Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Choppy talk page

Is it just me or is this a very difficult talk page to navigate?Capitalismojo (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the mess that IP 209 leaves behind, with new headers continuing existing threads, and no apparent wish to follow normal indenting practices. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet is right. I've politely asked 209.x several times to follow normal talk page protocols. What's started happening re his flush left posts is that others are beginning to ignore them, and just continuing the thread above them. He reverted the single attempt I made to correct the resulting loss of temporal context. I know that's his right, but since it made the thread harder to follow it just seems like he's being ornery simply because he can.

I'd thought of hauling him off to WQA, over the default flush left posts, over his changing of talk page headings and opening up new sections for topics already under discussion, where his evident taste for ridiculing others might be addressed, too, along with his habit of making broad unilateral changes to article sections while those sections are under very active discussion by other editors. It'd be simpler, though, and would involve much less dramah, if an admin could just have a quiet chat with him about his pointy behaviour. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have rules barring starting "new topics" nor even any "rules" about indenting. As for it being "pointy" - it does not really fit what is defined under WP:POINT so that argument is not strong. (As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she does not really agree with, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof.) What happens is, we can add colons, but that is about it. Unless you wish to claim at WQA that he is being "deliberately disruptive" which I do not see. I find folks who post walls of text (frequently repeating the same stuff) to be far worse a problem. (See User:Collect/Collect's Law) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect's Laws! That's great. The Murphy's Laws of Wikipedia. Thanks for that chuckle. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, thanks for starting this discussion - I was thinking of doing it myself. I have been mostly away from WP for a few months (for health reasons) but have tried to continue to keep up on articles that I have on my watch list, including this one. I wanted to join in on the discussion, but trying to read the talk page was so confusing that I kept putting it aside, never getting a clear idea of what was going on. So I'd say that if 209's goal is to keep new editors from joining into the discussion, he's been pretty successful. And of course, it is effing irritating too. After reading that several attempts had been made to get him to conform to the accepted manner of posting without success I decided to ignore his posts (as pointed out by OS above), though that's probably not the best way to go about trying to keep the talk page readable either. And then I wrote an edit summary referring to the irony of 209's "repugnant" concern over "elites" while he apparently considers himself an elite that need not follow the same rules as us ordinary folk - not a good solution either. What to do? Perhaps nothing. Hopefully this will resolve without further action as 209 seems to be unraveling as the discussion continues. Gandydancer (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

NewYorker "News desk"

The article is in the form of a blog, and looks like an op-ed column. Unless there is a specific note that it's subject to editorial review, we should assume it is a "column" of some sort, not usable for things which are obviously opinion, and questionable for "facts". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Today's news includes reliable news coming from URLs that contain the word "blog". You must consider the source, and our man Grafton is one of the finest. Grafton stands the facts up by himself. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That would read in American English, that Grafton makes the facts up by himself. Do you care to rephrase? Still, I would generally trust him for facts verified elsewhere where he reports where they came from, but not for interpretation or opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The facts to which Grafton lends his respected gravitas appear in many other reliable sources. We could use any of them, but Grafton is perfectly reliable, so I defend his presence as a named ref following the list of terms. The terms are verified by Schmidt. Grafton supplies further names and acronyms glossed over by Schmidt; he says the search terms include, "'Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell'—all people and issues involved in the recent struggles over public-service unions in the state." So, Grafton is a respected source, and the list is widely verifiable. I just cannot wrap my head around your resistance to this bit. Can you cut to the chase and tell me why you want the Grafton ref deleted? I would rather keep him in and include the acronyms that Schmidt alludes to. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Anthony Grafton is an academic historian of some note and gravitas. I have enjoyed his book reviews. He is not a staff writer for the New Yorker, however, and the "News Desk" section is a blog with multiple contributors. It is in fact in their blog section if I remember correctly. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We should recall that AHA, which Grafton was recently the President, took an active role in the controversy supporting Cronon. This places his writings at the New Yorker in context a bit. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The context is that AHA lent its very respected weight to a defense of Cronon in the media. You can't turn that around and say that AHA is partisan because they defended Cronon. They are historians of every stripe, among the best found in the US. They could have hung him out to dry, but they did not. Their opinion is a solid pillar underneath Cronon. The section of the New Yorker is a guest column subject of course to editorial invitation and decision making such as "will we run this piece". The New Yorker decided to run the piece and now we have a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Grafton is a respected source, and might meet WP:SPS. I could probably be convinced...except that he says controversial things about Cronon, as well as about the Wisconsin GOP (which doesn't identify a particular living person). Now, WP:BLPSPS requires sources for controversial statements about living people to be fully vetted. There is no evidence that his section is vetted by the New Yorker editorial staff. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I need hip waders to get through the swampy and waterlogged logic here. What about the New Yorker fits SPS? Nothing. Grafton's piece in the New Yorker is not self published. Nice try, though. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I like Grafton. I actually like his pieces in the New Yorker on the Cronan issue, good reading. They seem clearly to be opinion pieces as opposed to news accounts. My question is can we use opinion pieces for RS? If so, always or just sometimes? Capitalismojo (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clear we cannot use opinion pieces for WP:BLP facts; whether we can use it for other facts is unclear. I have been advocating that they cannot be used, except for the opinion of the author, or to indicate notability of a subject. I'm not sure of the consensus at WP:RSN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clear we can selectively quote facts supplied by Grafton, or opinions that are obviously the fruits of his personal analysis. The cite we are discussing supports a fact presented to Grafton's readers, not his opinion. He lists some of the search terms such as "AFSCME, WEAC" etc. These are not Grafton's personal opinion, they are straight facts. Grafton is an eminent historian; he is not tricking his readers with lies. The BLP concern you keep harping on is a red herring, a desperate ploy. There is no BLP problem here with this list of search terms asked for by the Wisconsin Republicans. Even if some politician did not like the search terms, we have WP:WELLKNOWN as our basis. Binksternet (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Facts such as the search terms for the open records request appear in other sources. The Wisconsin State Journal had a good account, I believe.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. It's in WSJ's sister paper the Capital Times (Madison's Progressive Voice). A decent news account with search terms and relevent details. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's highly probable that all sources are simply taking the search terms directly from the Republican records request letter, reproduced in its entirety, as text, in Cronon's blog. ( User your browser's in-window search function to find the phrase, "Remarkably, the request" to scroll to the right portion of that long blog. )

But remember that RSN always wants to know how a source is to be used, specifically. Will those who oppose the New Yorker source please explicitly say whether they doubt that everything Grafton says in the passage Binksternet quotes in his post of 21:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC) is 100% correct? If the answer is "no", then RSN would surely say that the source is reliable for the purpose intended. --OhioStandard (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Protests

In response to IP 209.x's most recent deletions, he should be aware, that the subjects of articles have to be notable, the contents about those subjects do not. Thus his objection above that the protests themselves might not be notable in themselves isn't relevant. I'd need to listen to it again, but if anyone has the time, my recollection was that the 19 April 2012 NPR program I documented in the "Additional public radio source" section, above, also spoke of protests, including (iirc?) one in Washington, D.C. Further, his calculations about the efficiency or lack thereof of online campaigns is interesting original research, but we all know that it can't be admitted, even if accurate.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well. That was rambling and nonsensical. Not notable because the protests were minor and had little effect, Not notable because they garnered scant coverage (note; I'm the only one who found an even marginally RS). Now, lack of coverage can mean any number of things, so yes, determining WHY required a little research, and yes, as stated, that ends up, due to non-notability due to irrelevance, requiring a little WP:OR, not to include in the article, but to confirm NON-NOTABLE , hard to do. Non notability confirmed, and shared on the Talk page where it belongs, not on article page. Improving the article by editing.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I see IP 209.x has now deleted the entire "Protests" section with the misleading edit summary, "WP:NOTABLE , WP:UNDUE , WP:RS marginal and WP:SELFSOURCE discusssion on Talk page for weeks, still no arguments yet that this meets any of the criteria". He should actually read the policy pages he links to, e.g. Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article on WP:NOTE. I've reverted this most recent deletion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is a possible reason for deletion, but I think it's OK. I've seen bigger protests on minor local issues, though. And one would need to check the references to see if (1) they are "columns", rather than "articles", and (2) whether the author was participating in the protests. If both occur, then the reference is not reliable for anything other than the author's opinion. If either, it's questionable whether it might be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Rochester Citizen is someones personal website and blog. 2 years ago, a activist announced he was starting a small local paper in far-suburban Detroit, and got a domain. The paper has failed and is there is no physical paper. The personal website has been retained, and the person basically publishes his blog. Not even close to a WP:RS. Time to delete unless there is a better source: it's been a month and I have been patient. Also, none of these pretty pathetic "Protests" that some editors want to post actually accomplished anything. The lack of coverage by REAL local media is because they believed a took a look at the low, uninformed turnout, and decided local car crashes were more important. Solid editorial decision. They have gotten more publicity from the inappropriate WP submission than on REAL secondary sources. The very definition of WP:UNDUE--209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I restored the above per WP:REFACTOR and removed what could be contrued as a BLP vio.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this. The site is powered by Bulletlink, a tool for self-published newspapers. Pretty cool, actually. Anyway, I see no statement on RC regarding editorial oversight or policy, and none of the usual legal stuff. This very well could be WP:SPS. I could not find anything indicating this paper has a "reputation for fact checking"--and that is a requisite of WP:RS. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The "paper" appears to be a "networked blog" by its own characterization, produced by 'Bruce Fealk". WLNS [1] identifies him as The group "Michigan Rising" organized the event. Its spokesperson, Bruce Fealk said many are also fired up about the state's emergency financial manager law. The posts therefore are not only SPS, they specifically make self-servimg comments abut "Michigan Rising" and thus are not RS by WP standards (SPS blog by one person is not RS, and where the writer is "part of the story" is not RS) Collect (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Announcement in MichiganLiberal.com that a wannabe activist is starting a newspaper in 2010 by bfealk ; also a Daily Kos tag by a self-styled activist who PROMOTES these, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:PROMOTION

http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/15938/announcement-the-rochester-citizen-launching-mid-january-2010

the "paper" has TWO employees. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Redacted material clearly indicates that the "Rochester Citizen" is a blog, and that its "address" is in a residential district, and is that of an individual otherwise associated with the paper. Under the circumstances, any material sourced to it should be deleted until a reliable source can be found. I'll check.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been done. Let's keep it that way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcewatch claims

It is a partial list. It also includes politicians who have been featured speakers or who have accepted awards at ALEC meetings.

Thus the "list" is not complete, and is not claimed to be accurate, there is no reason to postulate it is complete or accurate, as SW does not make such a claim, nor is "ties" defined by SW in any way. Making conclusions based on what is stated at the start to be a "partial list" is going well past what the source actually claims. There is also a teensy chance that SW is associated with "ALECexposed.org" and with "PRwatch.org", either or both of which might have a teensy POV problem about ALEC. Collect (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is a wiki. We can't use it for anything remotely related to BLP.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Corporations withdraw membership

Would this information be appropriate for the article?

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) (WMT) is the latest company to withdraw from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded public policy group under attack for pushing voter-ID and “Stand Your Ground” state laws.

About a dozen companies, including Coca-Cola Inc. (KO) (KO) and Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) (KFT), previously ended their membership in the group under pressure from ALEC opponents. [2] Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That information is appropriate to the article, but right-wing editors have removed all mention of the companies which have dropped their ALEC membership from the article. It's part of an ongoing effort by partisan right-wing editors to remove all of the negative content from this article. They are using Wikipedia to promote their right-wing political views. — goethean ॐ 15:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

How can it possibly be argued that this is "minor"?

On April 4, 2012 the political advocacy group Color of Change announced a call to boycott The Coca-Cola Company due to its support of ALEC and their advocacy work that allegedly encourages voter suppression through voter ID laws.[49] Within hours, Coca-Cola announced it was ending its relationship with ALEC in apparent response to the threatened boycott. Kraft Foods and Intuit dropped support for the group under apparent pressure.[50][51] Additionally, PepsiCo had quietly withdrawn its support of ALEC earlier in the year.[52] On April 9, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also withdrew their support for ALEC.[53] McDonald's severed ties with ALEC on April 10, 2012.[54] On April 12, Reed Elsevier dropped ALEC and Wendy's said that it had done so at the end of 2011.[55] Mars, Inc. has also dropped its memberships with ALEC.[56] On April 13, 2010, American Traffic Solutions announced that it would not renew membership with ALEC.[57] On April 17, Blue Cross Blue Shield announced that they would not renew its membership with ALEC.[58] On April 19 Yum! Brands, which operates Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, and other restaurants, announced that they had dropped their support of ALEC.[59] On April 20, Proctor and Gamble dropped their membership. [60] Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The list of companies severing relations with ALEC should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The list probably should be somewhere, but speculation (ours, or that of editorial writers) as to why they left / withdrew sponsorship should not. With that speculation removed, it more appropriate for the spun-out "List" article than for here. The list might not be significant if April was the normal month for reconfirming membership. I don't know whether that's the case. (I particularly like PepsiCo's withdrawal in response to, but before, the boycott request.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Arthur on this one. And since we have no corresponding list of an persons or companies joining ALEC, it is unclear that the list of those not renewing or ending membership has much import at all. Strangely enough, most organizations do not have perpetually static membership. Collect (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than speculate about the import, we could always simply elect to accurately convey the content of reliable sources, which is both the simplest approach and the one demanded by site policy. The recent exodus of corporate members seems to be important in the eyes of those reliable sources. For example:

• Los Angeles Times: "The American Legislative Exchange Council, known for its role-shaping controversial legislation, has been hemorrhaging members this spring. Major companies such as Coca Cola Co., McDonald’s Corp., Amazon.com Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and more have fled amid heavy activist pressure."
• International Business Times: Wal-Mart, of Bentonville, Ark., was the 22nd company to leave ALEC, which was targeted by liberal groups after the Feb. 26 death of Trayvon Martin,17, in Sanford, Fla... Others that previously opted out include Apple, the world's most valuable technology company; Procter & Gamble, the No. 1 consumer products maker and Coca-Cola, the biggest drinks maker."
• BusinessWeek: "About a dozen companies, including Coca-Cola Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc., previously ended their membership in the group under pressure from ALEC opponents."
• NPR: "Retail giant Wal-Mart became the latest, and possibly highest-profile corporation to drop its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council."

Reliable sources seem to indicate that ALEC is "hemorrhaging members" in the face of activist pressure. If anyone believes that this reliably sourced, relevant content does not belong in the article, I'd be curious to hear why. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"We could always simply elect to accurately convey the content of reliable sources"? Oh you poor naive child, don't you know we're playing Calvinball here?   ;-)  20:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer and/or Goethean, if you carefully review the sources and find that they state or very strongly imply that these corporations quit because of negative publicity about ALEC, or because of public protest actions demanding that they do so ( I haven't checked the sources, myself ) then please do restore the section to the article, along with the new Business Week source. That will put us at the "r" in bold-revert-discuss, and if the "discuss" doesn't work out, then there are other measures we can take to resolve the problem. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean any disrespect, but I find the objections almost laughable, especially the suggestion that since we don't have a list of corporations that have recently joined ALEC it would be improper "since we have no corresponding list of an persons or companies joining ALEC, it is unclear that the list of those not renewing or ending membership has much import at all". Also, Collect states, "most organizations do not have perpetually static membership". If true, that would really surprise me, assuming that we are speaking of similar giant corporations - could you please provide a ref for that statement Collect. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats at "knowing" that it is "laughable" that organizations in general do not have stagnant membership. "Membership retention" is a huge issue for many organizations - and I assure you that the problems exist on all levels. [3] see Journal of Association Leadership, and literally hundreds of other cites. [4] shows Citigroup activity in poly associations ranging from 3 to 9 associations. For some odd reason, companies reduce memberships in times of economic uncertainty, and increase memberships in boom times. Cheers - how many cites for organizations having variable memberships do you require to refute your assertion? Collect (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The information you provided has next to nothing to do with the question at hand. I read to page 6 of the first site and found nothing to apply to this article. I don't need to be a genius to know that volunteer organizations need to constantly look for new members and try to keep the ones they've got, and that members do drop out during hard economic times. Keep in mind that we're not talking about how much if any money Target is giving to the Boy Scouts in a certain year. Gandydancer (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Snark avails naught. Note that Citigroup is not a soccer mom. Collect (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we make an effort to focus on the content of reliable sources, and to reflect it accurately in the article? I listed a number of such sources above, so there's no need to go back and forth with off-topic discussion and personal viewpoints. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right MC. Sorry for going off-topic. Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer's version strikes me as a WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH violation, even if all the sources are accurately summarized. Even if we had reliable sources for each corporation withdrawing due to political pressure, it would be inappropriate to list all of the corporations.
Perhaps accurately summarizing the LA Times, Business Week and International Business Times articles would be sufficient. (NPR, being somewhat to the left of Marx; is questionable on matters of opinion, and doesn't add much in the way of facts.) Although, we really should consider carefully those otherwise reliable sources which inaccurately state that ALEC supported the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, rather than correct statement that they supported exporting the Florida law to other states. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, NPR's news operation enjoys an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the cited article is a news (not opinion) piece. That said, I agree with the thrust of your comment - namely, that we should summarize these reliable sources, and that it's unnecessary to list every company which has recently withdrawn from ALEC. It might be relevant to note one or two of the most prominent examples, as the sources do. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Headlines

I disagree with this edit summary. Headlines are part of an article, and they are no more or less reliable than the article as a whole. I don't see any support in policy for divorcing a headline from the accompanying article and declaring the headline "not RS".

I'm not going to revert pending further discussion here, but I think it's clear that the headline of a reliable source is reasonable for inclusion and no less reliable than the source as a whole. I'd be interested in others' ideas on the matter, and potentially bringing the issue to WP:RS/N if it remains controversial here, since declaring all headlines "not RS" would have far-reaching implications. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The argument is that the headline is not necessarily the reporter's, that it could be the editor's or the owner's. A headline that was written by anyone at the news agency should be included in our evaluation of the article as a reliable source. I don't understand how it could be that a person higher up in the organization is not as reliable. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, exactly. The newspaper stakes its credibility on the headline just as much, if not more, as on the body of the piece. So it doesn't make sense to argue that the headline is somehow less reliable; it's subject to the same editorial oversight (if not more) as the remainder of the article. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Headlines are used by some newspapers to grab the reader's attention. Unless the gist of the headline is clearly present in the accompanying article, the use of the headline to imply much at all is an arrant misuse of the source. Frinstance, the famed Daily News and NY Post headlines on a president "telling NY to drop dead" where the rhetoric implicit in the headline is not specifically indicative of the less "eye-grabbing" content of the news article. In a number of cases, the "headline" is actually belied by the article to which it was affixed. And you are the first editor I have ever seen who said that the headline is something the newspaper "stakes it credibility upon". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Daily News and New York Post are tabloids. BusinessWeek is not a tabloid. Tabloids have different, and lower, standards of reliability for both their headlines and their article content. Let's focus on the actual question at hand; it's not really helpful or relevant to compare apples and oranges. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Business Week" is not immune to the standards of seeking people reading articles - the headline is not held to the same standards as the body of the article, and the idea that they somehow stake their credibility on the content of the headline is ludicrous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Article headlines are not exempt from a newspaper's editorial standards, and I'm not sure what basis you have for claiming otherwise. Of course headlines reflect the credibility of a news source; in fact, the lurid headlines of tabloids like the Daily News and New York Post are emblematic of their unreliability as sources. Your own examples prove that point. Are there other objections or opinions? MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You made the claim The newspaper stakes its credibility on the headline just as much, if not more, as on the body of the piece to which I demurred. Thus I suggest you find another reason for insisting on using the headline for a claim rather than simply relying on the body of the article cited, which you would have no problems with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first article to have to deal with the issue of headlines. Here is one of several discussions on RS/N.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RS/N discussion from 2010. Money quote; No, headlines should not be used as reliable sources. That seems about right. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that discussion. I don't believe that determination was based on any policy, guideline, or best practice, but if I decide to take this further I'll bring it back to WP:RS/N. If I do so, I'll notify the editors of this talk page, and mention the previous discussion when I post to RS/N. MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

MastCell's approach seems reasonable. Are there any objections? Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

All I note is that he will post at RS/N. Nothing to agree with or disagree with on using noticeboards. Collect (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - I meant to post that below. Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced Cronon entry

Recent addition regarding Cronon is undue weight, and borders on a coatrack. Hillman Award is wholly off-topic.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't see why the Hillman award thing is in the article at all, but Cronon is quite relevant, since he seems to have undergone retaliatory intimidation by ALEC allies. AnonMoos (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The connection between Cronon, ALEC, and the subsequent attempts to obtain Cronon's email are covered extensively by independent, reliable sources, making some mention of the incident clearly appropriate (although it makes sense to limit coverage so that it doesn't overwhelm the entire article). In addition to the sources currently in the article (e.g. the New York Times opinion piece by Paul Krugman), sources include:

• Sulzberger, A.G. (March 26, 2011). "Wisconsin Professor's E-Mails Are Target of G.O.P. Records Request". New York Times. (News)
• Eaton, Sabrina (April 3, 2011). "Conservative group denies it masterminded drive to restrict public employee unions". Cleveland Plain Dealer. (News)
• Grafton, Anthony (March 28, 2011). "Wisconsin: The Cronon Affair". New Yorker. (News)
• Lederman, Doug (March 28, 2011). "Wisconsin Gets Weirder". Inside Higher Ed.
• "A Shabby Crusade in Wisconsin". New York Times. March 25, 2011. (Editorial)
• Fallows, James (March 25, 2011). "'Have You No Sense of Decency?' The Wm. Cronon Story". Atlantic Monthly. (Opinion)
• Shea, Christopher (March 28, 2011). "William Cronon vs. Wisconsin Republicans". Wall Street Journal.
• Leonard, Andrew (March 25, 2011). "Wisconsin's most dangerous professor". Salon.com.
• Scholtz, Gregory (March 28, 2011). "Letter to the Chancellor, University of Wisconsin" (PDF). American Association of University Professors.

Other general sources, not dealing specifically with Cronon but potentially useful for the article, include:

• Greenhouse, Steven (January 3, 2011). "Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions". New York Times.
• Peterka, Amanda (April 4, 2011). "Conservative Group Drafts, Promotes Anti-EPA Bills in State Legislatures". New York Times.
• Marshall, Christa (April 1, 2011). "State Legislatures Pile Onto Anti-EPA Climate Rule Effort". New York Times.
• Kirkpatrick, David (December 28, 2009). "Health Lobby Takes Fight to the States". New York Times.
• Lee, Jennifer (May 28, 2003). "Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming". New York Times.
• Herszenhorn, David (March 22, 2010). "Health Vote Is Done, but Partisan Debate Rages On". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The article, at present, is fairly poorly sourced and heavily reliant on primary sources directly affiliated with ALEC. In order to improve the article, I'd welcome and/or challenge its regular editors to update it by incorporating some or all of the above sources. (I've even formatted them for easy incorporation). If no one steps up, I'll probably return to work on it at some point. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes, Cronon did blog (and has interesting things to say about ALEC), but the FOI request was basically part of the crackdown on PUBLIC employees using STATE resources to do POLITICAL lobbying. The State Public Employees Unions were the primary parties to the fight, and use of Government facilities for politics or lobbying is illegal. The FOI did NOT go after his personal email or home computer. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cronon did not do any "lobbying" in the sense of seeking to influence legislators, etc. -- he merely published the results of his research. And many academic employees of universities often use their university e-mail accounts for personal e-mails, and this is often formally allowed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course he did, and he sent volumes of emails to legislators and activists lobbying against the budget cuts. Employees of private universities can do what they want, depending on university policy; employees of PUBLIC Universities are PUBLIC employees, and are subject to laws concerning PUBLIC employees. I know that may seem odd from the perspective of academic freedom, but it is pretty much a universal difference. Perfectly happy with the article stating that he wrote an opinion piece on ALEC, that he was accused of using public property for political purposes, and the columns gained notoriety, since they may have (unlike the volumes of email properly investigated) fallen into a grey area of lobbying law.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the point. There is a problem with the way this is written. The Controversy between the Professor (and State Employee) and the State of Wisconsin (his employer) is the major one. ALEC is tangentially related, basically, because his launch of an anti-ALEC website unrelated to his academic research (not sure if it is hosted by the State or not - will try to check) provoked the heavy-handed response. Again, it is a bit tangential, and while it may be OK to leave it as a "Controversy", should be limited to how ALEC was involved. Cronon's anti-ALEC content isn't really part of the controversy AS CONTENT; if it is cited in some other place discussing policy in a NPOV way, fine. Otherwise it is definitely WP:COATRACK--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I think the controversy and its relevance to ALEC are quite clear via the sources listed above. ALEC worked behind the scenes to aid Wisconsin Republicans' efforts to destroy public-employee unions; Cronon blogged about ALEC's involvement; and then the Republicans whom ALEC had collaborated with demanded Cronon's emails, in what many viewed as retaliatory intimidation and an infringement of academic freedom. That's in the sources, and it's not "tangentially" related to ALEC - ALEC is at the center of it. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The FOI request is the controversy. ALEC did not file the FOI request. ALEC's name came up as a resource for the bill, and the subject of the column. They still did not issue the FOI or have anything to do with it. That is called a tangetial involvement. I also find it a little hypocritical of editors to wail about application of Wisconsin's very sweeping open documents law when it clearly applies to someone you like(which is called transparency - to prevent Government secrecy, a bad thing) who is a public employee, but DEMAND open access to internal processes of a PRIVATE organization you don't like (which is NOT called transparency, but invasion of privacy)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've restored this section from the archive that IP 209.x set up w/o disclosure, discussion of parameters or anything else, or even an edit summary, in his talk page edit of 22:13, 25 May 2012. --OhioStandard (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I see now that Lionelt removed all mention of Cronon from the article in his sweeping revision of 05:11, 24 May 2012 UTC. He justified this with a ... let's call it "optimistic" edit summary, saying in part, "the Cronin thing has more to do with the GOP and little to do with ALEC--supported on talk". I've restored the section as the "R" step in WP:BRD, and will alert previous contributors to this talk page section who may not have it watchlisted of this sequence of events. --OhioStandard (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally backwards as usual as to WP process. This section concerns a dispute between a Government Union and the Legislature. Several State employees were found to have used State time, facilities, and email to lobby against the Legislature and for their Union, in violation of State Law and the Ethical Code of Conduct that they agreed to when accepting employment. The cases were established using Wisconsin Open Government statutes, basically a Freedom of Information request, and one of the State employees subject to these request was a historian who launched an advocacy/attack blog in the middle of the Union dispute. He claims the advocacy blog is a personal project done on his own time and using his own resources, and that his State email was not used for the unethical advocacy he was accused of. The FOI requests are still in dispute and no ruling has been issued.

There. The whole conflict explained, no major part left out, and no necessary mention of ALEC. You CAN mention ALEC, as the advocacy blog attacking the Legislature mentioned ALEC, but that is at best tangential.

WP:BRD assumes there is no pre-existing D, or discussion, which is obviously untrue. It is perfectly reasonable to take from the pre-existing discussion that the entry should NOT be there, since the Controversy is not relevant to ALEC, and there is no involvement of ALEC in the actual Controversy, the FOI requests. It is WP:UNDUE and may be WP:COATRACK . Lionelt's deletion is perfectly supportable by the discussion already Talk, as he mentioned. I also note that as usual, there is no actual logical argument in your objection, just a whine about "x" did this and "y" did that.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with 209; this had been discussed previously, and found not to be relevant to ALEC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I support my edit to delete the content. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a consensus to keep the content. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally compliant with WP process. MastCell and AnonMoos were strongly of the opinion that this is very relevant to ALEC, and at least ten reliable sources support that assertion. Lionelt's removal was a bold action, and now I've reverted it. Both the erroneous assertion that previous discussion found the Cronon affair to "not be relevant to ALEC" and IP 209.x's usual refrain of "coatrack" and "undue" whenever any content critical of ALEC is added seem to me to be nothing more than "I don't like it" objections.

Btw, 209.x, do you find it helpful when other people post by default at flush left? Do you find that facilitates effective discussion among multiple editors? Or do you just do so as a tactic to both disrupt the expression of ideas and opinions that differ from your own, and to give greater prominence to your own? And how do you find your habitually ridiculing tone (e.g. "just a whine about ...") serves you in your real-life relations with others? No doubt it facilitates collegial and collaborative working relationships, and richly rewarding personal ones?

I'm going to speak frankly here: My strong impression is that the consistent actions of IP 209.x, Arthur, and Lionelt have been strongly at odds with the goal of presenting a due weight article that accurately represents the reliable source material published about ALEC. Every fact that reflects badly on ALEC, regardless of how well supported, is removed or minimised to the maximum extent possible. The actions of these editors appear to be much more oriented toward ALEC advocacy than informing readers based on a due weight presentation of the facts that have been reported, in a NPOV manner. That needs to stop. They need to subordinate their personal political views to the goal of producing an unbiased encyclopaedia. If they continue their campaign to scrub well-supported content from this article on an "I don't like it" basis, they'll make it necessary to request discussion of their actions at this article from the broader community. --OhioStandard (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been looking for new references, but it's clear that the existing references do not support some of the statements made (both critical and supportive of ALEC), and that the Cronon material is only tangentially related to ALEC. Sources report that he was investigating a connection between the the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill and ALEC, possibly on state time and using state resources, and that the Republicans objected, and that the some reputable organizations (not including the union) supported him. We do not presently report that he found a connection, making the relationship to ALEC pure gossip, unless either Cronon or Krugman is a reliable expert source. References [59] and [60] cannot possibly be reliable except for Cronon's and Krugman's opinions, respectively. I'll so tag them while this discussion is proceeding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ohiostandard: you can threaten all you want but the community hates when an editor gets their ass beat in a content dispute and then runs to ANI with their organ in their hand looking for blocks. There are no personal attacks. No edit warring. Just your underwhelming attempts to form a consensus. You'll get run out of ANI faster than George Zimmerman at a Black Panther meeting. Correction: accusing others of agenda-driven editing is an ad hominem attack and a violation of WP:NPA. Watch it Ohio or you may be the one squirming at a noticeboard.– Lionel ^(talk) 13:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How does this kind of threatening response serve the Wiki? Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately, 209.6.69.227 and Arthur_Rubin seem to have a rather poor understanding of what it means to be to be a professor at a state university (where the rules are generally rather different from those that apply to a non-academic state employee paid an hourly salary at a 9-5 job). In any case, if many people (including notable commentators such as Krugman) think that Cronon suffered attempted retaliation and intimidation for daring to publish information about ALEC on his blog (back when ALEC was much more successful at avoiding the public spotlight than it is today), then there's a good probability that the resulting controversy is worthy of being mentioned on this article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the controversy is related to ALEC, and the sources connecting Cronon to ALEC are unreliable. References 59 and 60 are personal opinions of the respective persons, and references 61 and 62 don't mention ALEC.... Ref 61 makes it clear that they don't care what Cronon did. I have little doubt that some reliable source makes the connection, but it's a WP:BLP violation until we find it. (The BLP restriction is for "controversial" statements, not "unfavorable".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, some of the news articles connect ALEC to the controversy. It's still tangential, but not necessarily a BLP violation. I'll clear out the clearly unreliable sources, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I cleared out Cronon's blog URL, but the other sources are reliable. The connection to ALEC is firm. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Krugman is only reliable for his opinions. However, I found a better source for the first sentence. The connection to ALEC is now established by the sources, but it's still tangential to ALEC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I think you've been bamboozled re Cronon's blog. It's central to the section; it's under discussion in the section, and could reasonably be said to be the the subject of the section. It wasn't being cited in the section for factual information, but it can and should be referenced for information about itself, to give our readers the opportunity to see for themselves what's being discussed in the section. I've added it back as a ref immediately after the words "an entry"; again the ref isn't asserting anything there, except, indeed, the existence of the entry. This is a wholly appropriate use of a primary source document that has been the subject and the cause of so much secondary coverage. --OhioStandard (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If the dispute had its own article the blog would be linked, certainly. I did not see the need to link Cronon's blog here because we are not reporting on anything except the response to it. We are not analyzing it or using it to prove or disprove any of the responses to it. The link is not necessary to this article. And its absence is not important because just about all of the media sources link to it. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's only tangential if you focus on the fact that ALEC has not been observed to respond directly. However, it's central to the topic because Cronon criticized ALEC and advocated shedding more light on the group. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense only if Cronon was an expert on lobbying. He may be an expert, but we don't have sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cronon is not being used here for his expert opinion. He is being mentioned because of the outsized backlash against his expression of that opinion, because of the wide media response. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: I'm sorry, but that's a non sequitur -- Cronon was one of the first to stick his head above the parapet in publicly discussing the role of Alec, and has been widely and notably perceived to have suffered retribution as a result. In that particular context, it really doesn't matter whether Cronon was a professor of Old French poetry or a janitor -- it's the perceived cause and effect of retaliation which makes it relevant to this article. AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What AnonMoos said, and Binksternet. Concise, spot on, and AnonMoos' parapet visual and juxtaposition of the Old French poetry prof with a janitor, well that's just fine literature. Besides their excellent points, there are loads of reliable sources that connect Cronon's blog entry, ALEC, and the Republican FOIA response, so "tangential" is one of the last words that I think can be correctly applied here. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. As someone who lives in Madison, and is living through the drama of the recall election, I'd say the issues are these. The Republican Party of Wisconsin believed that state employees were using state resources for political purposes against the governor and legislators. This is an issue that has snared a number of legislators and staff over the last decade. It (govt employees illegally campaigning) is also the focus of the Milwaukee John Doe investigation. Cronan is a state employee. The issue was whether he was using state resources. They (RPW) used Open Records laws to inquire. Opponents of the Republican Party and Walker looked at this as an attack on academic freedom and pushed back aggressively. It was all very dramatic. It had diddly to do with ALEC. It had eerything to do with Act 10. The entire Cronan section should be deleted from this article.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you really do not seem to understand how things work at state universities (see message of 14:16, 27 May 2012 above). An academic can certainly get in trouble for some things (such as using the departmental secretaries to crank out partisan campaign literature, pretending to speak for the university when he does not speak for the university, etc.), but using University-issued computer resources to conduct research on public affairs issues and make public the results of such research is not generally one of them. I wonder if any of you (Capitalismojo, 209.6.69.227, Arthur_Rubin) has ever spent any time in a state university academic department during the e-mail age... AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) Capitalismojo's analysis that "it has diddly to do with ALEC" is a point of view, sure, and if he finds some RS that's willing to publish it then I'd be glad to cite that along with all the other RS that say precisely the opposite. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. ALEC was mentioned by on a blog attacking the governor and legislators. That is hardly unique. Let's turn this around perhaps we will understand my reasoning. Imagine a Republican government staff person (of impeccable credentials and stature) were to begin blogging about the sinister influence of the Tides foundation on Governor Cuomo and the NY legislature. Imagine the democrats in that state endeavor to determine if this person was illegally using taxpayer resources for campaign activity. That might be news worthy. It is certainly interesting. It would, however, be entirely peripheral to Tides. They were mentioned, that's all. The information belongs in an other article. That's what I mean when I say it has "diddly" to do with the organization article. Mere mention doesn't beget centrality. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute; you're not trying to be polite, are you? Please stop that at once: It's very confusing when compared to the tone of your presumptive co-politicists. ;-) I can summarise my personal response by asking you to click this very concise link, and by saying that I hope I'd have the intellectual honesty to uphold that even if the situation were reversed, as you suggest.

Your analogy does help me understand your objection, though, and I thank you for that. I wonder if you're aware that Cronon concluded that the Republican open records request was intended to intimidate him for shining unwanted light on ALEC, btw? One journal quoted him as saying, "The timing of Mr. Thompson’s [open records] request surely means that it is a response to my blog posting about the American Legislative Exchange Council..."

Cronon continues, "Mr. Thompson and the State Republican Party are hoping that I’ve been violating this policy so they can use my own emails to prove that I’m a liberal activist who is using my state email account to engage in illegal lobbying and efforts to influence elections," and says, "his open records request seems designed to give him what he hopes will be ammunition he can use to embarrass, undermine, and ultimately silence me."

What Cronon concludes about the motive for the records request doesn't matter much, for our purposes, of course. I know I won't be telling you anything new, either, when I say that what matters is that a lot of very reliable sources agree with his overall conclusion. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalismojo -- Since you seem to know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the rather different rules which generally apply to academics vs. 9-5 government employees on an hourly salary, it would really be better for you to avoid making dogmatic pronouncements or constructing lame and pointless analogies, since you only end up revealing your relative ignorance of the subject, without doing much to advance conversations about article improvement. To put it in the simplest and most basic terms, there's absolutely no evidence that Cronon is in trouble with his university higher-ups (who in fact seem to be more pissed at the FOIA requestors than at Cronon). AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Moos, thanks for the assertion that I know absolutely nothing about government employees in Wisconsin, and the rules under which they operate. It was quite clever of you to suggest that. Actually, I have been a state employee in Wisconsin. I am thoroughly conversant in the Open Records laws in Wisconsin and the rules which govern state employees here. While not a lawyer, I am not infrequently asked by friends and family to help them with Open Record requests in Madison. I have made many successful (and non-controversial) Open Records requests of state agencies including the university. Your absurd ad hominem attack on me is inappropriate and truly uncivil. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, who cares whether Cronan is in trouble with the University. I never brought anything up about that. This article is supposed to be about ALEC not about some typical professor who got chewed on politically in the recall mess. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the FOI requests were the same as for the FOIs filed against every other State employee that gave cause to suspect unethical and illegal use of State property time and facilities for Political action. Except for the conspiracy theories, whether from liberal bloggers, columnists, or Wikipedia editors, the only connection with ALEC is that he mentioned ALEC in his Advocacy blog. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A State employee is a State employee is a State employee. Compensation must be public, no use of facilities for Political action, every sunshine law governs every State employee. The ONLY complication in a State University, such as UW, is that there is a protected class, namely non-employee students. Unless you are alleging that Cronon is publishing as a non-employee student, there are no different rules. The only leeway the U of W has is to redact communications with STUDENTS, that relate to the student-professor relationship only. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you can repeat it over and over until you turn blue in the face, but that won't make it true. The exposure to FOIA requests seems to be pretty much the same for academic and non-academic employees, but most everything related to expected use of employer-provided computer resources is almost completely different, and when you guys blather on and on about "unethical and illegal use of State property time and facilities" (and similar high-faulutin' rhetoric which has no relationship to reality), then you're pretty much doing nothing other than revealing your personal ignorance. AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement "The only leeway the U of W has to redact ..." is incorrect: To cite just one exclusion of several, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Schill, et al. v. Wisconsin Rapids School District, et al., Case No. 2008AP967-AC (July 16, 2010), allows the university to withhold e-mails containing purely personal communications that don't relate to Cronon’s employment as a faculty member or to the official conduct of university business, even though they were sent or received on university e-mail and/or computer systems. All this really is pretty far off topic, though. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Utter failure to understand the Schill decision. Schill re-establishes that personal emails made using a State email system ARE defined as public records and subject to open government legislation, legitimate objects of a FOI. They are just not AUTOMATICALLY subject to release, and there is a very strict and limited definition of "purely personal" emails, which excludes anything regarding political activity. The State agency has to appoint a records custodian if they intend to withhold from release any emails, which the University would have to do anyway, since purely student-related emails must be excluded. If the requesting party objects to the emails released due to a suspicion that there was failure to release, the records custodian's actions are subject to judicial review, a "da camera" action. Presently, the University released as per law a SELECTION of Cronon's emails, the requesting parties are not satisfied, as there were a small number released, and are filing further motions. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in camera you mean, my truculent friend; "da camera" is what you use to take "da picture". --OhioStandard (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, AnonMoos, my comment to Cap about "the tone of your presumptive co-politicists" could be sailing back my way, if you keep that up. I understand your frustration; I also know from experience that the rules are quite different for academia than in any other kind of work environment. Still, there's really no percentage in the harsh language. I think we're all drifting pretty close to NOTFORUM territory, anyway... So, I wanted to ask, can anyone access this:

• Schmidt, Peter (3 October 2011). "Groups investigating e-mails of professors in Michigan and Wisconsin produce no evidence of wrongdoing". The Chronicle of Higher Education. (Subscription required)

I have database access to the journal, but there's no 3 October 2011 volume, just one for the preceding day. This article isn't in it, and searching all volumes doesn't get it, either. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've come close to losing my cool, but I find the situation of being told repeatedly things which are almost certainly not true by people who seem to know much less about one particular very relevant fact than I do to be most distinctly annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like the usual, day-to-day experience of editing Wikipedia? ;-) This place is exasperating, and I think all of us who edit any contentious articles probably have a bit of a love-hate relationship with it. I certainly do; I find I need to take breaks of a couple of weeks every few months to keep any of the fun in it. We have a "tea house" for new editors; we really should have the equivalent of a dive bar for experienced ones who need a few shots and the opportunity to break some glass and furniture without anyone taking it very seriously or calling the police. I'd drop in a couple times a week, myself. --OhioStandard (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat where this was left last time "I also find it a little hypocritical of editors to wail about application of Wisconsin's very sweeping open documents law when it clearly applies to someone you like (which is called transparency - to prevent Government secrecy, a bad thing) who is a public employee, but DEMAND open access to internal processes of a PRIVATE organization you don't like (which is NOT called transparency, but invasion of privacy)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cronon's credentials

I would invite additional scrutiny of this deletion and this partial reversion. Please scroll down in both diffs to see the full picture, which includes the deletion and restoration of previous compromise language as to how much we'd say about the key words the Republicans targeted in their request for Cronon's e-mails.

I haven't restored the part referring to Cronon as "a Rhodes Scholar and MacArthur Fellow historian" as opposed to simply "a historian" because I'd like to hear comments here, first. But the man isn't just "a historian", he's clearly an eminent historian, then incoming president of the American Historical Society, gave up a post at Yale to come to the Univ. of Wisconsin, & etc.

This is relevant to our readers' understanding of the section, both simply because he's so nearly the subject of it, and because his initial blog post that ignited the controversy was, in fact, the product of his research as a historian. We're not citing it for that purpose in the section, of course, but our readers should be informed that Cronon isn't just some adjunct slogging away in academic obscurity. They get an incomplete and skewed picture of the situation, without that knowledge, as I see it. Comments? --OhioStandard (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope - there is a clear bluelink to his BLP, so readers should know he is "notable" and how to get information about him. sorry OS - that is how Wikipedia works. Collect (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that one of our fellows couldn't wait for consensus about how to present the matter of the keywords used to search Cronon's e-mail account, nor live with the previously-existing compromise language about how to present that. The search of Cronon's e-mail, btw, comprised both outgoing and incoming messages, a fact I've documented in this response to the previous undiscussed change.

Again, comments on this keyword thing are welcome, but I'm more interested in hearing from others on the value of a nod to Cronon's credentials since, as a chap from the American Association of University Professors said, Cronon is an "extremely major" player in his field. (The fellow must not have been an English professor.) The AAUP secretary also added, "they picked on the wrong guy this time", referring to the weight of Cronon's reputation in the context of the request. --OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I used the language used in the source. And "email" generally is understood by Internet users to include bothe "incoming" and "outgoing" email - so why make that distinction? As for assertion of "compromise language" I suggest that no such consensus existed or exists, making your claim fatuous. And I would note "extremely major" is an opinion at best - not a "fact" independently found. Wikipedia prefers facts to opinions as a rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the OS wording re "keywords" is better than the previous wording. However I tend to agree with Collect re the "a Rhodes Scholar and MacArthur Fellow historian" as opposed to simply "a historian" wording. When I see that a name is linked to an article I know that this person is recognized for his/her work, and furthermore I believe that most articles go by that practice (though I sure could be wrong there...) Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gandydancer, for both opinions. My wish to include some mention of the man's credentials stems from my surprise when I first looked at the sources: I'd thought he was just another associate prof or whatever at just another state university. I didn't actually click on the link to the article about him until a short while ago, where I see one of our friends from this article has also been busy removing key words used to search Cronon's e-mail. I do see your point, though, re his credentials, and can certainly accept leaving them out, too. --OhioStandard (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

RE the Cronon article, IMO he did a lot of good and necessary edits but I believe that some of his edits need to be balanced out as well. For instance, I can't imagine why he would delete the fact that he is a noted historian when the reference clearly states that to be factual. Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Um -- every subject of a Wikipedia is supposed to be "notable" - for him to not be notable would mean he does not merit an article. See WP:Notability (people). Collect (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Um -- no Collect, you read it. There is a difference in being notable enough to be in WP and being notable in the world at large. Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The only credential relevant to the Controversy would be "State employee", and the FOI requests targeted several State employees who had given reason to believe they were using State facilities and resources for lobbying. Still a conflict between State government and its employees, marginal WP:COATRACK to ALEC, and a degree does not change that. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

and Union Member - specifically the American Federation of Teachers which represents U Wisconsin Professors and is a party to the Controversy, which is between the State and the State workers. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Credentials are irrelevant. Multiple State employees were found to have been using State email or State facilities, or abusing sick leave to get involved in a political issue that they and their Union had with the Legislature. The FOIs were issued to combat a problem of corruption among State employees, and many resulted in disciplinary action. Bringing up the fact that THIS State employee is different because he has a degree, or a title, or a position, or friends who are part of an elite is repugnant. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you have no understanding of the rules governing e-mail use by academics at state universities, you only end up embarrassing yourself by making dogmatic pronouncements which do not correspond to the facts. AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bringing up the fact that THIS State employee is different because he has a degree, or a title, or a position, or friends who are part of an elite is repugnant. Oh brother... Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Cronon may not be better than anybody else because he has a Ph.D., but the nature of his employment means that rhetoric about "misusing State facilities and resources" is almost completely nonsensical when applied to him. AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have wasted enough time re-researching the obvious for people who won't look up anything that contradicts their bias. If Cronon is not subject to Wisconsin's Public Records Law, why does the publicly disseminated U of W internet policy, which every employee has to sign a disclaimer as having read, specifically state "* The electronic records of university employees are subject to disclosure in accordance with the Wisconsin Public Records Law. Student records, including electronic documents, are protected against disclosure by the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which restricts access to personally identifiable information from students' education records." and "Chapter 11, Wisconsin statues, restricts the use of state facilities for political activities by state employees." http://www.wisconsin.edu/cert/publicat/itpolicy.htm . Please argue for the rescinding of State of WI public employee laws with the appropriate authorities. Oh, just in case it is not obvious; the appropriate forum is NOT Wikipedia. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The main immediate issue is actually your "corruption" and "misusing State facilities and resources" rhetoric, which is far more obfuscatory than enlightening as applied to Cronon... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Color of Change: What kind of (advocacy) group is it?

As of 09:55, 3 June 2012 our article states...

"On December 8, 2011, the racial advocacy group founded by Van Jones, Color of Change, announced a call to boycott ALEC corporate members for their alleged support of voter ID laws."

The only sources I could find for "racial" are American Renaissance, NewsBusters, Big Hollywood, and the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Source breakdown

In the interest of fairness I have included a few sources that might not satisfy WP:RS (or would require an in text attribution in the least). Sources using "Racial" "Unfortunately, America already resembles that ideal world envisioned by ColorofChange, though Buchanan and his followers have shown some signs of fighting back against black and Hispanic racial advocacy." —Daugherty, Jason (January 10, 2012). [http://amren.com/opinion/2012/01/msnbc-suspends-buchanan/ "MSNBC Caves in to Pro-Black Group, Suspends Buchanan"]. American Renaissance. New Century Foundation. Retrieved June 3, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) "The czar in question is Van Jones, a founding board member of Color of Change, an extremist racial grievance group that tries to stir up racial antagonism in order to promote a socialist agenda." —Vadum, Matthew (August 12, 2009). "Race-Baiting Group Hitting TV's Glenn Beck Was Founded By Obama's Communist Green Jobs Czar". NewsBusters. Media Research Center. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Color of Change is a Racial Indignation Machine founded by 9/11 truther and confessed Marxist Van Jones, who's probably most infamous for being President Obama's Green Jobs Czar before being forced out of that position after a number of very disturbing revelations about his racially divisive, radical past were broadcast at BreitbartTV and elsewhere." —Nolte, John (May 06, 2011). "Van Jones' Color Of Change Targets Trump; Demands Racial Loyalty from Black 'Apprentice' Stars". Big Hollywood. Breitbart.com. Retrieved June 3, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "Coca-Cola severed ties with ALEC earlier this month at the demand of the radical racial pressure group Color of Change." —"Coca-Cola Doubles-Down on Becoming Target of Special Interests, Endures Bitter Taste of Its Folly" (Press release). National Center for Public Policy Research. April 25, 2012. Retrieved June 3, 2012. Sources using "Black" "There was yet another sign of racial disharmony in the Democratic Party today, as the leader of the influential black online advocacy group ColorOfChange.org lashed out at Hillary Clinton, calling her claim to owning the white, blue-collar vote 'race baiting.'" —Fears, Darryl (May 9, 2008). "ColorOfChange Leader Accuses Clinton of 'Race Baiting'". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "The companies began dropping their memberships after the black advocacy group Color of Change launched an online campaign calling on Coca-Cola to end its support." —Bravender, Rob (April 5, 2012). "ALEC support wanes: Kraft abandons conservative group". Politico. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "A black advocacy group called Color of Change pointed to the different treatment handed out to Marman, who is black, and Armstrong, who is white, and said it was a clear instance of race discrimination." —Gumbel, Andrew (September 30, 2011). "Actor Leisha Hailey thrown off flight for kissing girlfriend Camila Grey". The Guardian. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "The campaign is organized by Color of Change, a black advocacy group that has highlighted Fox's use of racial stereotypes before." —Edwards, Jim (August 12, 2009). "Geico, Others Join Ad Boycott of Fox's Beck Over 'Obama Is Racist' Remarks". CBS News. Retrieved June 3, 2012. Sources using "African American" "African American political advocacy group Color Of Change has called for MSNBC to fire longtime analyst (and even longer-time lightning rod) Pat Buchanan for what it called his 'white supremacist ideology.'" —Shapiro, Rebecca (October 25, 2011). "Color Of Change Urges MSNBC To Fire Pat Buchanan". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Color of Change, an African-American advocacy group, successfully pressured at least six major corporations, including Coca-Cola Co. and McDonald's Corp., to drop their support of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative nonprofit that has promoted laws modeled on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law." —Lorber, Janie (April 17, 2012). "Organizations Use Trayvon Martin Case to Lobby for Racial Profiling Legislation". Roll Call. Economist Group. Retrieved June 3, 2012. Sources using "Civil-rights" "Civil rights group ColorOfChange.org is launching a campaign calling for corporations to stop funding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)." —"Civil Rights Group Launches Campaign Urging Corporations to Stop Bankrolling ALEC and its Role in Voter Suppression" (Press release). ColorOfChange.org. December 8, 2011. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "ColorofChange.org, a civil rights group, discovered in ALEC’s now-public library a model bill for voter ID laws passed by 34 states." —Greeley, Brendan (May 03, 2012). "ALEC's Secrets Revealed; Corporations Flee". Businessweek. Bloomberg. Retrieved June 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "A civil-rights advocacy group, ColorOfChange, has been pressuring corporations nationwide through online petitions to drop ties to ALEC and is claiming success, though those that leave have not attributed the departures to ALEC's political leanings." —Kam, Dara (April 10, 2012). "Major corporations drop support of 'stand your ground' group". The Seattle Times. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Coca-Cola and other member companies in ALEC were targeted last year by the civil rights group ColorOfChange for their support of the organization, which also is behind what ColorOfChange Executive Director Rashad Robinson calls "voter suppression laws" in many states." —Liston, Barbara (April 05, 2012). "Coke withdraws from advocacy group that backs gun laws". Chicago Tribune. Reuters. Retrieved June 3, 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "Coca-Cola's announcement came hours after a civil rights group, ColorOfChange.org, launched an online drive calling on Coca-Cola to stop underwriting the ALEC agenda on voter ID laws in several states." —Overby, Peter (April 05, 2012). "Boycotts Hitting Group Behind 'Stand Your Ground'". NPR. Retrieved June 3, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "Rashad Robinson, director of ColorofChange.org, a civil rights organization in the coalition, says they are trying to put ALEC's corporate members on the spot." —Overby, Peter (April 13, 2012). "Companies Flee Group Behind 'Stand Your Ground'". NPR. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Stephanie Brown, national field director of the NAACP's Youth and College Division; Jasmyne Cannick, a social commentator and community organizer; and James Rucker, co-founder and executive director of the online civil rights group ColorOfChange.org, talk with Michel Martin about the NAACP and what the civil rights movement looks like today." —"NAACP Marks 100 Years". Tell Me More. NPR. February 12, 2009. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "The companies' actions came after a civil rights group, ColorOfChange, spotlighted the firms' ties to ALEC." —Schouten, Fredreka; Moore, Martha (April 13, 2012). "Corporations under pressure on political spending". USA Today. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Several of those companies have since cut ties with the organization in recent weeks. ColorOfChange, an online civil rights group, led much of the charge." —Olorunnipa, Toluse; Bolstad, Erika (April 17, 2012). "Influential national group halts push for Stand Your Ground laws". Miami Herald. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "...said James Rucker, co-founder of ColorofChange.org, an online civil rights group that he said has an e-mail list of 800,000." —Thompson, Krissah (December 28, 2010). "Civil rights activists jump online". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Other organizations, like the civil rights group Color of Change, continue to pressure the corporate backers behind ALEC, which stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council." —Condon, Stephanie (April 20, 2012). "Liberals keep up the pressure on ALEC". CBS News. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "In recent weeks, companies that have supported the state legislative group — many of them listed on the ALEC Web site — found themselves in the glare of a national protest organized by the government watchdog Common Cause, the civil rights organization Color of Change and other groups." —Hamburger, Tom (April 12, 2012). "Trayvon Martin shooting spurs protests against companies with ties to legislative group". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "The companies have come under fire from protests put together by groups including Common Cause and the civil rights group Color of Change." —Reske, Henry (April 13, 2012). "Stand Your Ground Legislative Group Loses Corporate Support". Newsmax. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Thanks to a campaign by civil rights group Color of Change, several companies cut ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council in recent weeks." —Trinko, Katrina (April 20, 2012). "Cherry Picking Whom to Offend". National Review Online. Retrieved June 3, 2012. "Civil-rights group Color of Change helped lead public campaigns against ALEC and its affiliated companies for its support of such laws." —Rapoport, Abby (April 17, 2012). "ALEC Gives In, But There's No Reason to Celebrate". The American Prospect. Retrieved June 3, 2012.

Given the sources I'm inclined to revert Mr. Rubin's revert (with all due respect). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The better sources gravitate to "civil rights" and so should we. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

Ignoring NPR, as a group which considers racial discrimination against "white" males as a civil rights goal, and the few organizations which seem to consider reintroducing slavery as an civil rights goal, the weight of evidence is in favor of Black or African-American advocacy. As we cannot choose between them, "racial" seems a better choice. However, just calling it an "advocacy group", and ignoring its founder entirely, seems a reasonable compromise. Note that Van Jones is clearly a kook, and adding his name detracts from the credibility of the group, but it really doesn't seem appropriate, unless there is evidence that Van Jones, personally, is behind the campaign.

Although this is not a formal argument, the Wikipedia article Color of Change says its goal is to "strengthen the political voice of black America". Looks racial to me. No one there calls it a "civil rights" organization. I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but the material appears adequately sourced.

You seem to be concentrating on what sources discussing the ALEC campaign call it. That's inappropriate. We should concentrate on what all reliable sources call it, whether or not related to ALEC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

1. "Ignoring NPR, as a group which considers racial discrimination against "white" males as a civil rights goal, and the few organizations which seem to consider reintroducing slavery as an civil rights goal, the weight of evidence is in favor of Black or African-American advocacy."

• Unless you have some beryllium plated sources for your NPR comment, I'd suggest you strike that bit.
• Even if we discount NPR and toss the racists; weight still favors "Civil rights".

2. "...the Wikipedia article Color of Change says its goal is to 'strengthen the political voice of black America'. Looks racial to me."

• Without sources to the contrary the group can speak for themselves...

  ColorOfChange.org is strengthening Black America's political voice. Using the Internet, we keep our members informed and give them ways to act on pressing issues facing Black people in America. We are united behind a simple, powerful pledge: we will do all we can to make sure all Americans are represented, served and protected — regardless of race or class. —"Our Mission". ColorOfChange.org.

3. "You seem to be concentrating on what sources discussing the ALEC campaign call it. That's inappropriate. We should concentrate on what all reliable sources call it, whether or not related to ALEC."

• I did not focus my searches on ALEC related sources and believe I gathered the information in good faith. I welcome more sources.

—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That swipe at NPR was uncalled-for, A.R. It weakens your leverage here. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As does this statement, "Van Jones is clearly a kook". Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the articles which call it a "civil rights organization", we would have to consider whether they would also call it "racial advocacy organization". And I stand by my comments about NPR; if it is a "racial advocacy" organization against whites, they would (also) call it "civil rights". I can probably find a source at NPR for that statement; but we couldn't use it in the article.

I shouldn't have called Van Jones a kook; whether or not he is, his name shouldn't be in this article. It doesn't provide context. For that matter, neither does the nature of the advocacy which Color of Change supports, except in providing context as to the Martin case. Calling it "civil rights" would not provide context there; if accurate, calling it "racial advocacy" would. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that Arthur's recent edit is the way to go; simply describe Color of Change as an "advocacy group" and be done with it. The phrase "racial advocacy group" makes no sense to me, as a reader unfamiliar with Color of Change - what is "racial advocacy" supposed to mean? And the obsession with mentioning Van Jones (by other editors, not Arthur) is your basic dog-whistle coatracking, and better omitted as well. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I can support "advocacy group". Good solution Arthur, thanks. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

2 week block for whomever is blowing the dog whistle. Wait. Was it me? Err... nevermind. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)