Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

First sentence

The first sentence says that ALEC is composed of conservative state legislators "and also non-profit, think-tank, and business representatives." This language has bugged me for some time because the majority of these members are businesses and the remaining non-profits and think tanks are mostly business lobbyists or other industry-backed groups. Yes, the NRA is a member, but the NRA has a major lobbying wing that has been increasingly described as representing gun manufacturers and retailers. The NRA is also an outlier; ALEC is dominated by businesses and business groups. The current language strikes me as being a bit imbalanced in light of this. Most non-profits and think tanks aren't business groups.

So, I changed this language to the more generic "and private sector representatives." Capitalismojo reverted with the comment: " 'private sector' ok but it is over-broad (category encompasses individuals/churches/schools...that are not members".

This response strikes me as being a little cheeky. There's nothing wrong with using broad language as long as it's not misleading, no? I don't think anyone would read "private sector representatives" to include individuals, churches, or schools. In fact, our own article on the private sector describes it up-front as "run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit," which implies business. This argument also seems strange in light of the fact that there are broad swaths of organizations one usually thinks of as quintessential "non-profits" (e.g. UNICEF) and "think tanks" (e.g. Brookings Institute) that have no representation in ALEC.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that "non-profit, think-tank, and business representatives" seems more misleading than "private sector representatives." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheeky :) perhaps. Well, think-tanks and non-profits are not run as "enterprise for profit" as your definition above. Think tanks and non-profits are members of ALEC whether one "usually thinks of them as quintessential" examples or not. I take your point however and agree that some improvement could be made. Perhaps "private sector representatives including some non-profits and think-tanks"? That makes clear your point that most are not non-profits, but accurately describes the membership. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, however, that the current formulation isn't better. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Private sector representatives including some non-profits and think-tanks" seems overly wordy and qualified to me. Maybe "private sector representatives" with a footnote? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, ALEC's members do include private schools such as Amplify Education (News Corp's education division), K12 Inc. (a major provider of online charter schools), and Corinthian Colleges (a for-profit college chain). In addition ALEC's members include a variety of private and charter school lobbyists including Alliance for School Choice, National Association of Charter School Authorizers, Alliance for School Choice, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Better Education for Kids, Center for Education Reform, Foundation for Excellence in Education, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Lumina Foundation for Education, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and Thomas B. Fordham Institute. So private-sector "schools" and their lobbyists are well represented in ALEC's membership. (More importantly it seems silly to argue that every single industry must be included in ALEC's membership to say that membership includes "private sector representatives.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And most churches are non-profits, so the "churches" argument could be applied just as easily to "Private sector representatives including some non-profits and think-tanks." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was unaware of those school and education members. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, can you explain why you reverted "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) organization that drafts model state-level legislation for national distribution, with a membership of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives"? (And/or say you agree with it so that there's consensus on the talk page?)

It's very unusual for a first sentence of a Wikipedia entry to be non descriptive.

By way of comparison:

"The American Red Cross, also known as the American National Red Cross, is a humanitarian organization that provides emergency assistance, disaster relief and education inside the United States." "Pfizer, Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation headquartered in New York City, and with its research headquarters in Groton, Connecticut, United States." "The Nature Conservancy is a charitable environmental organization in the United States."

The American Legislative Exchange Council -- as its name implies -- is an organization that drafts legislation for national distribution ("legislative exchange"). Right now it appears we're plagiarizing the ALEC FAQ --The Cunctator (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You have convinced me. I have reverted to your version and made one minor addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

History section subheadings

Under the History section, Srich32977 recently renamed "Rise" to "Founding and activities" and "Backlash" to "Criticism." I'm not such a fan of these changes. "Rise" and "Backlash" certainly could have stood some improvement but IMO this isn't the right direction to go. The History section is intended to be exactly that, a roughly chronological summary of the major events in ALEC's evolution. There is no doubt in the sources that ALEC gradually became more an more influential over the 80s, 90s, and 00s until it was hit with a huge wave of negative attention starting around 2011 that led to a substantial loss of private sector membership (and a corresponding funding crisis). Thus I believe that while "Rise" and "Backlash" might be re-worded to be more eloquent, they are both accurate and neutral.

"Founding and activities" isn't quite right because it implies current activities, whereas that subsection is about past (historical) events, including some that have nothing to do with founding or activities (e.g. the paragraph about recent succession of leadership). And "Criticism" doesn't seem right because most of the criticism in the article has been distributed to the section on the relevant subject matter. Prior to November 2013 this article had a dedicated criticism section that made the article quite imbalanced and unencyclopedic. (See discussion here, here.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Backlash (sociology) is the wrong term as per "it is usually a reflection of a collective resentment". I'm certainly welcome to a different term, but whatever we come up with must not be value-laden. Founding & activites can be changed to "founding and early activities". This avoids the value laden implications of "Rise". The earlier "Rise and Backlash" sounded too much like Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. – S. Rich (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Instead of criticism, how about "Media attention" and a separate sub-sub-section for the Wisconsin stuff. 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern. "Founding and early activities" is getting warmer, though it doesn't make sense to use the word "early" when we're talking about 1973-2011. And "Media attention" has the same problem as "Criticism" in that it doesn't put it in a historical context and there's lots of media attention described in other sections. How about if we change the subheadings to "1973-2010" and "2011-present"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BB. – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Legislators/executive officials as Primary Sources

Considering that lobbyists talk to/lobby legislators and executive officials, and considering that ALEC is "accused" of participating in lobbying efforts, the comments of such persons (legislators & executives) about ALEC are, in fact, WP:PRIMARY sources. Comments? – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

While technically that is probably true, such people aren't being used directly as sources in this article. Instead, the article cites secondary sources that in turn quote these people. Any statement by a legislator (or executive about his/her own company) is inherently suspect and, while notable, should be carefully attributed. There's nothing special about ALEC in this regard, though I do think this rule is particularly important in such a hot-button political topic where almost every involved individual has a strong bias one way or another. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In at least one case we have Steve Farley being directly attributed/quoted. In the Moyers story, it looks like he's speaking directly (I'm skimming the transcript). Moreover, is his comment noteworthy, especially in light of the fact that his bill died in committee without a hearing? Or is the blockquote grossly UNDUE? – S. Rich (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a primary/secondary sourcing issue there, and I wouldn't say it's grossly undue, but I agree it's slightly undue due to its redundancy and the relative obscurity of the speaker. I tried deleting it last week and was reverted by Trackinfo. Perhaps they can speak to its inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that it seems undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm concerned with how the Primary sources can be and are being used. It's easy for someone to come out and say ALEC is a lobbying organization, but harder for those who wish to "defend" against such comments. In this particular case we have a Primary source presenting his POV on Moyer's show. Also, we have thousands of legislative bodies (federal, state, local) which have proposals submitted by their members on a constant basis. A few of these proposals (thankfully) get passed. Neither the bill nor Farley's comments in support of his failed bill are WP:noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite getting how quoting Farley is using a primary source. Farley isn't the source, Bill Moyers & Co's TV show is the source. Moyers is a respected investigative journalist. This is no different from pulling a quote from a news article. And it isn't at all hard for people who wish to "defend" against such comments. We have lots of quotes from people taking pro-ALEC positions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Farley is the source – we have his words, not Moyers, set forth in support of his proposed legislation. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of ... a political decision.... Policy:... reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them....A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." Moyer's words, aside from the Farley interview, are the secondary source. – S. Rich (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And to clarify, ask where do we find primary source quotations? Not necessarily from a legislative record, transcript, official document, paid political ad, etc. We find what the primary source has said by reading the quote elsewhere. The essay WP:USINGPRIMARY says: "A secondary source is built from primary sources." Seeing a primary source quotation in the secondary source does not change the characteristic of the primary source. – S. Rich (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, technically speaking we're citing the Moyers video, not Farley directly. The Moyers video, a secondary source, was built from a variety of primary sources such as Farley's words spoken in an interview. But that doesn't mean that we're citing Farley's words as a primary source. In any case, this is hair-splitting, as it has no impact whatsoever on how we should handle this material, and we both agree it should be removed (or further trimmed down at least). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of Primary v Secondary sourcing, the text has been changed to reduce UNDUE aspect and to render meaning in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"This pattern"

With regard to this edit there is only one "this pattern" mentioned in the sources – it is that "pattern of similarities" in New Jersey. The Governing 2003 article does not talk about a pattern. Sources must directly and explicitly support referenced text, so when a "pattern" is mentioned in one text, and when that "pattern" is confined to one state, it is SYN to extend the pattern beyond New Jersey. Please find another term to describe overall what Governing 2003 has said. We cannot combine Governing 2003 with the New Jersey material and then use it to say there was "an exception" to the "pattern" in Florida. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It probably isn't sufficiently clear what "this pattern" is meant to refer to. It's meant to refer to the sentence, "Lawmakers also generally propose ALEC-drafted bills in their states without disclosing their authorship." That sentence is properly sourced, and the New Jersey material is a notable example of that. Perhaps the "this pattern" sentence could be re-worded for clarity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear what "this pattern" refers to. In the preceding paragraph the term "pattern of similarities" is used in the text because that term is used in the source. So, when "one exception to this pattern" is mentioned in the next paragraph, it obviously refers to the "pattern" in NJ. But the source for NJ does not say the practice goes beyond NJ. Also when we say "lawmakers generally propose", the descriptive "generally" allows for "exceptions". So, the Florida incident is not an "exception" to a pattern, but simply confirms what is a general practice. So now, I'll drop the other shoe – by giving a full paragraph emphasis to the "exceptional" nature of the FL incident, we are giving UNDUE emphasis to an incident which is of marginal noteworthiness. But as you suggest some reworking is needed. I'll do so. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC) 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote "this pattern." I was referring to the well-sourced, nationwide pattern described in the sentence, "Lawmakers also generally propose ALEC-drafted bills in their states without disclosing their authorship," not to any pattern in New Jersey. If you go back through the recent edit history you'll see this was the intent before I added the New Jersey material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, your point about "generally" allowing for "exceptions" isn't correct. It's quite standard to read: "The general rule is X. However, Y." Or: "Generally, X. One exception is Y." These types of statements read quite naturally and are technically correct. They aren't internally inconsistent simply because "generally" allows for the possibility of exceptions. Indeed, quite the opposite. We're saying, here's the general pattern, here's an example of the pattern, and here's an exception. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Model bills & "secrecy" conflation, and resulting mishmash paragraph

These two topics -- the model bill process and the "secrecy" aspects -- are conflated by being discussed in the same section. We have sources that describe how legislators freely admit that they've used ALEC resources. So how does these resources, and the model bills, relate to secrecy? We see SYN at work. "ALEC sends model bills to legislators. ALEC does not say who the members are. ALEC has influence. ALEC is a secret organization." etc. Worse yet is the poor stylistic presentation of the secrecy section. In the paragraph with Farley, we have the criticism that legislators are not doing their own work, followed by the attempt by Farley to require disclosure. What do those two items have to do with each other? – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there could be greater clarity. One of the problems is that these issues are interconnected, and some of the criticisms (such as Farley's) span multiple issues, in particular corporate influence and various aspects of secrecy. I'm open to suggestions on how to organize these issues. As for SYNTH, these types of issues often turn on the particular words and phrases used, so you'll need to identify the specific offending language. Nowhere does the article say, "ALEC sends model bills to legislators," "ALEC does not say who the members are," "ALEC has influence," or, "ALEC is a secret organization." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Literally the article does not use the phrases I paraphrased, correctly, to make a point. The confidential nature of its membership, the choices that legislators and others make about disclosing their membership, the fact that ALEC has influence, the fact that ALEC provides model bills, etc. are all interesting and worthwhile facts. But how we present these facts must be done properly. So I will make edits to the article and make criticisms of edits as appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Rival organizations

I bet there are some rival organizations out there. Perhaps some with left leaning attitude. If there are some, with Wikipedia articles, that are specifically established to counter or counterbalance ALEC, then they might be appropriate for the See also section. But I don't think the SA section is appropriate for listing organizations that are simply similar to ALEC. The categories are an adequate for such listings. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The only organizations I'm aware of are the ones listed in See also. As far as I know ALICE is the only one of these that was specifically established to counterbalance ALEC. I think ALICE could be moved into the body somehow. The others should probably remain in See also. These organizations are frequently mentioned in articles about ALEC. Especially NCSL. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the above shortly after I had removed ALICE as a redlink. The ALICE article was created shortly thereafter and I readded it. As it is off-topic from ALEC per se, I think the best place is the SA section. (While ALICE may be specifically designed to counter ALEC, there are numerous other organizations on the other side of the spectrum that should not be mentioned, per se, in the article.) I produced a mirror SA section with ALEC in the new ALICE article. Each article is balanced in this aspect. (If the other SA links are already in the text, they should be removed. I haven't looked as yet.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC) All the SAs here are the only times they are linked. 06:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Funding

This section has an enormous amount on one donor (Koch). The organization's budget is $9 million plus annually. The various Koch organizations apparently averaged a combined total of less than a $100,000 annually from 2005 to 2011, with $150,000 added by the brothers in 2011 according to our section. This seems undue at this article. I suggest that the bulk of the information belongs at Political activities of the Koch family. It is important at that article, less so here. We have at the list of members article 128 corporate members listed. The Koch's seem to be (somewhat?) better than average members of ALEC but in line with the other donors and probably shouldn't be the key corp member mentioned. It is clear that energy companies are not the majority of the corp members and yet the two (Koch and Exxon) are the only ones mentioned in the funding section. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there some information somewhere listing the top ten corp donors? That would be the info I'd like to see included. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Their 2012 Form 990 is posted on their website. Schedule B is a listing of their top donors, not necessarily the top 10 corporate donors. If we include some of the top donors, not the whole listing, aren't we are engaging in cherrypicking? – S. Rich (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I see on Charity Navigator's website, it looks like donor privacy is a virtue. – S. Rich (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the material on Koch as "enormous," and I don't see anything inherently wrong with a focus on the financial connections that have received greater news coverage. That said, the article could certainly benefit from fuller coverage on this subject. I'd like the Koch figures put in context, i.e. how they stack up against amounts paid by other private sector members. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need more balanced fuller coverage. Can we use the information from Charity Navigator? Is it RS? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think both Charity Navigator and Guidestar are RS. People can get more info from them by subscribing. For financials, they base their data on the Form 990s. – S. Rich (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The combined Koch contributions from all entities (individuals, foundations, and corporations) are apparently around (or less than) 1% of the org's funding. We give those combined contributions a weight here that is undue. This is even more true of Exxon's funding, which is less. I think that the information on Exxon is particularly undue and Koch should be moved to its own article. [Political activities of the Koch family] Capitalismojo (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oregonian source ("2011-present" section)

Arthur Rubin and Srich32977, so you know where I stand on this issue, I really only added the statement sourced to the Oregonian as a stub for additional content. This section needs to be significantly expanded because a lot happened starting in 2011 most notably: ALEC Exposed, the Stand Your Ground controversy, the wave of bad publicity, the exodus of corporate members, the Common Cause IRS complaint, and the Jeffersonian Project. If either of you wants to take a crack at this I'd be much obliged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Stand Your Ground" controversy is interesting in that (otherwise) reliable sources make statements that are demonstrably untrue; namely, that ALEC had something to do with the FL law. I see we already have a fair amount in the 'Stand Your Ground' section. Perhaps most should be moved to "history", as what we have is not really closely related to ALEC's activities.

I'd like to see more about the Common Cause IRS complaint, also. I thought it had been thrown out, or it could have just been "lost" as part of the improper IRS investigation of organizations with "Tea Party" in their name, but it may just be in hiding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re Stand Your Ground, regardless of what ALEC's role was, there's no doubt that the whole controversy had a historically significant impact on ALEC. There's also no dispute among reliable sources that ALEC was involved in promoting the policy around the country. Hence it deserves at least a mention in both places. I agree that most of the fallout material should be moved under History.

Re Common Cause, as far as I can tell the complaint is still pending. I don't know why the IRS is taking so long to respond. Perhaps they've unofficially tabled it for political reasons (in light of the 2013 IRS controversy). Common Cause's president, Robert W. Edgar, also died last year, and that could be holding things up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If the IRS does not act on the Common Cause complaint, then mentioning it in the article is not noteworthy. Their complaint was a letter to the IRS from Phillips & Cohen written in 2012. (Perhaps the IRS won't act because of something called the right to petition found in the United States Constitution.) But we also see that Common Cause is actively campaigning against ALEC with this "model letter". With this in mind, I fear that WP is being used as a vehicle for Common Cause. This is particularly true when Common Cause and P&C don't provide followup news about their efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Common Cause complaint is becoming less notable over time, which is why I removed it from the lead section weeks ago. However it has received lots of coverage by reputable independent sources. Removing it from the article altogether would be totally inconsistent with that coverage. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Balance

If anything, the IBD editorial adds balance to the critical aspects of the paragraph. This edit should be reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The editorial is just another opinion about ALEC. The quote you want to use is totally unsupported by any factual content. The preceding quotes from the NY Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Guardian are all news reporting by well-credentialed journalists, not editorials, and are supported in depth by facts provided in the sources. Providing the IBD editorial alongside them is misleading and imbalanced. If the IBD editorial deserves a place in our article it should be placed alongside counterbalancing anti-ALEC opinions. (I'm sure we can find some newspaper editorials that slam ALEC.) And not in the lead section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

My gosh! If "effectively turn[ed] ALEC's lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists...." and "....a dating agency for Republican state legislators and big corporations, bringing them together to frame rightwing legislative agendas in the form of 'model bills'." [emphasis added; 'scare quotes' in the original] are not opinion laden, then what are they? There are other parts of the IBD editorial that could be used, but leaving these two items in the lede without something to counter the opinion is not right. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Our standards suggest that adding an unsubstantiated opinion to "balance" substantiated journalism would create false balance. If you don't like that, then go find an equivalent source that takes a contrary position. I haven't seen one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The policy you cite pertains to "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones." Simply not applicable. What if the sentences said "ALEC members are stealth lobbyists" leaving out the "effectively turned" out, or "ALEC is a rightwing dating agency"? These are interpretations – points of view – of what ALEC is and does. Or compare these: "ALEC is a stealth lobbying group which has 'been effective in promoting pro-business, free-market ideas and policies, mainly by drafting model legislation that lawmakers can use as a template in their own legislatures'.". Or "ALEC is a dating agency which is 'effective in promoting pro-business, free-market ideas and policies, mainly by drafting model legislation that lawmakers can use as a template in their own legislatures'." Which parts of these sentences are substantiated? The entire sentences? – S. Rich (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to go over the details, but "ALEC members are stealth lobbyists" would be libelous if it had any meaning. I'm not sure there is any meat to the opinions expressed in the NYT — article? column? op-ed? whatever. S. Rich has a point, and it needs to be seriously considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of meat. Read the source. It's not a column or an op-ed. It's news reporting. And believe me, I've considered this issue plenty already. The neutrality of this paragraph came up months ago and was discussed at length. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't say those things without attribution for the very reason you cite. The Times, Businessweek, and Guardian reporters have investigated ALEC and come to some conclusions that yes, have some values-laden overtones. The language they proposed was reviewed and approved by their newsrooms editors. Not the same as the IBD editorial, which appears to be little more than a diatribe. False equivalence, whatever section of WP:NPV you choose to cite. Come on S. Rich, we're building an informative article, not parroting partisan talking points. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, here is an interesting post from the talk page archives:

"Inside the ALEC Dating Service by Mark Pocan, October 2011 issue in The Progressive. [IP address omitted] 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)"

So if The Progressive says Dating Service two years before The Guardian uses the term, does the term somehow become NPOV? – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, but please explain the relevance to this discussion. I still think putting the IBD editorial at the same level as the 3 news articles is like comparing apples and oranges. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect of the balance question involves what "stealth lobbyist" has become. Prior to the NYT article, it had been used WRT Rick Santorum and in the title for an anti-lobbying bill in Congress. But post-NYT it was picked up by all sorts of POV-driven organizations. Here is one example: [1]. So, IMO, it may have been a mild and fair descriptive when written. But now the term has too much POV to be included in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're drawing unreasonable inferences. A random blog post by SocialistWorker.org has absolutely no bearing on the reliability of the NY Times article. Perhaps the socialists picked up the language from the Times, perhaps they didn't. Doesn't matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Srich, your comments appear to have strayed from the original scope of this discussion, i.e. inclusion/exclusion of the IBD editorial, to the broader issue of the neutrality of the paragraph. Perhaps we should start a new section. If you have a specific proposal (e.g. "remove the NY Times quote") then please state it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Answering both comments. Very reasonable inferences, in terms of POV, are drawn when we see a pure-POV usage of "dating service" picked up (intentionally or not) by The Guardian. Likewise, seeing that the NYT "stealth lobbyist" comment gets picked up, very intentionally, by POV laden media strongly indicates that the term is not a neutral description. The Socialist Worker link was but one that sprung up post-NYT story. My selection was not random, but served to illustrate how much the "stealth lobbyist" has become part of POV lexicon. And since it is a POV-laden term, WP has no business repeating it. That said, here is what I'd like to see: Move the Guardian & NYT references down to the history. Something like "Following stories about ALEC in the Guardian and NYT which described ALEC as a dating service and stealth lobbying group blah-blah-blah, criticism broke out from .... (Give Socialist Workers or other organizations as examples.) Conservative commentators (like IBD) reacted to the criticism by saying ALEC is "God's gift to democracy and freedom blah-blah-blah." – S. Rich (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. I think the analysis is valid and the proposal is sound. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

On your first comment: By that reasoning I think we can remove a good chunk of the political content in this encyclopedia. Let's all look for places where advocacy groups have picked up language used by reliable sources, then delete it all. Only language that hasn't been re-used by partisan blogospheres belongs here. Let the sterility begin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

On your proposal: For starters, you've provided no explanation of why this doesn't belong in the lead section. The recent wave of negative coverage of ALEC is hugely significant and is featured in a number of recent stories. Removing it from the lead would be suppression, --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Pejorative terms from unreliable sources are just as relevant as pejorative terms from reliable sources, as would be hagiography. Only statements that could be statements of fact should be in Wikipedia's voice. That leaves the first sentences and the Bloomberg Businessweek quote. Neither "stealth lobbyist" nor "dating service" has an objective meaning. Thinking about it, I am not arguing for balance per se, but for removal of statements which cannot be "reliable" even if published in what is normally a reliable source. However, if the NYT and Guardian are included as statements of opinion, so should countering statements of opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

They are offered for neither. They are offered to illustrate the verifiable fact that ALEC has experienced a wave of negative publicity from very prominent media outlets. It's the most significant development in ALEC's recent history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My specific proposal would be to exclude the NYT and Guardian quotes in the lead, or attribute them and include IBD. Statements intentionally misusing or creating terms such as "stealth lobbyist" or "dating service" need to be attributed, even if "reliable". (And I cannot verify that the NYT item is not a "column", which is not held by the paper to the same standards of accuracy as "news" articles.) I haven't read The Guardian article yet, but the quote is inappropriate without further qualification as to the source and as to the meaning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained why I don't think either of these alternatives would approach anything resembling balance. Perhaps there is another way? Something along the lines of: "ALEC has experienced a wave of negative coverage from prominent media outlets such as NY Times, BB, and the Guardian.(cite all 3) Critics of the organization have assailed the organization for giving outsized influence to corporate interests without having to make disclosures under federal lobbying rules. ALEC's supporters have defended the organization by saying it fulfills an important role in the democratic process by providing educational services to conservative lawmakers." Then move the quotes down into the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think progress is being made. As this is a short period in which ALEC experienced negative press, especially post-Trayvon Martin, it needs to go into the history section, not the lede. Other tweaks: "wave", "prominent", "assailed", & "outsized", a no-goes as editorializing. Next, doesn't ALEC say they provide educational services to all lawmakers, not just conservative ones? And is SYNTH at play if we say "without having to make disclosures under federal lobbying rules."? (E.g., if the rules don't say that ALEC must make disclosures, then the rules simply do not apply and mention of non-applicable rules is simply POV. That is, the POV is that rules (or some sort of rules) should apply.) To avoid these SYN & POV problems, I'd think the specific critics should be mentioned and coverage as to ALEC's defenders be given balance coverage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We can discuss specific language--my proposal above was just a rough conceptual draft--but I'm going to insist something about this "wave" (or whatever you want to call it) of negative coverage go into the lead. No offense, but excluding it based on the short period of time would be ridiculous and totally inconsistent with the rest of WP. Major events often take place very quickly in the grand scheme of things. Revolutions, etc. Using your argument, one could say Hurricane Katrina should be excluded from the lead section of New Orleans, or that humans should be excluded from our lead section of Earth. The bottom line is that this "wave" was one of the most significant developments in ALEC's history, if not the most significant one. Google Trends bears this out, at least in the 2004-present timeframe. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, Progress. Rather than "wave", we use NPOV "increased attention". As for your remarks, there are two fallacies in the examples. Katrina had definite start & end dates according to the weather bureau and given the non-political nature of the devastation and the RS which objectively describes it as a huge mess it is fair to put Katrina in the lead. We can say she hit NO, LA at such-and-such time and did this-and-that to the city with these-and-those results. Likewise, humans on earth are a constant factor and we use Iron Age, Bronze Age, etc. to signify the big "events" that occur. We certainly don't exclude the existence of humans from the lede on Earth, but we can see that these major transitions are not mentioned in the lede. So I think the comparisons you make are stretched and not helpful. Really, what is the most significant aspect of ALEC's history? The brief bit of press (per Google Trends), or the success they've had over the years? Either way, we've got to be sure that we are not supporting the Progressives/Left "gotcha!" against ALEC or Conservatives/Right "best thing since sliced bread". – S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Really, what is the most significant aspect of ALEC's history? The brief bit of press (per Google Trends), or the success they've had over the years?" Both, which is why both belong in the lead section. By referencing the recent criticism we're not supporting any left-wing "gotcha," we're recounting history. There hasn't been any (and no one is proposing) quoting or giving any undue weight to anti-ALEC groups such as CMD or Common Cause. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Dr. Fleischman's specific proposal above; that would suggest IBD's editorial should also be included, as a notable commentary on the fact that there is a wave of media criticism. (As we don't have a specific source that there is a wave of media criticism, IBD's editorial might be used as a source for that.) I don't really like it, but it is much better than what we have now in terms of balance and of honesty of reporting (on our part).

(ec) as for the last comment, the details of the criticism do not seem important. (And I think even the one-sentence mention presently given Occupy and Common Cause may be undue weight.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to see what language we can come up with, but 3 things: (1) There are much more reliable sources than the IBD editorial that covered the wave of media criticism. (The December 2013 Guardian article immediately comes to mind, and I'm sure there are more.) (2) As pure unsubstantiated opinion, the IBD editorial cannot be quoted in the lead. (3) If the IBD editorial is used as a source, it must be balanced with opposing, anti-ALEC viewpoints from source(s) such as CMD, Common Cause, etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of them should be quoted in the lead; I was talking about mentioning all three and IBD in the lead. I'm sure we can find a better reference about the criticism, but the specific criticisms in question probably should not be in the lead; with the exception of Bloomberg, they certainly should not be in the lead, as being clearly stated as the reporters' opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, clearly stated as the reporters' opinions? These weren't in the opinion sections, and since they were blessed by newsroom editors these really became the newspapers' statements. In any case I think we should be able to fairly summarize the nature of the negative coverage as a whole and not confine ourselves to a single source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I like Rubin's approach and appreciate him taking the laboring oar. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In the the case of the NYT, even if the item had editorial approval, the term "stealth lobbyist" was given a different meaning in the item than it had previously. It is clearly improper to include the term (other than as an opinion) without adding a detailed definition. The same may apply to "dating service". This argument adds weight to my previous arguments, which seem already seem sufficient to me and have had some agreement. Whether or not the references are "articles", those terms, having meaning different than the pre-existing meaning, need to be clarified, and such clarification would be WP:OR and excessive in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Detailed definition" of "stealth lobbyist" and "dating service?" How are we using those terms differently than the sources do, where would be find "detailed definitions," and why wouldn't those sources be "articles?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We are using the terms differently than a rational person would use them, so they requires context if stated in Wikipedia's voice, even if the sources were "articles" rather than clearly being the reporters' opinion. (To be precise, if the term "stealth lobbyist" had the meaning now attributed, it would have been libelous, as it would be an accusation of a crime, and there was no evidence then.) "Scare quotes" (actually, "use-mention quotes") would avoid that problem.

I am not good at reading context from a URL. OP-eds can be determined from position in the layout of a newspaper, but columns (which may be mostly the author's opinion) and articles require even more context to distinguish, so I generally use the wording. If statements made have no objective meaning, I assume the entire item is opinion. I believe that to be a rational assumption, but it can be countered by context in the publication. The context requires further explanation; it is usually not available simply from the "article" itself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I need you to be a bit clearer as I'm not following. First, you seem to be saying that someone has suggested using terms such as "stealth lobbyist" in our own voice, but I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that. I'm certainly not. What are you referring to? Second, you say we have attributed a meaning to "stealth lobbyist," but I'm not aware of that -- what is the meaning we are attributing and where do we make that interpretation? And how is that different from how a rational person would interpret "stealth lobbyist?" Third, regarding your second paragraph, are you suggesting that certain sources are opinion pieces rather than news, and if so, which sources? The Times, Bloomberg, and Guardian pieces we've been discussing all appeared in news sections and were written by news journalists (not columnists or opinion writers). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Times and Guardian pieces read as opinion columns. If you can verify they were published in "news" sections, I'll consider that as reasonable. I withdraw the comment about using our own voice; however, as we are quoting those sources (in the lead; they do not appear at all in the body), I see no reason why unreliable, but notable, sources should not also appear. Even unreliable sources are "reliable" for what the source actually says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction. The Times quote does occur in the body. Neither Bloomberg nor the Guardian do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• NY Times: If you look at the top of the source, the tab clearly indicates this article appeared in the "U.S." section, not in the "Opinion" section. Also, the author, Mike McIntire, is a investigative reporter, not a columnist.
• Guardian: If you look at the top of the source, the header clearly indicates this article was categorized as "News > World News," not "Comment." Also, the author, Ed Pilkington, is the Guardian US's chief correspondent (also, see here, here).
• I agree that the IBD editorial may be noteworthy but if it is included it must be balanced with other opinions of the same or greater noteworthiness. There are a lot of strong feelings about ALEC, both pro and con (mostly con it seems).

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at addressing these issues. Feedback please. (And to be clear I personally will strongly oppose any effort to put an IBD editorial on par with news reports by the NY Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the Guardian.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Apple

2014-11-08 - Hi, I am not experienced with wikipedia editing, and so am posting a question here on the talk page. I can't find any source to indicate that Apple has actually been one of the companies to support ALEC. Is it possible that Apple has not supported ALEC and that the mention of Apple supporting them is in error? Jlsoaz (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)jlsoaz

Hi Jisoaz. I found two sources that mention that Apple was an ALEC member and then withdrew its support: IBT and the Dallas News. The IBT article was referenced when the Apple bit was originally added, but then the reference was removed. I've restored it. Thans for the heads up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Fleischman, thanks for the prompt response, I think this addresses the question I had.Jlsoaz (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)jlsoaz

Legality

Has anyone found any reliable sources in which independent experts (not affiliated with ALEC, Common Cause, etc.) have opined on the legality of ALEC's quasi-lobbying activities? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There has been almost no reporting on this since the initial flurry of press releases that I have found. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a pretty fair understanding of non-profits and my assessment is that this will go nowhere, legally speaking. It looks like classic SLAPP type activity from an org one side of an the ideological spectrum against an org on the other. I'm not sure the IRS even has a requirement to publicly respond if or how they have dealt with it. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking specifically about the Common Cause complaint. A lot of the news coverage suggests there are questions about the legality of ALEC's practices. What I'm looking for are stories where independent experts were consulted. I'm surprised I haven't seen any quotes from experts along the lines of, "ALEC's practices are undemocratic but legal," or, "ALEC is operating in a legal gray area." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Haven't seen anything like that either. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I found something: "None of this is illegal." We're already citing that excellent source but we're underutilizing it. And here's a new and interesting one, though not quite on point: [2]. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the "legality" mention has been re-added in the lede. This is a bit of subtle SYN. First, if ALEC had engaged in any illegal activity there'd be news items about it. Second, the is the mention about calls for attorney general investigations, but we have no sourcing that says investigations were launched. Third, the explicit mention of "while legal" implies that something improper was being done. This item should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The cited Bloomberg source says that ALEC's activities are legal. There are no sources that challenge that conclusion. I don't object to moving this tidbit elsewhere in the lead if you feel its current position implies something--but it's definitely important enough to stay in the lead, somewhere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a little thing in First Amendment to the United States Constitution called the Right to petition. ALEC (& SPN & probably CMD) exercises that right. When those ALEC drafted laws get enacted, 2 houses of the legislature and the chief executive approve the legislation. The enacted laws are subject to review by the courts. I don't mean to give a Civics 101 lesson (please forgive me), but saying "None of this is illegal" or "while legal" is just stating something that should be quite obvious. The controversy about ALEC et al. is that they are part of the big corporate world that is driven by greed – a greed that enables us to line up outside the Apple Store for new iPhones or to stroll through grocery stores that are stocked with 20,000 different items. It is the evil Greed that prompts the Koch family give $25,000,000 to the United Negro College Fund. (Opps, I got on a roll.) Back on track -- the mention by a staff writer & reporter is not legal analysis and is not noteworthy. Omit entirely. – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. That the activities of the subject of this article are legal is documented in a reliable source. A clear, explicit, up-front statement of such is extremely useful to our readers and editors in evaluating the content of the article. Also, maybe it will help prevent an editor from coming up behind us and slapping "alleged" in front of every activity, as if it might be illegal, in case some reader might think it illegal. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, ALEC's legality may be obvious to you, but it's not at all obvious to me, nor to Common Cause. Moreover ALEC has been accused by a variety of sources of engaging in lobbying, dishonesty, sneakiness, and general bad behavior, which is why it's important to clarify that their activity is legal according to the reliable sources. And the fact that the authors were professional reporters (at a reputable outlet) signals all the more than we can say ALEC's activities were legal without attribution. We must assume that their work was fact checked, and they may have consulted with Bloomberg or outside lawyers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We can say the activity is legal, but lets do so in the area where we see the calls for attorney general investigations. While we don't know what became of the Common Cause & AG complaints, moving the legality citation to that area of the text will help clarify. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, at least how the article is organized. The complaints are in the section on lobbying but the Bloomberg source's "none of this is illegal" statement isn't limited to lobbying issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Departure of members in lead section

The departure of legislative and private-sector members in recent years is definitely sufficiently noteworthy for the lead section. It has been a major subject of news coverage and it shouldn't be removed simply because an ALEC spokesperson says the organization grew in spite of the controversies. The noteworthiness of the departures isn't about ALEC's size, it's about the fallout from the negative press coverage and ALEC's controversial positions. Not to mention that a self-serving statement by an ALEC spokesperson, unsubstantiated by reliable secondary sources, hardly serves as balancing material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is balance. Sure, some members left and they may have done so because of the controversy. But simply saying members left implies that ALEC has diminished in size and influence. Actually if you look at the NCCS profile, specifically the financials chart, you'll see that ALEC's revenues and assets grew from 2011 to 2012. Per the Form 990 for 2013, revenue dropped from the prior year. Was that because of the Treyvon Martin case? (Oh-oh, must avoid OR.) Would it be more neutral to say "Following the news stories the vast majority of ALEC's members stayed in the organization."? Perhaps not. But I recommend leaving this membership level tidbit out of the lede.– S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Lede summarizes the whole article WP:LEDE. What other content from the subsection 2011-present is included in the lede? The departures of legislative members and corporate sponsors is the single most significant aspect of this period in the history of the subject of this article. It belongs in the lede. Hugh (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, sure it could be read to imply that ALEC has diminished in size and influence. It's impossible to present any information about members coming or going without some suggestion at that level. But that's just common sense, and our lead language implies it no more than the reliable sources do. The only way to scrub the article of all such perfectly reasonable inferences is to blank it entirely. Not to mention that I haven't seen any reliable sources saying that ALEC hasn't diminished in size and influence since 2011. Your references to ALEC's financials are pure OR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, "Oh-oh, must avoid OR." I do NOT propose to put the Form 990 comparisons into the article. But I am seeking to parse available information as part of the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. So what's wrong with mentioning the departure of these members in the lead? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the overall text. Take a look at the edit I just did about companies withdrawing. It was a syntax correction, but it is one of many needed edits. Rather than being so eager to get this bit of information into the lede, let's get the basic article cleaned up. Then we'll have a better idea of how the lede should rede. – S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a better solution: include the content with an inline tag of your choice (POV-inline?), and once the article has reached some point where you can articulate your particular concerns then we can revisit. But provisionally removing stable, reliably sourced content on this "cleanup is needed" basis, I won't have that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The removed text seems...straightforward. ALEC was certainly under public attack, they have certainly lost members because of the attacks, we discuss that in the body. Soemthing should be in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

SPN sponsorship

Arthur Rubin and I have removed material related to one sponsor of ALEC. The justification (for me, at least) is that the particular sponsor (State Policy Network) is not a WP:NOTEWORTHY contributor. I submit that restoring this material requires WP:CONSENSUS. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The State Policy Network is perhaps the most widely named sponsor in reliable sources, please see the refs you deleted. Let me know if you need more. Reliable sources which have noted the SPN sponsorship of ALEC include the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones, the Center for Media and Democracy, and the Nonprofit Quarterly. Koch Industries was only a "vice-chairman" level sponsor and is included in he article; the State Policy Network was a "chairman." Further note, the claim that SPN is a member of ALEC and a sponsor at the ALEC conference is neutral and not controversial, as evidenced by the inclusion of an article on their relationship on the State Policy Network's own website, included as a supporting reference, which you also deleted. Hugh (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are any of those sources reliable for significance? Seems unlikely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing Koch Industries; the notability is probably due only to anti-Koch sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your frank admission, I guess. SPN was a chairman level sponsor. Koch paid half as much and is included. Will you also delete Koch Industries? Hugh (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What sources would you prefer? The sponsor you are desperately trying to exclude is much more widely cited in RS than the rest of the sponsors you include. Will you also delete them, not notable? Hugh (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Excluding this source is a flagrant violation of our fundamental responsibility to present a subject in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The sponsor you are trying to exclude, the State Policy Network, do you view their relationship as somehow unflattering to the subject of this article? Their relationship is not controversial. The State Policy Network talks about their relationship with ALEC on their website. What is the problem? Hugh (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC

(edit conflict) Again, the editing objective is noteworthiness, not notability. That said, I agree with Arthur Rubin. Adding this material, especially when sourced by POV driven media, is not encyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Which sources in your view are POV driven? And where does it say sources cannot have a POV? Hugh (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the sponsors that ARE mentioned. How did THEY get passed you guys? You know what would help me understand your issue here? If not coverage in reliable sources, what constitutes your personal definition of "noteworthy," and, using your personal definition of "noteworthy," please explain how the sponsors that are mentioned in this article are "noteworthy" and the ones that are not mentioned are not "noteworthy." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the material should stay. We've been over the closely related topic of Koch funding before, without consensus, and my position is unchanged. I have no problem with one donor receiving a somewhat disproportionate amount of coverage if that's reflective of the reliable sources, though I'd prefer to see funding numbers put in a broader context. Some comments were made earlier in this thread that the deleted content should be deleted because it is "sourced by POV driven media," which I believe is hogwash, frankly. Without doing any research, I can say for certain that The Guardian and Nonprofit Quarterly are well established reliable sources. PR Watch is not (per previous discussions here and at RSN). My position is, delete PR watch but keep the rest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Hugh (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: I see CMD as POV-driven and I've commented before about their wiki, ALECExposed, Stinktanks.org, SPN Halloween spiderweb, Koch Exposed, etc. And then we see Progress Now and CMD used as the source for the NPQ article. Only that article starts off with "Right-Wing" in the title and moves along with "think tanks" in scare quotes, "hard-hitting study", and "little more than fronts". It closes with 2 paragraphs which are simply opinion. The hard-hitting study comes out of CMD's PRWatch. Well that's fine because everyone and every organization has POV. But per WP:SOAPBOX "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." The "other aspects" of CMD (e.g., the heavy bias and lousy referencing) must be weighed when presenting factual material in articles. This is in keeping with WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources. We do not want the presentation of the fact to serve as the soapbox. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this in more detail, I don't see what the NPQ source gets us. It appears to be WP:CITEKILL to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing that tends to happen when editors run around with "Not noteworthy! Not noteworthy!" is additional referencing. The context here is a notability discussion. Weight is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Nonprofit Quarterly is a reliable source. Please leave all the references for now. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This very practice is known as citation overkill and is generally considered inappropriate. No one is questioning whether this organization is the largest service union in Illinois, and even if they were it wouldn't be appropriate to lard up the article with redundant sources. If your goal is to convince other editors of the noteworthiness of this fact then the appropriate place to do so is on this talk page, rather than in the article itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"...every organization has POV..." Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is soap-boxing. Keep it real, brother. The only issue here is the simple, straightforward, non-controversial, well-documented claims of membership and sponsorship. Hugh (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully, WP policy WP:WEIGHT is extremely clear and quantitative and objective, so there is absolutely no reason in the world to get bogged down in a protracted discussion of notability. It's really quite simple: weight in a WP article is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. After a certain point, once something is out there enough, it sort of has to go in WP. Our hands are tied. It's not up to us. In this case, we are way, way beyond the point were opposing these simple, straightforward, non-controversial, well-documented claims of membership and sponsorship are worthy. Hugh (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure of the point you're making in this most recent comment, but it's clear to me we have a disagreement over what WP:NPV means and how to apply it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the OP, this section is a nominally notability discussion. Hugh (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're the one who keeps bringing up WP:WEIGHT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The proposed edit is to include the State Policy Network in the existing paragraph on ALEC members and sponsors. Please I would like to hear from editors opposed to this simple edit on the following points:

1. The edit is non-controversial, neutral, unbiased. SPN describes their relationship with ALEC on their (SPN's) website, ref included in support of non-controversiality. Certainly it is more connotation-free than some of the sponsor already in the article. Hugh (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

   The first sentence is false, false, false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

   What is it you think is false please? Hugh (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

2. The claim is widely documented in reliable sources WP:WEIGHT. See the references. More can be provided upon request. The SPN is the single most widely documented ALEC member. Certainly SPN's membership in ALEC appears in reliable sources more frequently than any of the sponsors already included in the article. Hugh (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, the "funding" is supported in one (marginally) reliable source and other sources quoting it. It is frequently quoted, but it is clearly incorrect to state that any specifics are supported by reliable sources. I'm not sure the connection in "organization" is supported, either, but there do appear to be more reliable sources for those statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

   Which is the marginally reliable source and which are quoting it in your view? Hugh (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Sources need not be neutral WP:BIASED.

   Opposing inclusion of this simple, straightforward, non-controversial, well-documented content is a violation of our fundamental responsibility to present the subject in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

   Sources for significance generally need to be from other than stated political enemies, unless properly attributed. Facts can come from biased sources if they have a reputation for fact-checking, or if the fact is the fact that the organization says something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

   Which sources are "stated political enemies" and where is it stated please?Hugh (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of this material, though in the "Organization" section (where it's already covered to some extent) and with a trimmed list of sources. It's mostly not about funding so it doesn't belong in the "Funding" section. The way this content is framed it's really about organizational ties. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. As far as which section, SPN was a "chairman-level" sponsor, which is a highly significant aspect of its notability. The edit fits better along side the other sponsors, after the levels are explained. Hugh (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of chairman-level sponsors. And most of the content you're proposing isn't about funding. In fact I think the funding is the least significant part of the connection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I took your advice and put most of the discussed content under Organization where it fits better. The sponsorship goes on the existing list. Thanks again for your support. Hugh (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And I removed it from "funding", as listing it on both places with the same sources is clearly undue weight. I believe any mention, without more non-ultra-left sources is undue weight, but there are some arguments to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional detail ON SPN and ALEC was added to the organization and funding section as appropriate and as per talk page concensus. Hugh (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The same sources were not used in both places. Did you read them before jumping on the delete key? One source is in common, a link to SPN's own website, where they talk about their relationship to ALEC in front of god and everyone, a ref added by way of demonstrating to discriminating readers and editors that this content is unbiased, neutral, and completely non-controversial. Why are you so determined to prevent the addition of non-controversial content? Please reply. Hugh (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Did you know, a ref may be used in more than one place? This article has a ref with 18 uses. Will you delete it and the content it supports? Hugh (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Are you aware that sources need not be neutral? WP:BIASED The refs you deleted along with the unbiased, neutral, and completely non-controversial content include Mother Jones, the Center for Public Integrity, and the Center for Media and Democracy, all of which organizations are already used in existing references in this article. Will you delete those references and the content they reference? Hugh (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

HughD, a bit higher up you say "The edit is non-controversial...." While the material itself may be non-controversial, this ongoing discussion shows that the edit was controversial. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed from "funding" again. Your source is a blog entry, not a newsblog. I don't doubt the statement is true, and totally insignificant in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Is the protection lifted early? Hugh (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was only semiprotected. Unless your account was created in the past week, you are allowed to edit the article, although I would recommend against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not heard that before, why do you recommend I not edit this article? Hugh (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Because almost all of your edits are disputed. It would probably be better for you to obtain consensus before adding material likely to be disputed (for accuracy, tone, or weight). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by DaltonCastle

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)

Funding outdated tag

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)

Little known / largely unknown

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131205084203/http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/telecom_35daymailing%20DC.pdf to http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/telecom_35daymailing%20DC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140331201937/http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8755339 to http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8755339

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Status of IRS investigation

This source says that the IRS investigation into ALEC"s tax exempt status is still open. Accordingly, I added that detail to our article. However, Arthur Rubin reverted with the edit summary: "mistake; there is actually no evidence that the IRS investigation ever started, only that it was asked for." I don't understand. We are including a reliably sourced fact. No reliable source contradicts it. This seems pretty straightforward. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems a reliable source, except that, if there were an open investigation, it would be illegal for anyone in the IRS to mention it, absent a court order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

On a contentious matter like this we should stick closely to the source, i.e., "to date, the IRS has taken no action." That's frustratingly ambiguous, but that's how it is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please double-check the source. It does not say the IRS has taken no action. The source does say the investigation remains open. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I can accept that. It's ambiguous, but we don't know what the source meant. We do know that any information 11alive has about an IRS investigation was not legally released, so we should be careful not to imply anything other than what the source said, and we need not include that if it cannot have come from a legitimate source. That 11alive is generally a reliable source does not mean it is in this instance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm baffled by your position. (i) How do we know it would be illegal for anyone to leak information about an ongoing IRS investigation? (ii) How would this have any impact on the reliability of the source? Information is illegally leaked to the press all the time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(i) I could quote the IRS Code section, but that would be original research. Suffice it to say that the actual TIGTA report on "IRSGate", of which we're misquoting a misquote, states exactly that. (ii) Which is more likely: A local TV reporter has a scoop on a national issue (which requires his/her source to have violated the law), or a local TV reporter made up a scoop on a national issue. I side with the latter, even if the station is normally considered reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(i) This is a completely different different issue. TIGTA is an oversight office that conducted an investigation into IRS activities. The ALEC investigation is an investigation into a private taxpayer. Please provide evidence (with links) that it would be illegal to disclose information about an open investigation of the type at issue here. (ii) Pure speculation and original research that has no place in an RS determination. I have never of heard a "generally" reliable outlet being deemed unreliable simply because an editor things it's "unlikely" they did some investigative reporting. Clearly they called ALEC and asked about it, and perhaps ALEC told them the investigation was still open. If we're at an impasse about this I'll take it to RSN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sentence on mission in lede

For a long time there has been a sentence in the lede that conveys what the organization says is their mission. This format or approach is extremely common in wikipedia articles about non-profits. It has been removed with no solid explanation of why that change helps the article. Several of us clearly disagree with the removal. Perhaps we could discuss. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that we should use a description found in a WP:SECONDARY source rather than simply quoting promotional verbiage from their website. This is actually taken care of by the second paragraph of the lede. By the way, the quote is not found in the cited source, but it is found in this brochure.- MrX 16:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary source material can be used in limited ways, this is an extremely common and useful such for non-profits of all stripes and flavors. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess we disagree in this case. Let's see what others say.- MrX 19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly see both sides of the issue. I lean slightly toward inclusion in the first paragraph. The mission statement is informative and noteworthy because it concisely describes how ALEC markets itself. There are substantial discrepancies between what ALEC does and what ALEC says it does. A single, properly attributed sentence on the latter is noteworthy enough for inclusion in the lead section, and yes, in the first paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)