Misplaced Pages

Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:05, 6 January 2017 editDrFleischman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,325 edits →Kushnick HuffPo source← Previous edit Revision as of 19:05, 6 January 2017 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →Negin HuffPo source: replyNext edit →
Line 204: Line 204:
* {{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/more-lies-from-alec-about_b_6149568.html|title=More Lies From ALEC About Climate Change|first1=Elliott Negin Senior|last1=Writer|first2=Union of Concerned|last2=Scientists|date=13 November 2014|publisher=}} * {{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/more-lies-from-alec-about_b_6149568.html|title=More Lies From ALEC About Climate Change|first1=Elliott Negin Senior|last1=Writer|first2=Union of Concerned|last2=Scientists|date=13 November 2014|publisher=}}
This is another advocacy piece published by The Huffington Post. You have to be careful with HuffPo, as some of their articles are fact-checked news, and others are advocacy. In this case the author, Elliott Negin, is a writer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group that fights against ALEC in the energy and environment sector. Also, the piece is written pretty blatantly as an advocacy piece. --] (]) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) This is another advocacy piece published by The Huffington Post. You have to be careful with HuffPo, as some of their articles are fact-checked news, and others are advocacy. In this case the author, Elliott Negin, is a writer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group that fights against ALEC in the energy and environment sector. Also, the piece is written pretty blatantly as an advocacy piece. --] (]) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
: I get it: you odn't like liberal sources. But being liberal doesn't make a source unreliable. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:05, 6 January 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia / Government Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Sources

Extended content
More needs to be added from this source. It's incredibly dense and informative. I'll get to the rest in the next couple of days if others haven't already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a more recent Governing article by Greenblatt. I haven't read it in depth yet but it could provide excellent reliable coverage of some of the recent controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion though some aspects may be cited for facts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion piece, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ACCE

Secrecy

Education

Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Questionable reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
general discussion about above sources

Context?

In each of the sources above the context in which they are to be used is critical. Are there specific edits being proposed? – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is just research, a collection of sources that appear useful. Some of these sources may not make it into the article. I generally separate my research and writing tasks; it helps me stay organized, and it better enables other editors to contribute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording change.

In the opening statement, where ALEC's secretive machinations were finally dragged into the public arena, the word "publicized" is used to describe this. I changed this to "exposed", since this is, in fact, what was done to this group, previously hidden from public knowledge. This change was reverted by Capitalismojo. ALEC has made a pernicious and collusive effort to subvert the legislative process by having paid industry lobbyists author legislation favorable to their employers. This was then presented, by legislators in collusion with them, as legitimate self-authored bills, in a concerted effort to rescind existing environmental, economic, and social regulations and legislation. This was done, deliberately and in secret, to further a national ultraconservative agenda. After the change was reverted by Capitalismojo, I rebutted as follows, on his (talk) page:

Given ALEC's secretive nature, aversion to transparency and "sunshine" provisions, and back-room lobbying (or "educating", if you're fond of obfuscation), as well as the referenced articles ("ALEC's Secrets Revealed; Corporations Flee" in Businessweek, and "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist" in the NY Times), I feel that "exposed" is a much more appropriate verb than "publicized", and no more pejorative than the references themselves. So I DON'T think it violates WP Neutrality, since it echoes the previously accepted Refs. Publicized evokes the banality of a Public Relations Press Release. If these details were so benign and banal, then why was ALEC so secretive about them. In fact, I find the reference to the legislation written by industry lobbyists as "model" initiatives to be disingenuous at best, if not an outright prevarication. A significant portion of the electorate views ALEC as neither benign nor benevolent, which is why their influence has trouble bearing up under the light of public scrutiny. I feel the change is fair, and fully supported by the Refs, and it should stand. If you have a legitimate objection, I would like to hear it. Gil gosseyn (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I received no substantive reply from Capitalismojo, just an admonishment that I should have replied to him on the ALEC (talk) page. The reason I replied on his talk page is that I have posed questions, etc. on various other subject's talk pages, and gotten no response. Since he seemed to be the primary editor of the ALEC page (as well as the person who reverted my change), I responded directly. My bad. The only reply I got on the subject of ALEC was from Dr. Fleischman. To wit:

FWIW I agree with Capitalismojo that "publicized" is slightly more neutral and in fact slightly more accurate than "exposed," which could be read to imply wrongdoing. The reliable sources say that ALEC's activities were in fact largely known to political operatives before 2011, thought they were unknown to the press and the public. The anti-ALEC groups did actually engage in a campaign to make this information more widely known to the public. It was in fact a public relations campaign, as banal as that sounds. And I have no problem with our prose being banal; in my view banal=encyclopedic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


To this, I say, since it was the general public's interests that were being subverted by ALEC, and were up to that point unaware of these activities, I say that exposed is the perfect word to use. And that Dr. Fleischman doesn't see covert collusion with industry lobbyists and misrepresentation of authorship as "wrongdoing", puzzles me. And as to his finding banal = "encyclopedic", I disagree. To say "publicized" seems to me yet another example of the conservatives' intentional linguistic distortion, or "newspeak," popularized by such gems as Estate Tax = "Death Tax". I would also remind him that banal language has long been the bailiwick of those who wish to cloak their actions and intentions in innocuous nomenclature. One of the most notorious examples was "the wholesale slaughter of millions of religious and ethnic minorities" being described as the Final Solution. Gil gosseyn (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Edited Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm. I thought your comment was reasonable ... until I got to the last couple of sentences. The last sentence is completely contrary to our AGF guideline, which I urge you to read carefully. You are a relatively inexperienced editor, so please take my advice that accusing your fellow editors of have a "vested interest" in whitewashing articles doesn't get you far at all. I have personal views about ALEC that I do not share here and that are none of your business. But, if you take much effort go back through the edit history of this article or though the archives of this talk page, you will see that your assumptions about me and my "interests" are completely and utterly wrong. I suggest retracting portions of your comment if you don't want me to think you're here merely to create drama. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, equating your fellow editors' arguments to Nazi propaganda is a bit over the top, don't you think? Especially when we're talking about the subtle distinction between the words "publicized" and "exposed." Perhaps you could benefit from a little... perspective. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Gosseyn, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your assumptions and assertions are improper. This is not a blog or a soapbox for you to propound your theories or received truth, this is an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for any personal remarks I made, and have edited my statements accordingly. And I wasn't equating ANYONE'S arguments with Nazi propaganda, intentionally or unintentionally. Your positive position on "banal" just brought to mind the phrase "the banality of evil". The Neo-Con Republicans, especially Karl Rove, have made a fine art out of distorting the truth by couching things people find reprehensible in misleading and innocuous terms, i.e. "enhanced interrogation" instead of torture, "rendition" instead of kidnapping. That's the reason I advocate using plain language versus trying to describe something in the most charitable terms possible. When actions are deceptive, they should be described as such. Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You haven't explained how "publicized" is deceptive, just how it's banal. You need to explain how the term doesn't accurately describe what liberal groups did in 2011 or how someone would be misled by it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I would weigh in here that "publicized" is, logically, semantically, connoting the act of publishing by the owner of the content - it implies something promoted willfully. "Publishing" is a legal term in intellectual property (and generally) implying ownership of the content published ("moral rights"). While the investigative newspapers certainly publish (and publicize) their product, people generally don't say that the reporters "publicize" their actual evidence simply by reporting it -- we say that they "report" it. So I would disagree that this is a neutral term. Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect on two fronts. First, there's nothing about "publicized" that implies ownership or intellectual property. To "publicize" is merely to "make widely known." I can publicize something that has nothing to do with me. Al Gore "publicized" the threat of global warming, but that didn't imply he had any property right to anything associated with global warming. Second, "reported" is the wrong word here, as much of the publicizing was done behind closed doors by organizations other than "investigative newspapers." CMD, an advocacy group, published the ALEC Exposed website. Color of Change sent mass e-mails to its membership and publicly pressured ALEC's corporate members. Trayvon Martin's attorneys and Change.org launched a related online campaign. The Sunlight Foundation rolled out Superfastmatch. All of these are detailed in this Atlantic piece, and none of them are investigative reporting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Mission statement in lead

The {{undue-inline}} tag has been sitting next to ALEC's mission statement in the first paragraph since last October. MrX, would you care to explain why you think this sentence is non-neutral? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Explained here. No objection to removing the tag, since I seem to be the only one who thinks it's a problem.- MrX 21:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I missed that discussion, thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • However, the statement itself, I removed as self-sourced and distinctly Orwellian. We have reliable independent third parties to describe what it actually does, so its PR version is really unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Peabody funding

We need to have a reliable secondary source stating the amount that Peabody funded ALEC before this information can make it into our article. Right now, as far as I can tell, we don't. The four cited sources:

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not worth the bother. Whether or not Peabody funded ALEC, and the level of such funding, seems like an extremely minor point. It's clear from the article that ALEC opposes action on environmental issues in general and climate change in particular. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, csn you please explain what you mean by "not worth the bother?" Are you saying we shouldn't bother including this content in our article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg

Christian424 has taken issue with this Bloomberg, describing this statement in-text as unsupported by evidence and an opinion: "ALEC’s online library contains model bills that tighten voter identification requirements, making it harder for students, the elderly, and the poor to vote." Christian, can you please explain your position here? This seems to me to be a factual statement that was presumably checked by the Bloomberg editorial staff. This is a reliable source based on Bloomberg's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We shouldn't be casting doubt on reliably sourced facts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Those edits are editorializing. If we are using reliable, independent sources, then attribution is not needed and adding expressions of doubt is something that we should never do.- MrX 00:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Now an IP (216.229.11.17) is removing the same material. Coincidence? The IP claims that the material "has absolutely no proof in the Bloomberg article", however that objection is not grounded in policy. Sources that have a reputation for fact checking are considered reliable for Misplaced Pages's purpose.- MrX 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably not a coincidence, but it doesn't matter because if either one continues to revert without participating in this discussion then they are edit warring and risk getting blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Board of Scholars

JzG has removed content describing ALEC's Board of Scholars and its membership since it is self-sourced. I generally try to avoid self-sourcing, but in this case ALEC's website is the most authoritative source. The Board of Scholars is noteworthy because the "scholars" are highly notable, and the board has been mentioned by various independent reliable sources (ex: , ). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The independent sources don't describe its full membership. But they do establish its noteworthiness. Please review WP:ABOUTSELF - self-sourced content is allowed, provided it meets the criteria. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

ALEC's summary of its policies

JzG has removed ALEC's one-sentence summary of its own policy platform. While the quote does contain some neutral language, I don't see it as unduly self-serving. We currently don't have a good, compact summary of ALEC's policies aside from this, and it's also helpful to understand how ALEC markets itself (with proper attribution of course). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

ALEC's spin on its aims is necessarily aimed at boosting its credibility. We should instead rely on what reliable independent sources say about its aims. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
A bit self-serving, yes, but unduly self-serving? Do we need to remove everything sourced to ALEC's website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kushnick HuffPo source

I do not think this source is reliable:

You have to be careful with The Huffington Post, as some of their articles are fact-checked news, and others are advocacy. In this case the primary author, Bruce Kishnick, is the executive director of the New Networks Institute and advocates for open networks in opposition to ALEC. The contributing author, David Rosen, is a management consultant. Neither are journalists. Also, the piece is written pretty blatantly as an advocacy piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Virtually everybody writing about technology advocates for open networks. It's the default position. Whereas banning municipalities from operating public wi-fi is not only going against the trend, it's a pretty blatant piece of commercial self-interest. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
So? The source still doesn't meet our reliable sources guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You say. And I disagree. So we could always ask at WP:RSN. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You disagree - so please explain why? Just because the writer agrees with "virtually everybody" who writes about technology? That has nothing to do with WP:RS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

PR Watch redux

This is not a reliable source:

Consensus both in the archives of this page and at WP:RSN establish that PR Watch, an arm of advocacy group CMD and an opponent of ALEC, is not a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Being an opponent does not render them unreliable. PR Watch has a good reputation as a watcher of sneaky behaviour - it's not like some of the Orwellian-titled conservative "watch" organisations. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Negin HuffPo source

I do not think this source is reliable:

This is another advocacy piece published by The Huffington Post. You have to be careful with HuffPo, as some of their articles are fact-checked news, and others are advocacy. In this case the author, Elliott Negin, is a writer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group that fights against ALEC in the energy and environment sector. Also, the piece is written pretty blatantly as an advocacy piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I get it: you odn't like liberal sources. But being liberal doesn't make a source unreliable. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council: Difference between revisions Add topic