Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Op-eds

I can see it as "claimed", but "wrote in (publication)" implies the publication gives it credibility. "Opined" might be acceptable. Having the publication in the text is not. I don't see it as helpful, but it's not a WP:BLP violation if written the way I now did:

---

Walter Mondale, former Democratic Vice President of the United States, and Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota, claimed in 2012 that:

"[ALEC] is the creation of the Koch brothers... The goal of ALEC is to influence legislators across the nation.< ref>Mondale, Walter and Carlson, Arne (June 20, 2012). "Walter Mondale, Arne Carlson: Reject voter ID measure". Star Tribune. Retrieved June 21, 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>

John Nichols, claimed that the Koch brothers have provided funding to ALEC for "decades".< ref name="Nichols">Nichols, John. December 9, 2011. The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy The Nation. Accessed: 22 June 2012.</ref>

---

It also shouldn't be the "History" section, but in a separate commentary section, if it should appear as all. I suppose those are notable opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the policy statement WP:SAY. It says "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms." It also says that "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." To me, saying that someone "wrote" something doesn't meant that we agree or disagree with it. It just means that they wrote it. However, I would suggest to delete the name of the publication that they wrote something in. That seems roughly irrelevant. If someone wants to find the publication, the citation should give them that. –BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Refinement of my comment: Mondale and Carlson are sufficiently notable that it seems unnecessary and cluttering (and perhaps subtly POV) to talk about where they published their remarks. On the other hand, Nichols seems notable primarily for being a writer for The Nation, and that publication is well known. So in that case I think it makes more sense to say that it was an article published by The Nation than that it was an article written by John Nichols (since few readers would know who he is, and the article doesn't clarify who he is). –BarrelProof (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The publication is irrelevant; who said it may be relevant, even if the information is at all notable, and "claimed" is accurate, while "said" or "wrote" is not. I would accept "opined", but your edit reintroduces a clear WP:BLP violation. (Added) If Nichols is notable, he should be credited. If not, the reference is not suitable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How would any of this be a WP:BLP violation? –BarrelProof (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest it is better to itemize the situation of the statement. There is a clear difference between an open mike, off the cuff, accidental remark where a true opinion leaks out and a carefully written piece for publication in a daily, big city newspaper. Both would be relevant, but the context needs to be understood. If there is clear mis-representative hyperbole in their statement, it is probably better to correct that than to let it stand in one article. We can't expect people will follow the links and sources to further their knowledge, so the information we put in an article should clearly stand on its own. Trackinfo (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I cannot see any BLP violation here. I see instead your editing against WP:SAY, to diminish the opinions of well-known journalists and the ex-VP. I took out the problematic word "claimed". Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Your version states that the Kochs did found ALEC, which is not reliably sourced, and is a clear WP:BLP violation, unless we make it clear it's the writers' unreviewed opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the Kochs founding and funding ALEC is important. I've never seen the claim that they founded ALEC made anywhere else. In many other sources, including many left-leaning sources, Paul Weyrich is cited as the founder of ALEC. An example is here [1]. Perhaps the Kochs provided initial funding for ALEC, but making that assertion would require a source. And it would be a different claim than stating that the Kochs founded ALEC.Safehaven86 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul Weyrich did not create ALEC, nor did the Koch brothers. The sources that say so are not well supported by historical facts. The strongest story of ALEC's origin is the one that begins with Mark Rhoads in Illinois—it has excellent sourcing and is verifiable in detail. Those who say Weyrich created ALEC never provide any detail such as when he filed papers or what date he first called a meeting. Similarly, Mondale does not supply this kind of detail regarding the Koch family supposedly creating ALEC. However, we can apply WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in telling the reader that other notable people have published creation stories for ALEC.

Arthur Rubin, you have no foundation for a BLP violation assertion. Nobody in this political sphere is unwillingly pulled into the limelight. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Statements of "facts" about living people, from an unreliable source, are a WP:BLP violation, regardless of whether they would be considered libel. That the person is voluntarily "in the limelight" is irrelevant to WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to read WP:BLP more fully, especially the section about WP:WELLKNOWN people. I also invite you to read WP:RS again and tell me what periodicals you consider unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why, if we have already disproved claims made in this opinion piece, that this piece is worthy of inclusion at all. Why does someone's factually inaccurate opinion about an organization belong on that organizations' page? It does not seem relevant. I agree that it is a WP:BLP violation: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." It seems there is one source so far in the article that makes the claim that the Kochs founded ALEC. Unless that claim can be bolstered with other references, I say leave it out.Safehaven86 (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, the version of the article, after I edited it, did not say that the Koch's founded ALEC. It quoted what Walter Mondale and Arne Carlson wrote and what The Nation wrote, but it did not say that it was a fact that the Koch's founded ALEC. (Are there any WP:RS reliable sources that say that the Koch's had nothing to do with ALEC? I really don't understand the fuss here. The quotes are sourced.) –BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In including a quote that says ALEC was founded by the Kochs, there is an implication that there is a consensus that such a quote merits inclusion in the article. If there are no reliable sources that say the Kochs founded ALEC, why would this piece, which asserts a fact that cannot be verified by any reliable sources, be included? If we include it, we're lending undue weight to someone's factually inaccurate opinion. And Mondale/Carlson wrote that the Kochs founded ALEC; Nichols wrote that the Kochs funded ALEC. Two different topics. In any case, these quotes don't belong in the history section. Perhaps there should be a new section called "theories about ALEC's origin." Safehaven86 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding BLP, the guideline is meant to shield living people from poorly sourced and wrong information. The information we have is well sourced, published in a well-respected magazine and an established city newspaper. The people being quoted are public figures, as are the people being discussed in the quotes. Though there may be inaccuracies made by Mondale, Carlson and Nichols, we cannot be wrong if we say "Mondale and Carlson wrote" or "Nichols wrote". It is a fact that these people wrote what they wrote. The only guideline relevant at this point is WP:UNDUE regarding how much, if any, importance we give to this stuff, and where we put it. I agree that it may be useful to make a section for unproven assertions about ALEC's origins. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand a bit better what is going on now. Actually, I have no expertise on this topic. I only jumped in for the first time because I thought I was seeing sourced material deleted without an adequate and understandable explanation, and for the second time because I saw what seemed to be an opposite interpretation of what is POV and what is not, according to WP:SAY. I plan to quietly go away now. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I still don't

care see why we should care what Nichols said; even if accurate, we would need a better source, and if inaccurate, we still have a better source (Mayer). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

History

Regardless of whether the material should been in this article, it has nothing to do with the history of the organization, as it's opinion. It should be moved into the controversy section, or into yet another commentary section. If it should be in the article at all, which I dispute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What??? If we're discussing the creation of the organization then it absolutely belongs in the History section. If the Kochs have funded the organization for decades [2] then that should go into a separate "Funding" section that may or may not be part of the History section. I'll try to locate some sources. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Find facts and not opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Nation" is hardly an objective source for anything. Since the primary individuals making up this "fact" don't even seem to know what state the Koch brothers live in, I find it hard to believe that either have any clue about ALEC as well. Arzel (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[interjected] The Forbes material notes their "residence". Where they "live" (i.e. spend most of their time) could be Florida, we don't know, and it's irrelevant to the content of the article. They appear to have a home in Palm Beach, Florida. I'll try to get another source regarding the Kochs and the funding of ALEC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't agree that "The Nation" is necessarily unreliable; however this is also an op-ed piece there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not saying it is not reliable, just very biased. Arzel (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Overby reporter for NPR

I believe the following addition should be removed:

When NPR's Peter Overby raised questions about ALEC on NPR, his report did not mention his own prior affiliation with Common Cause. NPR's own policy on transparency states that We disclose any relationships, whether with partners or funders, that might appear to influence our coverage.

The information is taken from a blog. Overby's bio at NPR states, "Before coming to NPR in 1994, Overby was senior editor at Common Cause Magazine,". I do not believe that to have worked on Common Cause Magazine almost 20 years ago suggests a bias that was not reported. Gandydancer (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If the attacks on ALEC were carefully sourced, I would agree with you. But the fact is that the sourcing of this statement is about as good as the sourcing for a bunch of the attacks on ALEC in this article. If 9/11 truther Van Jones' Color of Change can be used, along with "ALEC exposed" and a wiki, Michelle Malkin should be at least as good. Furthermore, the article suffers from a rather flagrant lack of balance. If you can find better sourced responses from the other side, I would certainly agree to use them instead. William Jockusch (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case I will remove your edit. You may argue elsewhere that other sources that are used in the article are not acceptable if you wish. Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with that -- done! I'll AGF and assume that sourcing rules will be applied consistently; I'm sure Wikipedians would never allow bias to infect their definitions of what sourcing is acceptable. William Jockusch (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that didn't last long. I have no problem with removing either both (Malkin and Cronin) keeping both. So if you want to revert my reversion, feel free, but I'm sure you will apply the rules to Cronin as well! William Jockusch (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Michelle Malkin is an expert in conservative causes and left-wing hypocrisy. So just as the "no blogs" rule should be applied consistently, the "expertise" exception should be as well. William Jockusch (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Malkin's blog is being used for a controversial statement about a living (or possibly undead) person. Cronon's blog is only being used as a source for its existence and what Cronon said (still controversial, but I think a person's own self-published words are allowable.) I won't revert, but I don't think it's right. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Per discussion above, I've removed a bunch of poorly sourced material. I'm sure all Wikipedians will agree that sourcing rules should be applied consistently. For example, if Michelle Malkin's blog is not a good source, then neither is William Cronin's. William Jockusch (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The material added by William Jockusch is not neutral, so it cannot be used. See WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reason for removal. WP:NPOV doesn't apply to individual items, but to the article as a whole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV applies to every word in the article. Any word can be removed if it is not part of a neutral telling of the situation. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

← Let's take a brief look at policy.

• WP:BLPSPS explicitly forbids self-published sources, including blogs, and thus Michelle Malkin's personal blog is not acceptable here, per WP:BLP.
• WP:BLPSPS notes that "some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." A blog under the editorial control of The Nation meets this bar. I do think we should move away from these sorts of partisan opinion pieces in favor of straight-news coverage (of which there is plenty), but this source is clearly in a different category than Malkin's personal blog, per policy, and it's either misguided or outright gamesmanship to treat them in a tit-for-tat fashion.
• The controversy over Cronon's blog post was covered in numerous news pieces by independent, reliable sources. I'm fine with not directly citing Cronon's blog directly if there's a BLP concern, but that's not a justification for removing the entire appropriately sourced coverage of the incident, and again this looks like either an unawareness of what WP:BLP actually says and means, or else simple gamesmanship.

Overall, I'd like to see fewer opinion pieces and more news coverage. I think we can do this, because there's plenty of straight-news coverage to use here. Doing so will have the added benefit of resolving any lingering BLP concerns. MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Binksternet: You are absolutely wrong. WP:NPOV says that we must describe what the reliable sources say without bias, not that the sources must be without bias, or that we must hide the bias of the sources. However, MastCell has the right of it; blogs cannot be used for controversial statements about living person. Although the material would be more balanced if we could include the material in Malkin's blog, it's not usable here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm absolutely correct. NPOV says we prefer "nonjudgmental language" delivered in a "disinterested tone". Unnecessarily inflammatory wording is deprecated. Every word in the article counts toward this goal. Jockusch's word choice of "fired back" set an adversarial tone. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No attempt at gamesmanship, just pointing out the standards here. Malkin really is an expert in left-wing hypocrisy. That's not hyperbole; that's the truth. I notice the person who restored Cronon cited his expertise as a reason; is that an exception, or not? William Jockusch (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The "expertise" referred to in WP:BLP means expertise in an actual field of knowledge. For example, eminent biologists, or legal scholars, or other such subject-matter experts sometimes maintain personal blogs. "Pointing out left-wing hypocrisy" is not a field of knowledge, and lacks recognized experts. I'm assuming you're joking (because if you're serious, the implications are very disappointing), but this still isn't very helpful as a humorous tangent. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Left-wing hypocrisy is a field of knowledge, requiring awareness of the many arcane "rules" used by the left when it suits their convenience, and ignored by the left when following the "rule" would not suit their convenience. This knowledge enabled Malkin to write a best-seller like "Culture of Corruption" in record time, which a non-expert would never have been able to do. Malkin's expertise in this field showed in her blog posting. A less knowledgable person would not have been able to so quickly point out NPR's hypocrisy in writing about ALEC's transparency while at the same time ignoring its own transparency rules. Therefore, Malkin's expertise is not only real, but directly applicable to the question at hand. Furthermore, Malkin's expertise is regularly recognized by the #1 cable TV news channel in the USA, namely Fox News, which regularly invites her to comment on left-wing hypocrisy in various contexts. I assume that since Cronon's expertise is cited, Cronon has demonstrated his expertise in a way that has been noticed by millions of people, and someone will point that out. William Jockusch (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the sinking feeling that you're serious, and not just trolling. In which case you're abusing this article talkpage; Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. If you have anything serious to say, please do, but you can expect this sort of stuff to be ignored. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Even if Malkin were an expert, his blog would be used to support a comment about a living person, which is not allowed. Cronon's blog should only to be used to source its existence and Cronon's opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet is still absolutely wrong in his argument, although other arguments support his desired result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think NPOV applies to every word in an article, then we have a failure of one of Wikipedia's pillars. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to every word; but not the way you think it does. If reliable sources are biased (but not demonstrably wrong), we report the "facts" as written. If Malkin were a (BLP)-reliable source, and her view (no matter how biased) is held by even a significant minority (as demonstrated by secondary and tertiary sources), it should be reported in the article. Treating the blog as a primary source, if the view is held by a significant minority as demonstrated by secondary sources, it might still be listed as Malkin's opinion. However, there's no evidence it's held by a significant minority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Guardian article

[3] is a strnage beast as it states that ALEC is the organization that funds the Tea Party Movement etc.

A powerful US lobbying group that bankrolls climate change sceptics and leading members of the Tea Party is mobilising British opposition against plans to sell cigarettes in plain packs.

Is the amount of error here present (I trust no one accepts the Guardian claims as reliably sourced fact here?) sufficient to call into question the use of that article utterly? I rewrote the claims attributed to it to conform with the actual wording of the article, but I wonder if the article is utile at all? Unless, of course, someone says ALEC is the funder of the TPM and climate change skeptics? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The author packed an enormous number of (easily checked) factual errors into a tiny article. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian should be viewed with suspicion on any topic that is remotely political. Belchfire (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The articles says ALEC funds "leading members of the Tea Party", not "Tea Party Movement etc". 2.99.78.69 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As ALEC does neither, it would seem quite unlikely that false facts should be deliberately placed into this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. 2.99.78.69 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, ideally the two aren't in conflict. The assertion in the Guardian piece about "bankroll[ing] climate change sceptics and leading members of the Tea Party" is a bit puzzling. I think they probably mean that prominent Tea Partiers and climate-change skeptics (e.g. the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil) fund ALEC, which in turn promotes the legislative agenda of Tea Partiers and climate-change skeptics. But as written, it doesn't quite add up. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead says: "ALEC's membership list and the origin of its model bills were not disclosed", but there has been a leak that has been documented here: http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_%22Model%22_Bills Cwobeel (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And you posit that this is a WP:RS? Looks more like a single-purpose site from here. And a Wiki to boot! See also the discussions where WP decided not to link to Wikileaks. And other cases where "leaks" (climate change emails etc.) have been decided not to be linked to. Collect (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the buffing and blurring language in our introduction?

For example, the introduction includes " . . . tightening voter identification rules, minimizing environmental protections, and promoting gun rights.[4][7][8]"

Well, I think there's a lot more to it than that. What is being given the umbrella term "gun rights" are the so-called "stand your ground" laws, which became very controversial following the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

So, why are we using 'neutral' language as if we're engaging in corporate communications? Why don't we just lay it on the table. This is the criticism being made, we don't need to interpret it, we don't need to do anything, other than just lay it on the table and present it to our readers. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Following are some parts from reference [4]:

McIntire, Mike (April 21, 2012). "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist". The New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2012.

“ . . . Despite its generally low profile, ALEC has drawn scrutiny recently for promoting gun rights policies like the Stand Your Ground law at the center of the Trayvon Martin shooting case in Florida, . . ”

“ . . . Common Cause, which said it got some of the documents from a whistle-blower and others from public record requests in state legislatures, is using the files to support an Internal Revenue Service complaint asserting that ALEC has abused its tax-exempt status, something ALEC denies. . . ”

“ . . . Each task force is led by a legislator and someone from the private sector. . . ”

“ . . . Last December, ALEC adopted model legislation, based on a Texas law, addressing the public disclosure of chemicals in drilling fluids used to extract natural gas through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The ALEC legislation, which has since provided the basis for similar bills submitted in five states, has been promoted as a victory for consumers’ right to know about potential drinking water contaminants.

“A close reading of the bill, however, reveals loopholes that would allow energy companies to withhold the names of certain fluid contents, for reasons including that they have been deemed trade secrets. Most telling, perhaps, the bill was sponsored within ALEC by ExxonMobil, one of the largest practitioners of fracking — something not explained when ALEC lawmakers introduced their bills back home. . . ”

Need to purge the Opinion pieces from the lead, separate and condense Opinion pieces to a section on Opinion pieces

Don't get me wrong; multiple liberal pundits and political activists have decided to attack ALEC, and the number and tenacity of the recent attacks probably argue for retention. Problem is, that is what most of this is; and an encyclopedia generally, and WP very specifically, HAS to separate out attack journalism, opinion pieces (no matter how many there are), and ACTUAL substantive Controversies. The Controversies section should be pruned of anything that is an allegation or opinion piece. The "Reporting" section is mis-labeled; it is a quotefarm from recent opinion pieces, none of which add anything that isn't already in the article; they should be merged as a simple "ref" to the place where the already well-trod ground is. I'm inclined to call the new section where opinions and partisan allegations should go as " Criticism ", but it is really more of a "Campaign against" than anything else.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. As expressed by another editor above, the article has been so diluted (buffed and blurred) that the article diminishes the substance of what ALEC is. The article could have been a self sourced press release from ALEC. It is coincidental timing that a respected journalist did an extensive piece on ALEC this weekend and put a great deal of what is missing from the lead into the perspective this article needs. I inserted this material. Rather than possibly injecting opinion or POV into the article by summarizing, I chose to use the exact quotes from the report. Since there were far too many points to put into the lead, I created a separate section for the report and included also the NPR report that had already been part of the article, though mis-labeled as controversy. Controversy would be if multiple factions of opposing views were fighting to have their opinion heard and acted upon. This is independent journalism from well respected reliable sources, which is what wikipedia is all about, reporting and summarizing. Trackinfo (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I lean toward Anonymous's theory; there are entirely too many opinion pieces and ALEC statements included as fact. (The NPR report is an opinion piece, but notable as controversy.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Initially, we should strive to include a sampling of what proponents of ALEC say and a sampling of what critics say, without ornamentation, without us we feeling we need to interpret. The next step might be what reputable journalists say . . . but, but I am quite aware that there's a lot of controversy involved in this next step.

in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council&diff=515478216&oldid=515472836 why did we changed "minimizing environmental protections" to "streamlining . . . "? Because that's the wiki way. We don't address controversy. We simply sand it down with bland and "neutral" language. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, the Wiki way, eh? Sorry, but "minimizing" and "streamlining" do not mean the same thing at all. Acutally the Wiki way is to write copy that reflects our sources. Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I think we have a lot of areas of agreement. I also think "minimizing" and "streamlining" are not the same thing at all. And I certainly think our goal should be to write copy which accurately reflects our sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To say WP does not address controversy is just absurd. What WP does not do is act as a platform for Opinion pieces (unless describing a concept, of which there are only opinions, and then it gives pro and con; not "controversy sections") or as a posting board for Advocacy campaigns. This article is quickly becoming "List of adjectives pundits have used to describe ALEC". An encyclopedia is supposed to deal with facts about ALEC (not about fringe groups organizing Activism), such as what it does, what its effect has been, what its products are, and (within the context of an actual issue) what the pros and cons are. For instance, we now have a section on NJ. It does not deal with what ALEC does, does not deal with what effect ALEC is currently having, does not address the issues at stake, and does not even say what controversy if any there is, just reports on the activities of activists vaguely "opposing" ALEC. This is terrible writing for an encyclopedia. About 80% of the issues in NJ that intersect ALEC relate to school choice, teacher evaluation, charter schools, parent involvement in public schools, and are opposed by the teacher's unions. That ALEC has been a forum and resource for legislators on those issues really isn't even vaguely controversial, nor is the fact that when NJ decided to tackle the crisis in its public school system, legislators borrowed from long-standing resources available at ALEC (and, BTW, largely funded for the last decade by the Gates Foundation). You could certainly have a section on School Choice; it is an important issue, and one where ALEC has been involved, and have a pro and con; instead, the article ignores the issue or the article subject (ALEC), and INSTEAD says just that NJ "activists" are organizing protests, something of dubious significance. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the Moyers piece should be moved from the lead - which has gotten far too long - into the body of the article. I'm all in favor of distinguishing between reputable news pieces and opinion pieces - heavily prioritizing the former - but that means we need to respect the language used by those reputable news pieces rather than editorially watering it down. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, about the NJ part, that may well be a rabbit hole (overly specific topic), but often that's the way wikipedia develops. We're all pressed for time and have a number of topics of interest. Perhaps the challenge is how to build larger conceptual blocks from just 15 minutes of input each time. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Transcript of Bill Moyers show on Democracy Now (political left)

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/27/the_united_states_of_alec_bill
[Democracy Now is a radio and TV show on the political left which used to style itself “the exception to the rulers.”]

"LISA GRAVES: I was stunned at the notion that politicians and corporate representatives, corporate lobbyists, were actually voting behind closed doors on these changes to the law before they were introduced in statehouses across the country."
.
.
"BILL MOYERS: It sounds like lobbying. It looks like lobbying. It smells like lobbying. But ALEC says it’s not lobbying. In fact, ALEC operates not as a lobby group but as a nonprofit, a charity. In its filing with the IRS, ALEC says its mission is education, which means it pays no taxes and its corporate members get a tax write-off. Its legislators get a lot, too.
"STATE REP. MARK POCAN: In Wisconsin, I can’t take anything of value from a lobbyist. I can’t take a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. At ALEC, it’s just the opposite. . . I mean, the head of Shell Oil flew in on his private jet to come to this conference. The head of one of the largest utility companies in the country was there on a panel, a utility company in 13 states. . . "

So, members of state legislatures are wined and dined (a big tobacco company is even passing out free cigars). The head of Shell Oil flies in on his jet. How is this anything other than lobbying ? ? And Bill Moyers goes on his riff, "It sounds like lobbying. It looks like lobbying. It smells like lobbying." And it's listed as a charity and the companies get to write the whole thing off? Wow. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are going to criticize the Moyers report because of who chose to host an online transcript of the content of his report? I have found many transcripts hosted by parties who have an agenda, pro or con of TV reports. The host of the transcript is not the point, it is the content of the report by the reliable source. Trackinfo (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please understand, I am not trying to criticize. In fact, this is probably a feather in Democracy Now's cap. And I think they do some good work, other times, maybe not so much, just like any news outlet. And I quite agree that we shouldn't judge Bill Moyer's report because of who talks about it or posts transcripts or summaries.

And the part about industry and legislators voting behind closed doors before presenting 'model' legislation, that's big. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

While what I added to the article was criticized above as a quote farm, there is actually a lot more meat in the transcript that should be in this article. With the exception of the Tommy Thompson example that shows the chain of legislation to future electoral money, I tried to stay way from sections that mentioned specifics. There is plenty of that in the transcript and even more that is summarized as actually going on. Without using summaries and generalities, how do we present this massive scale; that there are hundreds of these model bills potentially being proposed and passed in 99 different houses of state legislature by thousands of ALEC member legislators? Trackinfo (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we just go for a mix of specifics and generalities. And I think there's a broad range of balance in which an article can still be just fine. For example, I think our article is currently a little light on specifics and little heavy on generalities, but that's okay. I think we're still well within an acceptable range.

Now, another topic, we don't want to way understate, we don't want to buff and blur (as I think parts of our article does) but . . . but I think we want to ever so slightly understate, say like 98%. That is better than 102% where people sometimes feel like they've been played and cheated. For slight overstatement is not what they expect in an encyclopedia. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

elected officials not being honest with their constituents

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/27/the_united_states_of_alec_bill

"BILL MOYERS: In March 2011, ALEC held one of those boot camps for legislators at the North Carolina Capitol in Raleigh. The subject was so-called tort reform, how to keep the average Joe from successfully suing a corporation for damages. The day after the boot camp, two state representatives presented the draft version of a House bill chock-full of ALEC priorities. It would, among other things, limit corporate product liability in North Carolina. One of the representatives, Johnathan Rhyne, was quoted in the Raleigh News [&] Observer saying of ALEC, "I really don’t know much about them." That’s odd, because Rhyne had been listed as a featured speaker at the ALEC tort reform boot camp. The paper also reported that Rhyne said the bill wasn’t copied from ALEC model legislation. That, too, is odd, given how the sections covering product liability could have passed as twins. . . "

So, Johnathan Rhyne is not exactly being too honest with his constituents. No, he's not. Now, the people who like him are probably going to keep liking him, and same for people who don't like him. And, in kind of the complex dynamics of governance, even his supporters who are disappointed with him about this may not like him being overly criticized by outsiders.

And on a perhaps related issue, on first pass we might look at ALEC as a liberal-conservative issue. But if we make a distinction between Mainstreet conservatives and Wall Street conservatives, the Mainstreet conservatives may not be so thrilled with the doings of ALEC either. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

more on fracking issue

Common Cause, Holding Power Accountable

James Browning & Pat Clifford, November 10, 2011, page 3:

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/Ohio--Deep%20Drilling%20Deep%20Pockets%20Nov%202011%202.pdf <--7+ megs of download

“Contributions heavily favored current members of Congress who voted for the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Current members who voted for the bill received an average of $73,433, while those who voted against the bill received an average of $10,894.”
.
.
“The natural gas industry’s fight against regulation has gotten important help at the state level from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). As documented in an August 2011 Common Cause report, ALEC generates and lobbies for hundreds of model bills every year despite its status as a tax-exempt 501 (c)(3) organization. Prominent financial backers of ALEC’s activities include the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries, owner of the largest network of natural gas transmitting pipelines in the country.”

I include both as an example, of course ALEC is not the only thing involved with the fracking issue, but it does seem to play a significant role at the state level. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thu, 2012-05-31 12:05 ALEC Slips Exxon Fracking Loopholes into New Ohio Law
This is a guest post by Connor Gibson, cross-posted from Greenpeace.

http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-slips-exxon-fracking-loopholes-new-ohio-law

“Fracking companies can hide which chemicals they use in the fracking process by calling them ‘trade secrets’. That means they are exempt from telling you what they put in your water. What little they do disclose is 60 days after drilling takes place, too late for communities to test to show what was in their water before drilling, rendering the disclosure meaningless.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/about

“The DeSmogBlog Project began in January 2006 and quickly became the world’s number one source for accurate, fact based information regarding global warming misinformation campaigns.

“TIME Magazine named DeSmogBlog in its "25 Best Blogs of 2011" list. Our articles and stories are routinely highlighted in the world’s most popular news outlets and blogs: New York Times DotEarth, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, and Treehugger, to name a few. . . ”

“ . . . The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, . . ”

“Jim Hoggan is one of Canada’s most respected public-relations professionals and the president and owner of the Vancouver PR firm Hoggan & Associates. A law school graduate with a longstanding passion for social justice, Jim also serves as chair of the David Suzuki Foundation—the nation’s most influential environmental organization—and as a Trustee of the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education.”

“Brendan is Executive Director and Managing Editor of DeSmogBlog. . . ”

And two other persons are listed.

So, in a way, this is kind of a signed blog. And guess it’s hard to classify, like so much of the new media.

I’m going to need to think about this. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Ohio Drilling Regulations Would Bar Doctors From Publicly Revealing Chemicals
AP | By JULIE CARR SMYTH Posted: 05/23/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/ohio-drilling-regulations-doctors_n_1538982.html

---

http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_315_EN_N.html (Amended Substitute Senate Bill Number 315)

And hard to understand what version of the bill and how far along in the process. See also "Your search for hydraulic fracturing returned 29 out of 6299 documents." Seemingly twenty-some-odd bill versions are listed.

' . . . (Z) "Well stimulation" or "stimulation of a well" means the process of enhancing well productivity, including hydraulic fracturing operations. . . '

' . . (10)(a) If applicable, the type and volume of fluid, not including cement and its constituents or information that is designated as a trade secret pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section, used to stimulate the reservoir of the well, the reservoir breakdown pressure, the method used for the containment of fluids recovered from the fracturing of the well, the methods used for the containment of fluids when pulled from the wellbore from swabbing the well, the average pumping rate of the well, and the name of the person that performed the well stimulation. In addition, the owner shall include a copy of the log from the stimulation of the well, a copy of the invoice for each of the procedures and methods described in division (A)(9)(10) of this section that were used on a well, and a copy of the pumping pressure and rate graphs. However, the owner may redact from the copy of each invoice that is required to be included under division (A)(9)(10) of this section the costs of and charges for the procedures and methods described in division (A)(9)(10) of this section that were used on a well. . "

So, the goal is to be technical, precise, high-falutin, maybe even show off a little. And the result is something very hard to understand. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oct. 2012 news items regarding Wisconsin and ALEC

Wis. lawmakers sued over emails with conservative group, Chicago Tribune (AP), October 2, 2012.

“Two groups have filed a lawsuit against five Republican lawmakers alleging they violated Wisconsin's open records law by not saying whether they searched their personal email accounts for correspondence they may have had with a conservative organization.

“Common Cause and the Center for Media and Democracy filed the lawsuit Monday in Dane County Circuit Court. They contend that the lawmakers broke the open records law by not disclosing whether they searched their personal accounts for interactions with the American Legislative Exchange Council. . . ”

---

Groups sue 5 GOP lawmakers over email records, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Patrick Marley, Oct. 1, 2012:

‘ . . . An email included in the court filing shows Thiesfeldt is involved with ALEC but tries to keep it out of his state email account.

‘"Please send ALL ALEC material to the Representative's PERSONAL e-mail . . . from now on," says a June email to ALEC sent from Thiesfeldt's state account. "Please do not send his state account (@legis.wi.gov) any more updates. He will keep up through his personal account."

‘But corresponding with ALEC through personal email accounts, rather than government ones, is not enough to keep the contacts out of the public eye, according to the lawsuit. . . ’

My thinking is, let's add to lonely ol' New Jersey and build a section as ALEC pertains to different states. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Recent critics"

The organization of this article needs to be re-thought, as it's diametrically at odds with best practices on article structure. Most of the article consists of a criticism ghetto, where sources that reflect negatively on ALEC are lumped together. Some of these sources are genuinely critics of ALEC, whereas others are simply independent, reliable sources which have reported material unfavorable to ALEC. As a start, we need to distinguish the two and separate truly partisan or advocacy sources from general news coverage in reputable outlets. The independent, reliable sources should be integrated into a narrative about the organization rather than stuffed into a "Critics" section. The partisan/advocacy sources should be reviewed and thinned down; those that represent a notable viewpoint could then be integrated with proper attribution for their opinions, per WP:ASF. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was going to work on the article a little and was beginning to see that something was wrong... I was going to try to remove NPR from the criticism section, but then saw that it was investigative reporting and was unsure what to do. Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I expressed in edit notes, but I should present it here, I think the edits by Anonymous209.6 changing the subject lines of the criticism section from the subject of the criticism to the source of the criticism diverts attention toward the parties and away from the complaint. I think this was by design and is POV. Yes, we need to attribute a source for expressing the criticism, for putting it into words. But that phraseology subliminally suggests that only that organization or complainant has those views, rather than that organization being the ones we identify who are at the forefront and can articulate a wider held opinion. Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In theory, if it's mainstream media, the heading can include the substance of the criticism. If it's an advocacy group, the heading can refer to the source. But, there really is a lot of gray area. The below Washington Post article seems to mainly repeat the claims of ProgressVA maybe with some minimal threshold that they're an okay group who is generally honest. Plus, complicating it the other way, some advocacy groups may back up what they're saying with sources, essentially some of the investigative reporting like mainstream media should be doing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post article from last December

Kumar, Anita (December 27, 2011). "Corporate interests fuel group's desire to shape Va. legislation, critics say". Washington Post. <-- currently the second reference in our article
.
“All of those bills — and more than 50 others — have been pushed by a conservative group that ghostwrites bills for legislators across the nation, according to a study set to be released in the coming days.

“In many instances, the bills are identical to model legislation written by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a pro-business, free-market group whose members include legislators as well as private companies, which pay thousands of dollars to have a seat at the table.

“ALEC, as the group is known, has seen seven of its bills passed by the Virginia General Assembly, including measures on education, taxes and health care, according to the study, conducted by the liberal group ProgressVA. . . ”

Notice the middle paragraph states it plain, " . . private companies, which pay thousands of dollars to have a seat at the table." The first paragraph refers to a study set to be released. The third paragraph refers to the liberal group ProgressVA.

So, is the Washington Post doing old fashioned investigative reporting with a lot of shoe leather? Or, are they doing it the far easier way of merely reporting claims? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

quote in lead "collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators."

Previously in the lead (and now back in), we have:

'The organization has been described as a "collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators."'

The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy, The Nation, John Nichols on December 9, 2011.

And yes, this is an article critical of ALEC.

And this quote is almost too good not to use. It shows the ambiguity of the whole thing, and how different people might look at it in different ways. Some people might think of this "collaboration" as a good thing. Some people might not. And some people may think it depends on how it's done and the content of the particular policy statements. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And John Nichols also wrote a previous piece in The Nation.

ALEC Exposed, The Nation, John Nichols, July 12, 2011 (article appeared in the August 1-8, 2011 edition of The Nation).

Not sure why this is in the lede -- ALEC is indisputably structured as a collaboration between corporations and conservative state legislators. The corporations don't have to be multinational, though many are. It seems like it would make more sense to simply state the (highly reliable, well-sourced) fact that ALEC is a membership organization of conservative state legislators and corporations, with the funding provided primarily by multinational corporations and conservative foundations. --The Cunctator (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

transparency (or lack thereof) to be included in lead?

This seems to be a major part of a lot of criticism of ALEC, that the organization and members act in a nontransparent manner. We currently do not include this criticism in our lead. We probably should. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The following is currently reference [33] in our article:

Sullivan, Laura (October 29, 2010). "Shaping State Laws with Little Scrutiny". NPR.

‘ . . . One of those bills is now Arizona's controversial new immigration law. It requires police to arrest anyone who cannot prove they entered the country legally when asked. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could be locked up, and private prison companies stand to make millions.

‘The largest prison company in the country, the Corrections Corporation of America, was present when the model immigration legislation was drafted at an ALEC conference last year. . . ’

‘ . . . The difference between passing bills and "finding" them is lobbying. Most states define lobbying as pushing legislators to create or pass legislation. . . ’

‘ . . . If ALEC's conferences were interpreted as lobbying, the group could lose its status as a non-profit. Corporations wouldn't be able to reap tax benefits from giving donations to the organization or write off those donations as a business expense. And legislators would have a hard time justifying attending a conference of lobbyists. . . ’

‘ . . . So, for example, last December Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce sat in a hotel conference room with representatives from the Corrections Corporation of America and several dozen others. The group voted on model legislation that was introduced into the Arizona legislature two months later, almost word for word. . . ’

‘ . . . Consider this: If a corporation hosts a party or baseball game and legislators attend, most states require the lawmakers to say where they went and who paid. In this case though, legislators can just say they went to ALEC's conference. They don't have to declare which corporations sponsored these events. . . ’

‘ . . . When asked if he paid his own way to the ALEC conference, Adams acknowledges he accepted money from the group to help pay for the trip. ALEC calls this a "scholarship."

‘Many ALEC members receive these scholarships. But it's not clear who's really paying. . . ’

‘ . . . The prison company didn't have to file a lobbying report or disclose any gifts to legislators. They don't even have to tell anyone they were there. All they have to do is pay their ALEC dues and show up.’

Corrections Corporation of American present at ALEC meeting where model legislation voted upon

Sullivan, Laura (October 29, 2010). "Shaping State Laws with Little Scrutiny". NPR.

' . . . The largest prison company in the country, the Corrections Corporation of America, was present when the model immigration legislation was drafted at an ALEC conference last year. . . '

' . . . So, for example, last December Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce sat in a hotel conference room with representatives from the Corrections Corporation of America and several dozen others. The group voted on model legislation that was introduced into the Arizona legislature two months later, almost word for word. . . '

---

Feb. 22, 2012, NPR and reporter Laura Sullivan cautiously spell out qualifications:

http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison-economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration-law

'Clarification 'Feb. 22, 2012

'As we reported, Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce was the originator of the draft legislation that later became Arizona SB 1070. This story did not mean to suggest that the Corrections Corporation of America was the catalyst behind the law or that it took a corporate position in favor of the legislation.

'In our 2010 broadcast piece we said: "Last December Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce sat in a hotel conference room with representatives from the Corrections Corporation of America and several dozen others. Together they drafted model legislation that was introduced into the Arizona Legislature two months later, almost word for word."

'Although CCA did have a representative at the ALEC meeting where model legislation similar to 1070 was drafted, we didn't mean to suggest that CCA wrote the language. . . '

But CCA may have partially written the language. We just don't know either way. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

But the gist is that Wikipedia can not in any imply that CCA was involved in writing the law. "Don't know" resolved to "we can not imply." Collect (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally think NPR is being overly timid in this regard. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law, NPR, Laura Sullivan, October 28, 2010.

' . . . But Nichols [Glenn Nichols, Benson city manager] wasn't buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

'"They talked like they didn't have any doubt they could fill it," Nichols said. . . '

' . . . As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members. . . '

Sound like lobbying. I mean, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, even quacks like a duck---it is probably a duck.  ;) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Find strong RS sources for the claim - the problem is that if people attend meetings together, you seem to assign that self-selection process as being "lobbying" which is clearly not necessarily so. Collect (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. Self-selection is not lobbying. And let's see what the rest of the article says. All I'm trying to do is summarize news articles in straightforward fashion and include them in our article. Nothing fancy.

Now, one area where we might disagree is that I think trying to find only the best articles (however we might define that) ends up being a perfectionist trap. I think we're usually better off trying to include of a larger variety of articles which pass an easier standard of merely being good. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ALEC senior director of policy Michael Bowman regarding ALEC's model legislation in general

Sullivan, Laura (October 29, 2010). "Shaping State Laws with Little Scrutiny". NPR.

"Most of the bills are written by outside sources and companies, attorneys, [and legislative] counsels," Bowman says.

an example of buffing and blurring language

All the above meat and substance and reporting, and yet in our article itself, we summarize blandly as follows:

"National Public Radio

"National Public Radio, NPR, has aired several programs about ALEC and its influence in the drafting of legislation, most dealing with allegations of lack of transparency.[33]"

Well, we have more than mere "allegations" if good, solid, straightforward investigative journalism can establish that state legislators attended the conference (with transporation and expenses paid for by ALEC) and that the Corrections Corporation of America had a seat at the table. The proposed legislation most probably benefitted them, and may or may not have benefitted the general public. Now, this may not be quid pro quo, or a chain with every step established. But it is more than mere "allegations of lack of transparency."

And if the legislation was introduced in Arizona two months later almost word for word, that is more than mere "influence."

Again, it seems as though we are too readily using 'neutral' language in place of the hard work of research and looking up sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

see also . . http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/17/news/economy/private_prisons_economic_impact.fortune/index.htm

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2010/10/28/nashville-based-corrections-corp-of-america-bought-arizona-immigration-bill

What exciting research you have amassed. Unfortunately none of it bears upon the issue of transparency. You may not like that a non-profit association of legislators pays for its members to attend its meetings. They are, however, quite open about the fact. You may not like that they have corporate associate members, they are open about that as well. Neither instance shows a lack of transparency. What I think you are trying to get at with your discussion of quid pro quo is corruption. If you have a legitimate Reliable Source (non-opinion piece) saying that ALEC is a corrupt organization use it. Be bold. Don't, however, try to "assemble a chain" (in your words) of evidence that you think indicates corruption. That is is Original Research and Synthesis, and not allowed. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not use the phrase "assemble a chain". FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"...a chain with every step established." Close enough. Belchfire-TALK 23:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And please notice the context. I was saying, "Now, this may not be . . " FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Including Defamatory Content?

Just wondering about the last (75th) reference in the Critics of ALEC section. Apparently there have been defamation proceedings initiated against the author. Quoting or referencing such a piece would be in violation of Wikipedia guideines wouldn't it? I'm also slightly puzzled by the fact that when I checked the history the article was linked to before the official publication date - referenced 26th January, article published on the 27th. Anyone able to explain\advise? 220.132.57.42 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered time-travel? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

sections on specific industries

Unless a company is a major contributor to ALEC, it appears UNDUE to single it out as being supportive of ALEC for monetary gain without strong sourcing that its contributions are in some way actually major. There appear to be a large number of companies giving money as members, and the amounts may be quite modest for most of them, so assigning ill-motives on such a basis requires more than has been presented thus far, and requires some sort of statement as to how much money was paid to ALEC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The contributions directly to ALEC might not be the issue. The Bill Moyers Report documented the money trail to the contributions of those corporations, to the various individual legislators, in a lot of different statehouses, who pursued the legislation proposed by those interests, through ALEC; the introductions between those two conspiring parties being made through ALEC. That is already a sourced pattern surrounding ALEC. Trackinfo (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Competing funding claims by Common Cause and ALEC

Until yesterday the "Organization" section included the following sentence:

According to Common Cause, ALEC receives 98% of its funding from corporations and foundations and 2% comes from membership dues paid by legislators and miscellaneous income.

References

Rebeccalutz changed this to:

According to IRS documents, ALEC recieves 98% of its funing from foundations, corporations, other nonprofits and meeting revenue.

References

with the comment: "Why should we take CC's word for what the IRS docs say when ALEC puts up the actual IRS docs? CC also only talks about 2011 while ALEC shows 2011 and 2012?"

The IRS docs were drafted by ALEC and then published by ALEC on its own website. They are used in a self-serving manner. As such, they cannot be included per WP:ABOUTSELF. As for the deleted material, Common Cause has a liberal bias according to reliable sources, so its statement is appropriately attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is really just a matter of following WP policies. Basically what the policies are saying is that independent-but-biased sources (e.g. Common Cause) are more reliable than self-published, self-serving sources (e.g. ALEC). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know too much about 990s but CC's also working off the same form, right? When you could see the actual 990 as a source why take CC's word for what they said was on the 990? (Just to be clear: I don't know anything about CC but based on their WP page they seem like a solid organization. When they say they have seen the 990 I have no particular reason to doubt them and I assume that indeed they have its just that in a world of degrees from the truth why take someone's word for what is written on a paper when you could just as easily see the actual paper?)

ALEC also has a 990 for 2012, while CC only has one for 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly commendable of ALEC to post some of its tax forms, but that doesn't make them or ALEC's own analysis of them any more reliable, particularly in light of the fact that it only posted them after CC accused it of abusing its non-profit status. Also, the forms are WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not as desirable for an encyclopedia as WP:SECONDARY sources such as the Common Cause analysis. At the end of the day we still have to comply with Wikipedia policy. Personally I'm troubled that CC and ALEC's analysis diverge so completely. Perhaps there's a more neutral source out there that we can include? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure CC had all the best intentions and they were trying to get information out fast but looking at the 990s you can see that that phrasing just isn't right. 98% of ALEC funding does not come from corporate entities. Among other things, a pretty significant chunk is from conference fees. I'll look around for a third source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I looked briefly and couldn't find anything. In the meantime I'm reverting back to comply with the policies I cited above. If you find another reliable source, feel free to add it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But you know that CC is not telling the truth. Surely, the IRS documents, published by ALEC is better than CC lieing about what is in one of those IRS documents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't know that, as (i) the 990s published by ALEC were for a different year, and (ii) the 990s were written by ALEC (not the IRS) and perhaps ALEC was lying. There's nothing inherently reliable about what you're calling "those IRS documents"; in fact, just the opposite. In any case, we're here to seek verifiability, not truth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Common Cause observation should be accepted as more reliable than ALEC's own PR. It's hard for me to believe any editors are arguing otherwise. Solid and reliable third party sources should always take precedence over primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

One of these two sources is lying. Either the 98% figure is true or it isn't. Do you have any particular reason to believe that ALEC would forge those documents? You guys seem to take CC's source at face value. Rebeccalutz (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't take the CC source at face value; we acknowledge that it's biased with is why we cite it with attribution. Readers are free to dismiss it for its bias. As for ALEC, I'm not accusing them of anything, but they absolutely would have a motive to be dishonest on their tax forms, as before they published them they were accused of cheating the IRS. Sure, they might have been coming clean, or they might have been digging the hole deeper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The 990s that they provided match the ones on Guidestar: http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/52-0140979/american-legislative-exchange-council.aspx. It seems verifiable. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So? They were filled out by ALEC's own accountants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, yes, and then reviewed by the IRS. Importantly, these would be the same 990s that CC based their statements off of, but with more of them and more up to date. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It might not be the best source but I did find this opposing website: http://www.alecwatch.org/chapterfour.html that rebuts the 98% corporate assertion saying "more than 95 percent of its revenue typically comes in the form of �contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts� received from corporations and charitable foundations as well as other money received in connection with its conferences and seminars, as membership fees for its task forces, and as revenue from the sale of its publications." Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. ALEC Watch (a clearly unreliable source opposed to ALEC) has more favorable comments about ALEC than Common Cause (a generally reliable source opposed to ALEC). There's something fishy here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how the statements from Common Cause and AlecWatch are conflicting? One says 98% of funding from corporations, and the other says >95% from corporations +/- other sources. While the second source is more vague and the first more definitive, both sources are consistent the notion that 98% of the funding comes from corporations. Am I missing something? Because I don't see the conflict here. MastCell ^Talk 01:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. And there's no reason why we have to choose one reliable source over another. If there's a conflict between two reliable sources, we note it and give appropriate WP:WEIGHT to both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

< OR>The actual 990 doesn't specify whether the contributions were from corporations, foundations, or individuals. (Perhaps the unredacted 990 so specifies.)</ OR> (I'm surprised, considering the information otherwise required by the IRS.) Given the statements made by Common Cause, attributing it to a document which doesn't have the information, we should go with other (generally) reliable sources, if at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we just say that "most" or "the vast majority" of ALEC's funding comes from corporations? That's well-sourced, if vague. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither source is really reliable. CC says 98% = corporate, ALECWatch says 95 = corporate + grants + non-profits + meeting revenue + book revenue, those are fairly different figures. ALECWatch's lines up more with the 990s. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The language as currently written (by Rebeccalutz) cherry picks and misstates the AlecWatch source. The AlecWatch source does have some internal inconsistencies. The full relevant language is:

As noted previously, however, ALEC isn�t really a membership association of state legislators; the dues paid by state lawmakers (or paid by state legislatures on their behalf) constitute only a negligible portion of its total revenues. Year in and year out, virtually all of ALEC�s revenues come from corporations and their affiliate foundations, trade and professional associations, and a relative handful of ultraconservative foundations. An examination of ALEC�s tax returns shows that more than 95 percent of its revenue typically comes in the form of �contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts� received from corporations and charitable foundations as well as other money received in connection with its conferences and seminars, as membership fees for its task forces, and as revenue from the sale of its publications. A breakdown:

(table showing dues vs. non-dues)

Over the years, ALEC has taken in more than $1.3 million from foundations controlled by ultraconservative philanthropist Richard Scaife, along with sizable amounts from the Coors-related Castle Rock Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation.(15) In addition, ALEC reportedly has more than three hundred corporate sponsors that pay annual membership fees ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 to be part of the action, plus additional fees of $1,500 to $5,000 a year to participate in ALEC�s various task forces.

Then I found a couple of other good sources. Arguably the best source is this one from the Center for Media and Democracy (self described progressive, requires attribution):

Almost 98% of ALEC's cash is from sources other than legislative dues, such as corporations, trade associations, and corporate foundations. ALEC describes itself as the largest "membership association of state legislators," but only a little more than ten percent of its funding comes from legislative dues. Some of the biggest corporations in the world bankroll and thus subsidize the activities of the legislators who are part of ALEC. Corporations provide general support that covers the annual ALEC conventions -- which are summer trips of politicians and their families to resorts for the annual ALEC meeting -- and the preparation of "model" bills and glossy promotional materials. ALEC could actually be called one of the most powerful membership associations of corporations attempting to influence state legislators. But ALEC's tax filings do not even count corporate donations as membership dues; they are listed under gifts.

It goes on with lots of details.

Then there is this video source, which I watched last night but I don't feel like digging up a quote. But the message is 100% consistent.

All four of these organizations (all with an anti-ALEC bias, btw) paint a consistent picture: nearly all of the funding comes from corporations, trade associations, corporate and/or ultra-conservative foundations. So, we should say exactly that, with attribution. And again, per WP:ABOUTSELF the ALEC PR source must be omitted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Details of Cronon e-mail request

Yesterday I changed the following passage:

• The Wisconsin Republican Party on March 17 made a request under Wisconsin's Open Records laws to obtain e-mail messages sent to or from Cronon's university account, and that of other apparent union supporters who are state employees, containing certain keywords which "include[d] Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, rally, union, the names of 10 Republican lawmakers, the acronyms of two state public-employee unions, and the names of those two unions' leaders.[1][2]

to:

• The Wisconsin Republican Party on March 17 made a request under Wisconsin's open records laws to obtain e-mail messages sent to or from Cronon's university account, and that of other apparent union supporters who are state employees, containing keywords related to various political issues that were being debated in Wisconsin at the time.[1][2]

Rebeccalutz reverted without comment. Why? I was merely trying to reduce the amount of unnecessary detail in an effort to make the passage more encyclopedic. Maybe the language I chose wasn't quite right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"various political issues" is far too generous. It makes it sound like this guy was talking about Hunting laws or something benign. It also makes it sound like the request that was filed was a fishing expedition. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Can the list of keywords be summarized in a better way, then? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I thought that the list of keywords made it obvious that it was a fishing expedition. But to each their own. MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Might as well keep it in then. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ALEC was founded in 1973

They, and plenty of other people say so.

If a source claims their founding as a year other than 1973 then that source isn't reliable. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Go find some sources then! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.alec.org/about-alec/history/ Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Go find a couple of independent sources. Normally a subject's website would be perfectly sufficient for something non-controversial like this, but in this case we have an independent source contradicting an ABOUTSELF source, so the independent source will always trump. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"White Protestant Nation" is an independent source? Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, yes. I can't find any evidence the author (Jonathan M. Schoenwald) had an affiliation any organization mentioned in this article (let alone ALEC). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.alecwatch.org/chaptersix.html Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with that. Thanks for doing the research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

John Nichols sentence

Seems out of place in the lead. Can it be incorporated somewhere else? Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the appropriate place for it, as it describes ALEC comprehensively and it WP:BALANCEs ALEC's own website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems very out of place for the lead. There are not similar rebuttals in the leads of The Nation, CC or CMD. This phenomenon seems to be isolated to the ALEC page. This would be better off in the body. Rebeccalutz (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to go to the other articles you list and insert similar "rebuttals" rather than remove Nichols from this one. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) I think the ALEC about "bloated" government is correctly balanced by the Nichols statement. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Its not that I found an example that contradicts this format, it's that I can't find one that doesn't. I can't find any other pages for organization that say "the mission of this organization is to do X aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannd here is a quote from some one who doesn't like them. The Nichols quote is out of place and should be moved. Rebeccalutz (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with that assessment. I think that at wikipedia the lead generally summarizes the article and, since the article is almost entirely an anti-ALEC screed, the quote from Nichols sort-of fits. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, ALEC has generated a lot of controversy lately, not only about whether they are good or evil but also about what they are (a subject that is generally included in lead sections). The current lead summarizes that controversy in a balanced way. If we get rid of the Nichols quote then we must also get rid of ALEC's website quote. The reason why The Nation, CC, and CMD don't have similar leads is because, while those organizations obviously have some bias and have received criticism, there's little controversy over what they do. Comparing ALEC to them is apples to oranges. (And by the way, I agree that the article is inappropriately centered around ALEC's critics and needs to be reorganized.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to touching on that controversy, just to the idea that this random leftie journalist's quote does it best. Can't we work to put in a better sentence that summarizes the history section? Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about history, it's about what ALEC is, currently. The fact that the quote has an anti-ALEC bias is perfectly appropriate, given that ALEC's website has a pro-ALEC bias. However if you feel that a different anti-ALEC would be better (i.e. more representative of ALEC's critics' views), then by all means, propose it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Critics alledge that ALEC allows corporations to play a disproportional role in the legislative process."? Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not even close to representative of the critics' views of what ALEC is or does. It's also not properly attributed to specific critics. What's your angle here, if you don't mind me asking? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the accuracy of this article. What's your angle here, if you don't mind me asking? Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Same thing. Sorry, no offense, I just don't understand why you keep proposing changes to this sentence in light of the relevant policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I bristled a little. Nichols says ALEC is a "collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators.". I suggested "Critics alledge that ALEC allows corporations to play a disproportional role in the legislative process". I can find no other article on Wikipedia where the lead gives a quote to a random opponent. It gives a highly inappropriate amount of weight to the opinion of a fairly obscure journalist. Help me to craft a sentence that reasonably summarizes the thoughts of ALEC's critics. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, how does the quote not fairly summarize the views of ALEC's critics? Critics aren't complaining that ALEC is influential, they're complaining that it's engaging in behind-the-scene corporate lobbying. That's pretty much what Nichols says. As for him being "fairly obscure," he has his own Wikipedia article, so he can't be that obscure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is one of conformity and one of wikipedia:weight. There is no other article that anyone can find that does this. Using the quote from one critic in the lead gives him undue weight. The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, not a quote. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

He's an important journalist, notable on his own, writing for a widely known periodical. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A quote is appropriate when the material or language being sourced is dubious or controversial. See WP:QUOTE#Recommended use of quotations. In this case we have two opposing, biased sources using quite provocative language, hence quoting is appropriate for both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Nichols is biased, I'm arguing that putting his quote in the lead is highly unweighted. Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "highly unweighted." Not reflective of the viewpoints? How so? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have the opposite view to Rebeccalutz. I think the current lead violates WP:WEIGHT by substantially understating the perception of ALEC in independent, reliable sources. These sources describe ALEC as a lobbying (or "stealth lobbying") group where legislation is drafted by private interests and then passed on to ALEC's legislative members to be framed as pseudo-grassroots initiatives. That perception is hardly limited to one author or to The Nation; it's found in numerous independent, reliable sources including BusinessWeek, the New York Times, The Guardian, etc.

The current lead violates WP:WEIGHT egregiously, by framing this perspective as if it's held by one writer at one publication. The majority of the lead presents ALEC's self-description, which is of course self-serving. We should mention how ALEC presents itself, but the majority of the lead (and the majority of the article) should proportionately present the views of independent, reliable sources (as in this version) rather than recapitulating ALEC's press kit. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, more or less. There comes a point at which the negative descriptions become redundant and "piling on" and therefore non-neutral, and the version linked to by MastCell goes a bit too far in that direction, IMO. Not to mention the WP:LEADLENGTH issue. But there's no question, the lead should reflect exactly what MastCell says, and should include the quotes from the New York Times and Bloomberg, which, while possibly opinion, have been reviewed by established and respected editorial boards and therefore are more reliable than anything else we have. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think that criticism should be summarized in the lead, I even tried to come up with wording to express this criticism. This criticism just should be summarized in the form of a quote from one partisan journalist. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But that would be dishonest, since the criticism is hardly limited to "one partisan journalist". Framing it as such seems like a transparent attempt to artificially minimize or sanitize the content of independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'll find the above wording that I proposed you can see that I am interesting in expandin the scope of that coverage, not condensing it. My objection is that now the whole thing is given over to "one partisan journalist" which seems unweighted. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and your proposed wording didn't come close to expressing the views of ALEC's critics. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making major changes to the lead, in part to address the issues raised here. Most significantly, I've removed the Nichols quote and expanded the criticism to reflect (fairly, I hope) the views of ALEC's detractors. I focused on only using the most reliable sources (per WP:NPV) and not getting too deep in the weeds (per WP:LEAD). Feedback appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"watchdog" groups

There are reliable sources for the proposition that Common Cause, CMD, and CPI (the three "non-media" groups that have ganged up on ALEC) are all "watchdog" groups, so I put the moniker in the lead in describing the recent controversies. Capitalismojo deleted "watchdog" saying that there was a lack of reliable sourcing, plus the moniker was "unnecessary." I don't think that reliable sourcing is necessary in the text as this is really just an introductory paragraph and you can find the necessary supporting sources in the groups' articles. Putting these sources in the lead would be confusing, IMO. I'm happy to provide the sources here to convince anyone who doesn't think these are "watchdog" groups. That said, Capitalismojo, given your comment about "watchdog" being "unnecessary," if I did identify these sources would you still oppose the addition of this word, and if so, why? I think "watchdog" is a good descriptor of the role these groups have played vis-a-vis ALEC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no reliable source for the "watchdog" descriptor. I don't think it is a neccesary addition. It adds little, and what it adds is inaccurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What I'm asking is, if I provide the "watchdog" reliable sources, will you be satisfied? You can't say it's inaccurate if it's supported by reliable sources. "Watchdog" groups perform a certain type of activity, so it would seem quite descriptive. Without it we know nothing about what kind of groups these are, aside from their political orientation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If we begin adding descriptors that add gloss to the organizations attacking ALEC we will have to add descriptors that balance the gloss. I am certain that we would find less than glowing descriptors of Common Cause etc. I would describe these groups as advocacy organizations not disinterested watchdogs. They are explicitly working to defund and de-legitimize their ideological opponents. I would suggest that "watchdogs" expose wrongdoing, they don't go to war and try to use the IRS to destroy their enemies. So, no I don't agree with the addition of "watchdog". Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I was talking about calling them "liberal watchdog groups." Would this address your concern? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)