wikipedia, what I put into a sourced voice, used further, better diligence as to the evidence than some of those other sites did. Some other sites on the internet just post names without sources. Go ahead and accuse them of Original Research, but they aren't posted on wikipedia. So yes, because of the work I contributed, wikipedia posts less information, less innuendo but better, more accurate information. What I typed, manually, name by name, was researched and verified through reliable sources (WP:RS, get it?). Other than the verified, categorized names on the list, there is no conclusion drawn. No prose. Your issue is that the majority of the reliable sources are ALEC's own internal paperwork (mostly memos about meeting agendas), leaked and posted by Common Cause--a clear secondary source. By the way, that notation of the source is clearly made on the second paragraph of the lede of the article. YOU are wishing to twist the wikipedia sourcing rules to put that genie back in the bottle, since it is ALEC's own internal paperwork that they didn't want made public. With the number of ALEC related edits in your history, it makes me wonder if you are a member, staff member or interested party with an agenda. As far as the staff goes, most of those names appear so often in multiple sources, it would get to the point of over-sourcing to list every occurrence where their names are published. Trackinfo (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Your accusation that I have some connection to ALEC is apalling and untrue. The closest I have ever come to ALEC is this talk page. Period. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You suggest that these primary source documents are Reliable Sourced because they are by Common Cause. Are they primary source documents or not? Is this information you added gleaned directly from the primary documents or not? Is this your research or not? If there is a RS for this list that is not your own research from the primary docs please share it. Right now you have completed an extraordinary amount of research that shouldn't be added per [WP:NOR] policy. It also is information that you agree should be in an article not named "Members". Capitalismojo (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
To emphasize, I did no original research in creating this list. Every single name on the list came from someone else's list, posted elsewhere on the internet. However, instead of making this a copyvio, I carefully checked out the sources. My research was manual verification. Uh, that's supposed to be a good thing. Confirm sources. I discounted sources with an agenda or bias. Some just plain didn't show up where they said they did and those are not on the list. However I do accept that ALEC internal documentation of who is attending their meetings and in what capacity as valid. It was not intended for public distribution, it had to get leaked to/through Common Cause, but I have not been given a reason to doubt its veracity. Would ALEC place deceptive information and plant it to Common Cause? What would they gain by associating non-members with their organization? For all the people identified as being ALEC members, if there was something erroneous about the assertions, don't you think in the many years (some of these sources date into the previous century) that someone mis-identified would protest? Loudly to discredit the source? Its a list. I think an accurate though quite incomplete list. For each name I find in local, non-Common Cause sites, there are indicators of many more members that didn't make the list. ALEC claims larger numbers of members, so that fits too. Everything adds up. And there are many, many more names to be found. To your final argument about the name of the article, I have offered for you to change the article. I haven't seen any action to change what you assert is a misnamed article. You repeatedly cry there is something wrong because your assertion is not based in the name issue, but your desire to blank the content in order to keep it limited to the title. All of your effort has been to blank content to maintain the secrecy ALEC tries to keep, or to put (back) in ALEC's own phraseology. You may be independent of ALEC. You just don't act like it. Trackinfo (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Is that a sort of sideways apology for an attack accusing me of a conflict of interest? It it is thanks. So you say there is a list somewhere that is the source of this information and your research is just verification. Ok. Where is the list? What is its source? How about a link? Capitalismojo (talk)
http://www.alecexposed.org was the starting point. They revamped the website while I was working on it, making the list much harder to sort. If you wish, you can wayback to the way it was when I was working on it and see it was a much easier list to work from. You will also see many places where they were not accurate on their own sourcing. Trackinfo (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the basic idea of even having non-members in a "list of members", perhaps we should get a third opinion. You and I seem to be the only one that are talking about this article. We don't agree and, absent new editors, can't come to much of a consensus. What do you think? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You've been trying for months to bring other people into the discussion. Trying to repeatedly accuse me of doing something out of order. You've blanked the section multiple times. As said before, this has been out in the public for a long time, lots of people have seen it and have edited the article. Nobody else has had a problem with this section of content. So far, you're an army of one. Trackinfo (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"Multiple times" being twice removing the OR. Interestingly, policy suggests that the person who is adding the information defend the inclusion. You have not even begun to make a policy argument for keeping it in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Staff should not be included per the article name. Additionally, the sources used to identify these people clearly have an agenda against ALEC. I agree with Capitalismojo. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The staff clearly is important to the operation of ALEC.

"ALEC staff draft model legislation that is then approved by the committee, and typically embraced by governors and state legislators throughout the country""

[1]

"These corporate underwriters father legislation that is drafted with help from ALEC's staff, approved as "model" bills by the organization's board, and then introduced by ALEC's legislator "members" in state capitals from coast to coast."

[2]

It does not take a lot of googling to find staff members who have already advanced into the public political arena. Their work with ALEC is an important element of their resume. [3] These names become part of the Washington revolving door.
The depth to which these people cause action to happen, that they are the policy players bringing a national agenda through the state legislatures means all of these people are important or in wikipedia terms, notable.
Their names are on this site and ALEC's own [4] plus all the documentation from Common Cause.
OK, you have reverted my attempt to solve the NAME issue. You've again had the content deleted. Where do you gentlemen propose we put this information on wikipedia? Trackinfo (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at your links above one thing jumps out; your list of members was bad. The ALEC website lists all of their staff, it does not match your list. You have included ex-staff, ex-employees. It isn't appropriate to add non-members employees in this list and it doubly isn't appropriate to put ex-employees in as if they were current employees. That's just wrong and inaccurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have added a link to the actual staff list at the main article. ALEC Staff List Now it is where people will expect to find it. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-members in list of members[edit]

This is a list of members. Under what conceivable justification could we add non-members to such a list? The answer is we could do it to Right Great Wrongs! I suggest that though this is, to some, a controversial organization we should not add information to the list that, by definition doesn't belong in the list. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Corporate Members[edit]

Is the Common Cause "leaked" document the source for many of these supposed "Corporate Members"? The first one that I searched "Alliant" is not listed as a member. Someone from Alliant was at that meeting, but there is nothing to back up the claim that they are Corporate Members. Unless real sources can be found this list needs to be examined and likely purged of many "members". Arzel (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, after looking more closely at that document, it is clear that it is a draft and not a final version. I am removing all sourced to that document. The others still have the same issues. Arzel (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing in general[edit]

The sourcing used for members for almost this entire article is horrible to say the least. The sourcing is primarily from activist organization which do not like ALEC. Most of the sources really need to be removed as non-reliable sourcing. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This list is outdated[edit]

This list seems to be pretty outdated. Is there any way to bring it back up to snuff? Juno (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Its just labor. You can help. Everyone can help. It does not help that some of the best sources have become harder to navigate. It does not help that most of the politicians on this list do not have the balls to declare their positions or membership in this organization in public. ALEC policy doesn't help, they aid politicians to be wishy washy by allowing them to keep their membership secret. Sorry, my POV comes out. There is a POV faction that is challenging each source you use, so be careful to find proper sources. Local newspapers are a treasure trove, but are so hard to find. What works is to find the name of a politician and start googling. It just takes time. Trackinfo (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, (cheap) labor (as we are volunteers). So now we've got a list of 900 or so names. But a very small number of editors are willing to work on this (I'm not one of them), to what avail? Ah-ha! We are disclosing the fact that a lot of Republicans are members. Yes, POV is a factor because the list serves to right a great wrong. As a list it has problems because it includes non-notable, WP:NOTDIRECTORY names. For one example, Amanda Klump is clumped into the list, but she (like others) does not meet the criteria of WP:LISTPEOPLE. E.g., while her membership can be sourced, she does not meet the first LISTPEOPLE criterion. – S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Former members are not members.[edit]

This is a list of members. People who are not members can not be listed. Ex-legislators are not members. They can not therefore be listed as members. Among other things, it is a lie. It is also, not coincidentally, a BLP violation. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong list. (List thrown inside another list)[edit]

There should be no list of ex-members (resigned or otherwise) included in this list of members. WP:COAT. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are twisting the limitations of the list. ALEC has a 30 year history of causing legislative action is all 50 states These members are people who have caused that legislation to happen. Even deceased persons belong on the list as they caused that legislation to happen through their participation in ALEC. They are part of that history. WP has a policy against WP:Recentism. When I spent time working on this list a couple of years ago, it was a time when a lot of people were publicly resigning from ALEC and distancing themselves from that policy they were once a part of. I made the distinction of Former Members to accommodate those situations. They still belong on the list, they were still a part of ALEC, but supposedly after that point in time, were not participating in advancing the ALEC agenda. Above we discussed this and you agreed, if you wish to keep the list limited to the current list of members, you would do the massive legwork to research and create a Former Member section, as distinct from a Resigned Member section. Its going to be a lot of work, I don't feel like doing. You obviously have not applied yourself to that research and editing either. Fine. So the list stays with a mixture of members who may or may not currently hold office. Note: There is nothing (short of convictions) to preclude any of the living members of this list from seeking future office and wikipedia should accurately report their participation in ALEC from their past time in office. Trackinfo (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The campaign for WP:TRUTH continues apparently. This is a violation of policy related to lists. This is a list of members. These are not members. There is no legitimate defense. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Every entry I have made on this list, including the one you are so fervently trying to remove is sourced. These people were documented as being in attendance at members only meetings. That is called verified by a source. Nothing made up. And I resent the insinuation that I made anything up. You again are changing, making up an argument. You were arguing that their status change as a current member of an elected state legislature changes their status as a member. I addressed that. Even ALEC's own website lists members of Congress, who have "advanced" beyond the self limiting definition of elected state representatives, as members. That argument obviously held no water, so now you are accusing me of fraud? Bad faith man. Trackinfo (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No. That is not so. This is mistaken, confused, or misunderstanding my point. Former legislators are not members. There are no refs in this article that state that former legislators are or can be members. Asserting that they are current members is non-factual. It is also a violation of WP:BLP and WP:LSC. I have moved former members to a new article List of former members of the American Legislative Exchange Council. All ex-legislators/ex-members may be added there. (with RS refs). Capitalismojo (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I believe you have bitten off more than just a short term fix for two ALEC members who lost an election. Wholesale you have compromised the timely accuracy of both lists. You created it, its up to you to try to keep them timely. That's going to be an incredible amount of research to check each member to learn their status on each election cycle. I did it once in 2011. Good luck. Trackinfo (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

New Mexico names[edit]

Please note that the New Mexico names were, before I came by, a single line of names with ersatz footnote numbers (e.g., non-linked) next to them. I bulletized the names, but did not catch the footnote numbers that each name had. I've now removed the footnote numbers. Thus the New Mexico names need linking footnotes. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS for ALEC membership[edit]

Hello, I'm seeking help with a sourcing issue. I'm working on an article of a listed ALEC member, Illinois Policy Institute. I'm trying to add that it is a member. I used the same ref as used here [24]. I have been flatly informed Common Cause is not WP:RS. Is this true? If so it is pretty bad news for this list! Is Common Cause on some kind of RS black list? Any info or advice on dealing with this would be much appreciated. You folks here probably get this a lot, sorry. Thanks! Hugh (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Rut roh. Hugh (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to not being a WP:RS (it's an advocacy organization) the Common Cause source is actually just the publication of an ALEC meeting agenda which does not have a list of members on it. So even if the source were judged to be RS, it doesn't in fact say anything about membership. It's a conference agenda with listed speakers, but it doesn't say that listed speakers are members. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Everything we learned about ALEC from the Common Cause/ProgressNow project is inadmissible on WP? Can that be true? The most important source documents of this important list happen to be hosted on the web by Common Cause. May I ask, do you plan to delete sources 24, 26, 28, and 36, and flag their content cn? Sorry about all this to the regular editors here. Sigh. Hugh (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This specific ref is a WP:PRIMARY document. That is to say it is not a RS secondary source ref. This is a primary source document that ordinarily an academic or a journalist or an historian would look at to assess its import. For a Wikipedia editor to view this document and decide that "well, so and so attended this meeting they must be members" is Original Research and not allowed. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I understand: primary document. Thanks for the pointer. This list is all about that claim of membership. How does the content tagged with refs 24, 26, 28, and 36 stear clear of WP:OR? Hugh (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The Common Cause documents simply show a roll call of the members in attendance at ALEC events. It requires membership to attend those events as proven by non-members not being allowed to attend--see the Moyers report. Using leaked internal ALEC documents to document membership would not be necessary except that ALEC hides the list of its members and its members tend not to stand up and take a stand for ALEC. In the world of politics, nobody has the principle of standing up for their convictions. Trackinfo (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not RS? I looked at the WP:RSN archive and found but one thread for "Common Cause" (proper noun). Here we have a few pdf files provided by Common Cause. We do not have Common Cause itself being used as the reference. I think it is perfectly safe to assume that the documents are genuine. As with all references, the question of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS must be considered. Do these documents clearly list organizations or people as members? If so, then they are RS. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Thanks to the pointer to the RS archive, i will check that next time. I understand, these are genuine ALEC (primary) documents, which happen to be provided by/hosted on the web by Common Cause. Hugh (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Cleverly, the ref just added for the Illinois Policy Institute does not list them as members. It mentions them as sponsors of a policy discussion. Does that make them members? I don't know, this ref doesn't speak to that. In other words this fails Verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I restored the list item and the ref during the back-and-forth here. Absent additional support for the idea that sponsorship or attendance implies membership, I agree with the diagnosis of WP:OR. If that is now the consensus, with your persmission I will leave it to local editors to delete. Thanks to all for your patience with this. A "sponsors of ALEC" list might be useful and easier: [1][2] Hugh (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the problem with editors doing Original Research using Primary documents. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The assertion (above) by Trackinfo that only members are listed in the documents is not supported in any reference or even the primary documents themselves. There is, in fact, evidence and refs to suggest that at one time meetings were more open to public, media, and invited guests. This makes lists of attendees impossible to use as a shorthand as a list of members. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've tagged the source as failed verification. OP, please provide more direct sourcing or remove. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The issue, pointed out by Capitalismojo, is that apparent attendance at an event (although even an agenda doesn't prove the people on it showed up) does not prove membership. The agenda doesn't say "members only" or "list of members" or "all speakers must be members," etc. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
As the meeting was held in Chicago, perhaps IPI was simply seeking to be a good host. I think we should avoid implications that sponsorship entails membership. And getting into the weeds as to who sponsors what meetings is not encyclopedic. We're moving off of the Common Cause question into another topic -- that of sponsorship. That said, I've retitled this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)17:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


References

Layout suggestion[edit]

For all of the state members, I think it is cluttering to repeat again and again XYZ House of Representatives after each name. May I suggest each state be revised so that they look like this:

S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That seems fine. For ease of editing perhaps we could use three equal signs before and after ther state name. That would create new subsections. Example :

Arkansas (House of Representatives or Senate)[edit]

- Capitalismojo (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Unless a limit is placed on the TOC it becomes very long. Instead the state can be bolded, like this:

Arkansas (House of Representatives or Senate)
A partial change has been implemented. – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
While y'all are at it, perhaps someone would like to finish updating the list of state chairs. The second half of the list shows 2012 chairs, many of whom aren't in office any more, let alone ALEC state chairs. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of members of the 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Association No Longer a Member[edit]

My name is Brian Gluckman and I work at H+K Strategies, and serve as agency counsel for one of the organizations listed as a current member of ALEC. The National Association of Water Companies did, in fact, belong to ALEC in 2012, but ultimately decided to not renew its membership in 2013, and has not been a part of the organization since then. As such, they would like to be moved to the List of former members of the American Legislative Exchange Council.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Clarification: NAWC and ALEC". Retrieved December 22, 2016. 

(Bgluckman (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)