Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

RFC on is The Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative group and policies of inclusion of such description.

This a request for comment on the above question and previous section. Is the Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative group and should be described as such? And does the polices listed above overrule the more widely available references describing their relationships and them as Conservative vs Free-Market? ContentEditman (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bad RFC, "And does the polices the editor above is using overrule the more widely available references describing their relationships and them as Conservative vs Free-Market?" directly inserts your own heavily biased opinion into the question of the RFC, thereby making the RFC a WP:BADRFC and not WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

Here is an example of a Neutral RFC: This a request for comment on the above question and previous section. Is the Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative or Free-Market group, and which, both, or neither should be used in the lead?

Feel free to share your Wikipedia:Reliable sources either way. Penguino35 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (edited to include "neither": Penguino35 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC))

Furthermore, the sources already heavily show that "free market" or "free-market" is the much more WP:COMMONNAME applied to this group, and that even if the other label "conservative" is used, it is much, much, much less common to the point where placing it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE when WP:WEIGHT considerations are factored. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says that articles must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". RS may use "free market" more than "conservative", or vice versa, but noting that the organization is also sometimes described the alternative way may be due if careful references are made to enough reputable sources: specifically, to listed WP:GREL sources, academic journals of high quality, and books of repute. I agree that the RFC proposal must be edited to be neutral per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Llll5032 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And what sources are you referring to? The overwhelming majority of them call them conservative. Only ones that call them free market is themselves and others that copy their page/descriptor. ContentEditman (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of hearsay regarding what sources do or do not say, and no listed citations. Penguino35 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I exhaustively covered this at great length above in the comment which began, "I will try and address all of your points here. This may take time, so please be patient as we work through this." Please read that in full if you have any questions. It would be tedious to rehash all of that given that if anyone wishes to read about all of the sources saying "free market" over conservative they can simply scroll up. You will find that this POV pushing editor @ContentEditman does not have a case and is using many non-reliable sources in advancing his invalid claim but is persistent nonetheless in doing so. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Penguino35. It would be helpful to group references for each description in this discussion. Citations for each description with "footquotes" (the quote field within citations) for context would be helpful. Sources should be of high quality, no self-published blogs or social media. Llll5032 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I am just saying that all of the sources at hand were addressed in the comment right there above. I'll really parse things out again if need be, but it is all right there above... Every source addressed, every false claim by ContentEditman debunked. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion gives ContentEditman the chance to consider your arguments and cite only the best sources. Llll5032 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In my rewrite of the article's lede, I described the Mackinac Center as a conservative group, because a) that is generally understood to be the case among most followers of Michigan politics, b) their policies are, in fact, economically conservative, and c) they play an outsize role in the development of conservative policy in Michigan, and describing them as conservative makes that clearer to a reader. 42-BRT (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I posted 10 above, 4 more in the article itself, such as...

[5] New York Times - says of them "Joseph P. Overton introduced the concept in the 1990s as an executive at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in Michigan." [2] Metrotimes - "WHEN references to the Mackinac Center crop up in Michigan's mainstream media, the nonprofit organization is consistently referred to as a "conservative, free-market think tank."" and "Privatization of government functions has long been a keystone of conservative thought. The Mackinac Center is no exception, publishing dozens of articles in the past eight years on privatizing everything from prisons to water treatment plants.". [8] mea-retired - "The Mackinac Center for Policy Research is the largest conservative state-level policy think tank in the nation. It was established by the state's leading conservative activists to promote conservative free market, pro-business policies." and goes on to add "The Mackinac Center‟s Board of Directors reflect its conservative Republican roots." [6] pbs - "Teachers are getting targeted anti-union emails from conservative groups" and talks about several conservative groups including the Mackinac group as one of them. Thats just a few as I stopped looking after as there are plenty that show they are part of or just out right called "conservative". I'm still waiting for other sources that are not themselves callign them free-market much more or at all vs conservative. ContentEditman (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

ContentEditman, can you insert references with links to the Wikipedia articles for each of the sources in this list? Llll5032 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I do not understand? Do you mean post the reference links here? ContentEditman (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can add such links within your comment with the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You may copy and paste the linked refs that you used in the previous discussion for those four sources, if you wish. Llll5032 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, "mea-retired" may not be a reliable source, but rather self-published according to Wikipedia's standards. Would you consider removing it? Llll5032 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I was not aware they were considered that, I'll leave that off then. Thank you for that.

Here are a few references calling them a Conservative organization with ties to other Conservative groups.

New York Times says of them "Joseph P. Overton introduced the concept in the 1990s as an executive at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in Michigan."

PBS It's titled "Teachers are getting targeted anti-union emails from conservative groups" and talks about several conservative groups including the Mackinac group as one of them.

This reference is titled "Conservative ‘Think Tank’ Mackinac Center has a To Do List for Michigan’s next leaders" and says "It has often been described as Conservative, and generally believes less regulation of everyday life and of business is a good thing.". This clearly states and supports the Conservative title for the Mackinac group.

This reference states "WHEN references to the Mackinac Center crop up in Michigan's mainstream media, the nonprofit organization is consistently referred to as a "conservative, free-market think tank."" and "Privatization of government functions has long been a keystone of conservative thought. The Mackinac Center is no exception, publishing dozens of articles in the past eight years on privatizing everything from prisons to water treatment plants.". This one not only shows they are a conservative group but points out many other media groups refer to them the same.

This reference is titled "Exposing Those Far-Right Propaganda "Think Tanks"" and talks about "Conservative think tanks patterned after the highly successful Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise institute..." including the Mackinac group and others aligned with them.

This reference says " The Mackinac Center spokespeople have said they will not disclose their contributors; however, a little research reveals an extensive list of donors. For example, The Devos, Prince, Koch and Dow families, all associated with the conservative wing of the Republican Party", "the Herrick Foundation has consistently donated to the Mackinac Center and the Cato Institute, conservative organizations that support the Republican Party.", and "Right refers to the conservative, right-wing way of thinking." clearly stating they are not independent and tied to other Conservative groups.

says this group is right-center and describes that as "These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes.".

Says "the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a right-wing think tank based in Midland, Michigan that also receives funds from Charles Koch. Mackinac is a member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of conservative, Koch-backed nonprofits that coordinate as they lobby to cut taxes and regulations."

says "Project 2025 is led by the Heritage Foundation, but the effort also includes contributions from a handful of Michigan conservatives and institutions, such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Hillsdale College and Michael Anton, a lecturer at the private school."

There are others as well but I think there was already overkill on the references for support them being a conservative group, one being used to try and support calling them "Free Market", and the above add more to that as well. ContentEditman (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

References

• Yes, there are enough sources to include the term conservative. Realistically, we can probably assume that when a think tank with clear political positions says "don't call us [common descriptor of said political positions]", there's probably already enough sources to include it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• ContentEditman, the "moodyonthemarket", "lightrailnow" sources are probably considered self-published for Wikipedia; "prwatch" may be marginal; "mlive" is a letter and not a RS; and "mediabiasfactcheck" is unreliable. Will you consider removing evidence based on those five sources, while keeping the other four sources? Llll5032 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Four quick points:

  1. I made an exhaustive review of all the sources, with several facing severe reliability problems above, and;

  2. Per WP:BADRFC. A new RFC should be started if genuinely anyone is going to contribute to this discussion in a way that should be contributing to a valid consensus. As I pointed out above, the editor inserted their own view heavily in a leading manner into this bad request for comment. Does no one else see that as being obviously problematic?

  3. I will over the following days as I have time, now again lay out the sources again which clearly describe this group as "free market" over "conservative". The sources are pretty overwhelmingly in favor of "free market".

  4. I do not care one lick about whether the group themselves want to be called "conservative", "free market", or "shoe sellers" for that matter... if they are not described using specific language by the majority of WP:RELIABLESOURCES then we cannot use new language. Or if the language is barely used, as I clearly spelled out in my post above, then WP:WEIGHT considerations factor in, and even if we are to use it, then it should be in the body and not the lead. I'd say the section Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy#Principles_and_positions most likely is where we should discuss what the group prefers and contrast that with how they are sometimes referred to as "conservative" by some organizations and media groups in a minority of instances. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this post took a decent amount of time, but since it was not part of this WP:BADRFC, I will start by reposting it here so the references which clearly demonstrate "free market" over "conservative" is apparent in this section:

I will try and address all of your points here. This may take time, so please be patient as we work through this.

First off it does not matter what any particular organization "wants to be called", we need to rely on the reliable sources, consider WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE, and then also consider weight considerations etc., all of that matters, but not what they supposedly want to be called.

Second, you quoted one source as saying, "While the Mackinac Center is not listed among the project’s official advisory board of more than 100 conservative organizations, Jason Hayes, the think tank’s director of energy and environmental policy is a contributor." and also "Mackinac Center receives funding “from a variety of conservative and corporate sources.." That does not call them conservative. Receiving funding from or being affiliated with "conservative" groups or entities does not make you conservative, what does, is reliable sources repeatedly and consistently calling you as such, and even then we need to consider if there are other reliable sources making a counter claim, in which case we can evaluate the claim in that context.

On to your provided "sources":

The first one does not appear to be reliable, "Moodys on the Market" appears to be a local newletter from a local marketing firm (also without author or publisher)!!! Not exactly the gold standard that we are looking for in terms of how to describe any particular think tank, so I hope you are not using sources like this across other think tank pages or that would be a big problem. It says on the link, "A local service of Mid-West Family" and then if you click further it says, "Mid-West Family is Southwest Michigan's media and marketing leader. We help area businesses find their authentic voice. You will reach more customers, create stronger connections, and achieve greater advertising results using our many communication platforms." That is NOT a reliable source!

Next you provided an old source which required the "Wayback Machine" and seems to be a piece from a Detroit source, a more modern Michigan posted source does not use the "conservative" label, but rather sticks to the "free market" label most often and widely applied by numerous reliable sources. Also, the source you used had 4,081 words and only a passing mention of anything resembling calling them "conservative" at that.

Your next source, other than using inflammatory rhetoric not found elsewhere, is also completely unreliable for use. When we look into that source it describes itself as, "...a charitable educational enterprise designed to support efforts both within North America and worldwide to develop and improve light rail transit (LRT) and other rail transit and mass transportation systems", plus the source again only mentions MCPP in passing and grouped in with many other Think Tanks, thus there is no direct mention of MCPP as "conservative" even in this source!

The next source talks about affiliations of supposed donors to the MCPP which state that the donors or funding sources are "conservative", but there is again no direct mention of "conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy." It is possible to take funding from both conservative and progressive sources and that does not necessarily make an organization one or the other. Again, we need reliable sources specifically calling the MCPP "conservative" as the direct label of the organization, and then it would need to be in sufficient weight to merit inclusion in the lead based on a broad and consistent label being applied by the majority of said sources.

This source is WP:GUNREL and cannot be relied upon, "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings."

Next you provided a source which is affiliated directly with a fully deprecated source SourceWatch, "As an open wiki, SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the Center for Media and Democracy." This cannot be used...

Source 10 you claimed called MCPP "conservative", but if we look at the text of the source it actually says, "Project 2025 is led by the Heritage Foundation, but the effort also includes contributions from a handful of Michigan conservatives and institutions, such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Hillsdale College and Michael Anton, a lecturer at the private school." Here it is not clear if the source is calling MCPP "conservative" or simply an "institution" and then labeling "Michael Anton" the "conservative."

Also, this same source in another article calls MCPP "free market".

This source is in no way reliable. This would be like Pepsi saying "Coca Cola is bad. Do not drink it." Of course they would say that! MEA is a labor union which has been involved in lawsuits with MCPP (as you can read about in this article). Generally, the written thoughts of a labor union, if not covered in a secondary source, would not by themselves constitute a reliable source... especially when discussing a direct critic!

The NY Times source is indeed reliable, but again now WP:DUE and weight factors are at play because this source only mentions the "conservative" label once, and in passing. The PBS source says, "National unions and state affiliates have been quick to highlight that many of these organizations receive funding from prominent conservative donors", but again there we are left with the MCPP themselves only being bundled in with other organizations as one recipient of many that has supposedly received funds from "conservative donors", and that by itself does not make the MCPP themselves "conservative."

On the other hand, most reliable sources consistently instead use the "free market" label including: The Guardian ("free-market group" or "free-market think tank"), NBC News ("...free-market think tank..."), Fox Business ("...free market think tank..."). Additionally, many other sources also use the "free market" label exclusively and I will list out some here, though debatably some are not of the utmost reliability similar to sources you provided: MichiganAdvance, Legal News, AEI, The Center Square, BridgeMI, and the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) also prominently describes MCPP as a "free market think tank..."

I think I will stop there for now.. Though there is much more supporting "free market" over "conservative" as a label for MCPP, regardless of "what they prefer" as an organization. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In my rewrite of the article's lede, I described the Mackinac Center as a conservative group, because a) that is generally understood to be the case among most followers of Michigan politics, b) their policies are, in fact, economically conservative, and c) they play an outsize role in the development of conservative policy in Michigan, and describing them as conservative makes that clearer to a reader. 42-BRT (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For another, they have historically associated with and been funded by many figures and organizations, notably the Koch Brothers, which are very widely considered to be conservative. 42-BRT (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"that it is generally understood to be the case among most followers of Michigan politics" https://michiganadvance.com/2024/07/18/mackinac-center-asks-name-to-be-pulled-from-project-2025/

The cited Michigan local source (news agency), referenced earlier in my list of sources, describes the Mackinac Center as a "free market think tank". Most sources do not categorically label the organization as "conservative." In fact, many of the references (which are "reliable sources") I provided adopt a more critical stance, yet they do not uniformly ascribe a conservative label to the organization. The assertion that "their policies are, in fact, economically conservative" raises questions regarding the basis for such classification. Simply stating that they should be referred to as conservative because they hold conservative views creates a circular argument. Your second and third points of discussion appear to paraphrase one another, so I'm going to leave it there. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not describe it as "economically conservative" or "fiscally conservative"? That's what "free market" means anyway. And the group isn't involved with and doesn't take stances on social issues. Marquardtika (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, if high quality sources are cited that use such phrases specifically to summarize the organization. Llll5032 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, there are quite a few-Detroit News, Times Union, MLive, Detroit Metro Times. The issue we're dealing with here is that the Mackinac Center has been described (and will presumably continue to be described) as quite a few different things by different media outlets (and the same media outlets have even described it in different ways!) So if you want to call it conservative, libertarian, free market, fiscally conservative, right-leaning etc., you can find reliable sources verifying that. And it's hard to get a measure of what the group is most often called (if there even is one descriptor that is used more often than others). You could always go the route of, "it has been variously described as XYZ different terms..." but that is cumbersome and unwieldy for the lede. Our job is to summarize the preponderance of reliable sources in a way that is helpful to the reader. So, not really sure where that leaves us. It's my gut that using "free market" or "fiscally conservative" in the lede and then fleshing that out in more detail in the body is closest to the mark. Marquardtika (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

To that end, "free market" is the most widely supported label by the broadest base of reliable sources as outlined in detail above, and then in the body the other minor mentions already are covered with the right WP:WEIGHT, and I would agree with @Marquardtika that "fiscally conservative" is likely that best second label in the body. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Again where do you see that? Your link above to NBC does not call them "free-market" directly and theguardian link also does not call them that but list others that use the self-appointed title. Your other links are also similar. They do not call them that as a statements just a title they picked from the group itself. Some of the references I posted do call them conservative directly. ContentEditman (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Marquardtika. I prefer "it has been variously described as XYZ different terms" when there is a variety in RS, which appears to be encouraged by WP:VOICE and WP:WEIGHT. Noting its preferred self-description along with the RS descriptions could also be due. Llll5032 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think per WP:Leadcruft, the lead as presently written, and which seems to have been roughly stable for quite a while, accurately best reflects how the WP:BESTSOURCES label this organization and as presently written we also do not introduce any WP:UNDUE or WP:FALSEBALANCE labels with outsize WP:WEIGHT. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

But the WP:BESTSOURCES descriptions are divided. So the NPOV policies (including WP:WEIGHT and WP:VOICE) say that Wikivoice must reflect that. Per WP:VOICE, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Llll5032 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I outlined in a very lengthy post above how there really isn't much if any "divided" state at present actually over the most frequent use of "free market" to describe this organization. "Free market" or "free-market" are used interchangeably, but those are the two most used labels and the only variation there is the hyphen. This is why I mentioned WP:BESTSOURCES, because they are not divided, but the fringe or lesser-known sources on the margins do seem to use a variety of lesser used labels. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on the arguments by you and ContentEditman, I have some agreements and disagreements about your opposing conclusions. I agree more with the assessment by Marquardtika that there is a variety of descriptions in reliable sources. Those sources can be cited faithfully in the article to assess the due weight. Llll5032 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you be specific with your disagreements with points I raised? I had specifically addressed each of the points at length, and then again. So it would be of some benefit I think to have them rebutted if my point-by-point review missed anything. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to make only short comments, so I prefer to move forward with appreciation for the evidence introduced by you and ContentEditman. In my opinion, the evidence should exclude marginal sources. Because there are some disputes about what the reliable sources say, footquotes in citations within the article may be helpful for verification. Llll5032 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I felt that the preceding ContentEditman long comment required an equal rebuttal of each false claim line-by-line with the sources directly measured as well against the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for reliability with several of them failing as fully deprecated or at least not reliable. Those that did pass as reliable still had issues which I articulated above at length above. Sorry, but I just do not feel the claim could have been properly addressed in a short comment. It seems to me that my earlier response has not been read, or sufficiently read then, and once that is done and responded to then we may be able to resolve this particular discussion hopefully. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It was read but you gloss over the ones that do call them conservative directly as a statement and then you list others that do not call them free-market directly, like the NBC one. Yet you tie them to that while dismissing others that also use general links to the conservative title. ContentEditman (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, you recently removed the Detroit Metro Times' footquote, which said in the RS's own words, "When references to the Mackinac Center crop up in Michigan's mainstream media, the nonprofit organization is consistently referred to as a "conservative, free-market think tank"." In my opinion, that footquote may be unusually DUE because the RS describes in its own words what other RS have said. When you wrote in your edit summary, "cut footquote not supported by consensus", were you referring only to your own argument that the source was published in 2000, or is there other evidence that a footquote for this source is "not supported by consensus"? Llll5032 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, "supported by consensus" implies that someone agrees with this footnote being added, after all, looking at WP:FOOTQUOTE it says, "In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article." Thus, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, it is up to you to first gain consensus for the addition of these varied footquotes and not the other way around. Please stop adding footquotes without first gaining consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I edited a sentence in the "Principles and positions" section so it now lists sources for each description of "fiscally conservative", "free market", and "conservative". Other reliable sources could be added to the current sources. Llll5032 (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neither If a person searches "Mackinac Center for Public Policy" online without qualifiers like "conservative or liberal," the first dozen are primary sources, of which state "free-market" when self-describing. Next comes State Policy Network quoting the primary source's self-description as free-market. And then we get into articles discussing the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, about 30 of them before I stopped scrolling Google, all of which describe Mackinac Center for Public Policy as, "A nonpartisan research and educational institute." Some go on to label them "free market" and none say "conservative." Why are we not describing them exactly this way in the lead? Anything else is just promoting some public relational image, and conservative is certainly WP:fringe. Penguino35 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can find a handful of sources to support their claims, but we must lean on WP:due and only voice the overwhelming standard for describing the MCPP. Penguino35 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I just looked and what reliable references are calling them free market? I see some using their wanted "self-describing" name. But most references looking at them and describing them by their nature and actions generally use conservative. ContentEditman (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, in addition to "free market". Editors are correct to note the varying descriptions by reliable sources. "Conservative" is probably the second most used description in RS, closely after "free market". Multiple reliable sources say so, as now shown in citations at the beginning of the Positions section. The policies WP:VOICE and WP:WEIGHT encourage multiple descriptions when reliable sources are divided about a description. Adding "conservative" to the descriptions already present in the first paragraph about the center's politics need not be wordy. An invisible note can point to the referenced count in the Positions section, and perhaps a few of the best refs can be added if editors ask for proof there. The lead can also note that the institute prefers to be called "free market". Llll5032 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate your attempt at neutrality here, and I don't completely disagree with the way you've chosen to display the information. However, I think it is more appropriate for this kind of nuanced, potentially polarizing, and complicated language to exist in the body of the article instead of the lead, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Happy to discuss further. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Penguino35 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Neither/No While the term "free market" is likely the most accurate term to describe the Mackinac Center as referenced in the Michigan Advance, Detroit News, Education Week, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, I fundamentally agree with @Penguino35 that many of these RSes also describe it as a “non-partisan research and educational institute.” It has also been referred to as “free market” by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Additionally, the terms “free market” or “non-partisan research and educational institute” would be considered ”nonjudgmental language” in compliance with WP:VOICE which requires us to ”Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone”. This would entail opting for a more WP:VOICE supported terms like “free market” or “non-partisan research and educational institute.” RE WP:LEAD, the lead should use the term that is most prevalent and widely accepted in reliable sources (WP:WEIGHT), and both "free market" or “non-partisan research and educational institute” meet this criterion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  All of the news organizations you cited have also called Mackinac "conservative" (per these footquotes in the Michigan Advance, Education Week, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, which sometimes combine "conservative" with other descriptions). The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs is an advocacy source and a member of the State Policy Network with the Mackinac Center, so it is not usable as an independent RS here. I favor adding any independent RS that call Mackinac "nonpartisan" to the list for comparison, with footquotes. Llll5032 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Washington Post article discussing Biden’s student loan forgiveness, does not explicitly call Mackinac a conservative group, it just says that “conservative groups” are targeting Biden’s program. Meanwhile, later in that same article, the only descriptor used for Mackinac is “free market.” “The free market think tank Mackinac Center is still in court challenging the administration’s numerous extensions of the pandemic-related pause on student loan payments.” Additionally, there is another Washington Post source that describes them as “nonpartisan.” It refers to Mackinac in the article as follows, “the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank that has championed school choice for more than a decade.” Furthermore, here is an EdWeek article that exclusively refers to Mackinac as being free market. “The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Midland, Mich.” I also found another piece written by Bridge Michigan that only calls them “free market.” “Senior director of fiscal policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland-based free market think tank, counters that state-level policymakers actually can influence a state economy.”

  Also, to address your point regarding the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, there is no evidence to indicate that they should not be considered “independent” for the purposes of assessing whether Mackinac is free market or not. If anything, this org has every incentive to call Mackinac conservative so as to align themselves as allies. In fact, if you look at their “About” page, they describe themselves as being “Oklahoma’s leading conservative think tank.” The fact that OCPA did not call Mackinac "conservative" only adds credence to my argument. Additionally, there are a lot of other RSes that also consider OCPA to be "conservative." For example, Oklahoma Voice calls OCPA "a conservative activist group". KFOR calls them, "a highly influential Oklahoma-based non-profit conservative think tank". Finally, Fox 25 calls them, "a conservative think tank" Gjb0zWxOb (talk)

I am adding the Washington Post reference from 2002 for "nonpartisan" per your comment. Thanks for noting it. I am also adding Bridge Michigan refs for both "free market" (per your comment) and "conservative" (also sometimes used). EdWeek and the Washington Post are already referenced for "free market" as well as "conservative". In the first Washington Post article you cited, the Mackinac Center is one of only two plaintiffs mentioned in the sentence directly after its introductory sentence about "conservative groups" opposing Biden's student loan forgiveness. If you desire less ambiguity about "conservative" from the same reliable source, consider another Washington Post article about student loans, stating directly "the conservative nonprofit Mackinac Center for Public Policy". Regarding advocacy sources like the Oklahoma Council, they are better omitted from the list instead of attempting to justify their use individually, no matter if they are pro-Mackinac or anti-Mackinac. WP:BESTSOURCES in the neutrality policy has the best guidance: "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Llll5032 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

References

I added three of the refs in my comment above to the list in the article. Probably we will need to bundle the multiple refs, perhaps when the RFC is done. Llll5032 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Because an editor recently decided to remove the evidentiary footquotes from the article, I am adding them here in context as RFC evidence for the use of "conservative" in reliable sources, alongside other common descriptions. This is the sentence that had the footquotes, with the quotations from RS displayed in the footnote list:

The organization has been variously described as free market, conservative, and fiscally conservative. Llll5032 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

References